Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada/Archive 1

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:38, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Here and there 2 Web Rage 3 Kenneth Joel Hotz 4 Granville Street 5 Paul Dammsworth 6 Ladner Trunk Road 7 Big Bad Brucie 8 Amonity.com 9 Ofiend.tk 10 Benoit Meunier 11 Daniel Kaszor 12 Underground barbecue 13 Logan Aubé 14 H4xopolis 15 Janel_Loi 16 Disturbing Productions 17 Machines Of Desire 18 Cj mandrapilias 19 Tony Luck 20 Butch Carter 21 Freebooter the band 22 Stray katz 23 Spamglok and Strange Presence 24 Marvin Lara 25 Nick Boragina 26 Hugh Howard Gibson 27 Icewind 28 Delta Academy of Dance, Pacific Rim Performing Arts Studios 29 56th Street 30 Ontario provincial highway 140 31 Dead Messenger 32 Roger White 33 Roger white 34 Ted Yates 35 Phillip Nozuka 36 Gabriel Batz 37 Michael Horner 38 Launie Anderssohn 38.1 Votes from unregistered and very new users 39 Perfectus imperium 40 Christian Gomez 41 Anime Alberta 42 Fused 43 Scott Diamond 44 Road to nowhere 45 DFDI 46 Too Far North 47 Everything I Do (I Do It for You) 48 Audree tonomura 49 Sour Grapes (band) 50 Yves P. Pelletier 51 Talisman centre 52 Alexandra ianculescu 53 Marcel Hossa 54 Manlike Woman the Indian prophetess of the Upper Columbia River 55 Rudyard griffiths 56 James Entertainment Centre 57 D.E. Unrau 58 Necarem 59 Ryan klamot 60 Canadian and American health care systems compared 61 Mills lighthouse 62 Nahnebahwequa 63 SooToday.com 64 Sacred Heart School, now moved to Sacred Heart School, Halifax, Nova Scotia 65 Noon hour basketball 66 Life Lies Bleeding 67 Planet Zebeth and Kabutroid 68 Creases 69 Swerd

[edit] Here and there

A fine band, I'm sure, but only locally notable. With no album yet recorded and no extensive tours yet conducted, I must vote to delete. Denni☯ 02:05, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

• Delete Amren ^(talk) 02:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity, no AMG entry. Jaxl | talk 03:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Cnwb 04:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn | Celcius 05:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Nateji77 05:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I put this down for speedy early today, but apparently we need to VfD it, ah well - nn, locally known only.
• Delete; they are not notable enough, at the minute. IINAG 14:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 22:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Web Rage

• Neologism rage. Lomn smash! Delete Merge per Tony. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:15:39, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

I was skeptical until I read One frustrated IT manager admitted to smashing up his £2,500 laptop after a web page failed to recognise his personal details after six attempts. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:42:53, 2005-08-25 (UTC)

• delete as neologism. Brighterorange 15:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete as neologism. Extreme Unction 15:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Road rage. If this is a neologism it's been around for at least two three years, per [1] Tonywalton  | Talk 15:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Ahem. What year is it now? Tonywalton  | Talk

• Merge as per Tony, but rephrase to be a bit more encyclopedic, and of course lose the Canada joke (BJAODN if you wish). --IByte 15:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Road Rage Road rage could be expanded with "terms derived from" - I've also heard "Trolley Rage" quite widely used (people losing it in supermarkets, usually for minor reasons) for instance. When I have the time... Tonywalton  | Talk 16:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I think some dab headers on Road Rage and Road rage would be good too. I know, I know, {{sofixit}} Tonywalton  | Talk

• Delete, or include Dripping Tap Rage, Tiny Screwdriver Rage, Self-promoting Neologism Rage, etc. etc. Sdedeo 20:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• I've heard 'Trolley Rage', too. And let us not forget 'Air Rage' - didn't one of the guys from REM have an issue with this? (Peter Buck?) But they're all offshoots of road rage, and a section there titled "Terms derived from 'road rage'" would cover these nicely. Merge per Tony, leave a redirect. Proto t c 09:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see any value in keeping this or merging with another article. --NormanEinstein 12:00, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, delete, delete!! Or my Rage Rage will go critical mass and scatter neologistic fallout over all of Wikipedia!!! ;) Cheers, Madmagic 21:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. But I'll take the move to no-middle-name advice. -Splash 01:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It's already done. -Splash 01:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Joel Hotz

Vanity/non-notable. Paul Klenk 06:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep I have no problem with this article, it's about Kenny of Kenny vs. Spenny and (I now know) other film works. Alf 06:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep implies that you think the nomination has been made in bad faith. Zoe 07:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't intend to imply anything, the guy is really quite famous, obviously not vanity and definitely notbale, if that means the nom was bad faith, it stands then. Alf 10:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the importance of the subject appears to be explained in the article, currently. --Mysidia (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Normally I would say that the star of a popular TV show is notable. Paul Klenk, are you claiming otherwise? Is there some reason this isn't true? Until a better explanation comes along, Keep. Nandesuka 12:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• I suspect this is "non-notable" in the sense of "well, I've never heard of them." Unless it's non-notable in the sense of "different rules for Canadians". Keep, though admittedly it needs some grammar cleanup. Should also be titled Kenny Hotz, not Kenneth Joel Hotz, per "most common name" rules. Bearcat 07:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and possibly rename as per Bearcat. Hall Monitor 22:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Granville Street

I can understand why villages, towns, cities and countries have pages... but streets? I just don't think it's notable enough to need its own page. Halo 18:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Do you mean street articles such as those in Category:Streets in New York City, Category:Streets in Boston, Category:Chicago streets, Category:Atlanta roads, &c, &c. ? :) — RJH 18:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I have voted against all other roads but I can sort of understand this one. The other roads put up for deletion have been either minor roads that could be summarized in a more appropriate article (ie. the town's article) or just plain old not-notable/not-expandable road articles. Granville, though, has a long history behind it and has been very important to Vancouver's growth. This article can be significantly expanded, as such it is worthy of its own article. --maclean25 18:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Based on above comments, change vote to Weak Keep. I think it's silly that Wikipedia has articles on streets, but if the street itself is notable and there are other similar articles, I'm happy for it to stay -Halo 18:56, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Think, people. We have articles on people like Churchill, but not his next door neighbor, Sam Doe, also a person. Paul Klenk 19:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Granville Street is not only a major thoroughfare in Vancouver and a pedestrian street in its northern end, but was notable for being the Haight-Ashbury of Canada in the seventies.Luigizanasi 19:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per luigizanas -- road of cultural notability. Sdedeo 20:16, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know the road in question so can't form an opinion on this specific case, but if it's as significant to Vancouver as, say, Regent Street is to London, then it should be kept, but expanded as soon as possible to make its significance clear. If it's just "the busiest road in Vancouver" or something, then there's no need to keep it. Loganberry (Talk) 20:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If Luigizanasi is correct that Granville St was "the Haight-Ashbury of Canada in the seventies", shouldn't there be some mention of this in the article? Currently the article merely describes where this road is in Vancouver & makes no attempt to explain why it is important. (Even to explain why it was named "Granville Street" would be a positive step.) -- llywrch 21:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless its significance is explained. Zoe 22:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a notable and famous downtown thoroughfare in a major city. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:50, 2005 August 27 (UTC)
• Needs expansion, but it is a notable street with cultural significance that extends far beyond Vancouver's city limits. (The significance, I mean.) I know so little about Vancouver that if you asked me to name just five streets in the city, I'd be stuck after three. But one of the three I could name is Granville. Expand, but keep. Bearcat 23:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Are the two other ones Hastings and Main? :) Pburka 03:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • lol...Robson and Commercial, for what it's worth. Didn't expect that anybody actually wanted to know. Bearcat 04:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as notable street in notable city given that a Google search for "Granville Street" Vancouver obtained 111,000 English returns see [2]
• Keep Granville was indeed Vancouver's Haight-Ashbury, and the one place where you could always score a dime bag. Too bad it's become just another snotty collection of upscale boutiques and pseudotrendy restaurants. Denni☯ 02:18, 2005 August 28 (UTC)
• Keep and expand this article about one of the most important streets in Canada's second largest city. Pburka 03:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • (Third largest...) Bearcat 04:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Our article on Vancouver shows that it's third largest, but that is has a larger population than Montreal, the second largest. What's going on? Pburka 17:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
      • Difference between the population of the City of Montreal (1,812,800) and Montreal metropolitan area (3,426,350), City of Vancouver (583,296, actually #8 in Canada) and Vancouver metro area (1,986,965). See List of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in Canada and List of the 100 largest cities in Canada by population. Luigizanasi 18:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't confuse "city" with "census metropolitan area". They're two different things. Bearcat 19:38, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Note: Cambie Street, Robson Street, and Burrard Street. If this article is deleted, some of thoes should go too. Zhatt 19:13, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

• For a street article done right, look at Hastings Street's...oops I mean East Hastings Street in Vancouver. Notice the lack of infrastructure details and a lack of irrelevant association to things existing near the street and the street itself, though it doesn't ever really mention the street. But it still has an appropriate title and good description about why the area/street is so infamous. The lesson: Robson Street should be moved to Shopping in Vancouver (I know, it's not a noun, but is there a rule against verbs), and Cambie Street to Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Line. Burrard Street is historically significant and can justify its own article. --maclean25 20:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right. Zhatt 00:48, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

• delete as per Zoe. --TimPope 19:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but it should be expanded to identify its cultural and historical significance to Vancouver. Mindmatrix 21:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow to grow. This is a significant street in Vancouver, and the VfD was posted the day the article was created. Articles like this need a little time to be able to grow. Rome wasn't built in a day, you know. (Although Yaletown looks like it was.) Ground Zero | t 14:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep roadcruft. --SPUI (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, I'm usually not for city street articles but this street is the primary street in Vancouver akin to Broadway in New York in addition to being a section of Highway 99.Gateman1997 18:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, significant street. JYolkowski // talk 01:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, as per Ground Zero and Gateman1997. - Hinto 00:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Very famous street, notable for its shockingly expensive homes at one end and its street youth at the other, long a must-see destination for residents and visitors alike, home to the newish entertainment district and several notable spots like the Commodore Ballroom, the Orpheum Theatre, and the Vogue Theatre, plus the uniqueness of its semi-pedestrian only area.... one could go on. Exploding Boy 22:01, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 02:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Dammsworth

Non-notable and/or unverifiable--zero hits. Contributed by an anon that keeps vandalizing Saturday Night Live. Niteowlneils 02:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete, no one by that name writes for the Toronto Sun. Adam Bishop 04:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; nn | Celcius 05:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Note that Adam has himself worked for the Toronto Sun, so if he says nobody of that name works there, then this is speedyable as patent nonsense. Bearcat 16:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent nonsense. *drew 22:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. My personal opinion is that this was an attempt to use prose when a map would have conveyed the same information better. Rossami (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ladner Trunk Road

While I have some sympathy for nearby 56th Street, which after all is the only access road to the exclave of Point Roberts, Ladner Trunk Road is nothing but a road described in exacting detail. Stay tuned for the entry on the parking meter in front of Pilatus' house! Pilatus 15:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. But it will live on in my memory as possibly the most tedious wikipedia entry I have ever read... Peeper 16:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Yee gads and all that is holy that is tedious. Delete, now, please! -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Major attractions include a McDonald's! Makes me want to put this road on my itinerary next time I'm in Canada... well, not really. Delete in barely held anticipation of Pilatus' parking meter. -Satori ^(talk) 16:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete excruciating minutiae --TimPope 16:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• I wanted to vote delete, but I have to vote neutral because I am in awe of the detail in this article- someone has way too much time on their hands. (Oh, and everyone else has voted to delete anyway, so it doesn't really matter how I vote).--Scimitar ^parley 18:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• oh, it always matters how you vote... HoratioVitero 18:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I say keep, it is clearly important to the community which it serves... HoratioVitero 18:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that every one of this user's edits, save for one minor edit to Bible, is to VfD. Zoe 21:34, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete impressive detail, but unencyclopedic. CDC (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all roadcruft. --SPUI (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep to neutral This article would not be called into question if it were about Broadway in NYC Roodog2k 19:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep it looks factual and verifiable to me. Trollderella 19:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, factual and verifiable is not notable. Zoe 20:33, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Bu factuality and verifiability are deletion criteria, while notability is not. Trollderella 20:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Not true, and never has been true. This contention is only repeatedly issued by the estreme inclusionists who think that everything that is or has ever existed in the world should have an article, but it is not policy. Zoe 20:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

not notable by whos definition?HoratioVitero 20:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

What makes this road any more notable than any other road in the world? Zoe 20:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Notability is not relevant to deletion debates, it is not part of deletion criteria. Trollderella 20:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Repeating this mantra does not make it true. Zoe 21:28, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

It's odd that you put it that way, because, in fact, as you must clearly know, no matter how many times you repeat it, there is nothing in the deletion guidelines about notability. You know that there isn't. I'm not interested in arguing about this with you, I suggest we drop it an go and write articles. Trollderella 22:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Actual articles, though, not pointless trivia. Something considered "enyclopedic" is pretty much a priori notable. --Calton | Talk 00:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or if that fails merge in to Ladner. Roads are best described in images as they convey the geographical location much better than any writing ever could. Having a McDonald's on this stretch of road is not worthy of note and it could hardly be called an attraction. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Why not suggest a WikiAtlas project to migrte all this stuff to? BTW, I've noticed roadcruft is extremely US, Canadian and Uk centric. I've yet to encounter an article about a random road from the Netherlands, which leads me to believe these articles are only relevant for the people who have some connection to the location in question. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability as a critereon for inclusion is an inference from the section of WP:NOT that states: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." It is perfectly legitimate and standard operating procedure to vote based on a subject's notability or lack thereof. Zoe is absolutely correct. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. An article on Pilatus' parking meter would be more interesting. (At least it's a cool-looking parking meter.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 21:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable road. Sliggy 23:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above, minor non-notable road. Need to expand to road deletion outside the UK. - Hahnchen 00:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• It doesn't even have a Tim Horton's, so I can't see how could be in any way notable. Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn roadcruft. --Etacar11 00:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN and delete, for the love of all that is holy. Proto t c 09:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Road is only locally significant. I suspect, given the preponderance of road articles of late, that it might be worth having a policy discussion to hammer out clear guidelines as to the dividing line between notable roads and non-notable ones. (One user actually added a redlink to "Lorraine Drive" in Toronto, a monumentally non-notable residential street, to the dab page at Lorraine recently, and I shudder to think of what would happen if Wikipedia had an article on every single street in the world.) Bearcat 16:44, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably something truely dreadful like, erm, well, people looking for information on streets could find it. No, that's not right, sea levels would rise, anarchy would break out! ;) Trollderella 17:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobody needs information on every last dinky little three-house residential laneway in the world to be present on Wikipedia. Bearcat 18:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete it's just an insignificant street.Dottore So 17:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too generic, no distinguishing features. Mindmatrix 22:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. Lack of notability is not a criterion for deletion. Not sure how much verifiable information you could write about that parking meter, though... JYolkowski // talk 01:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Good detail, if someone wants to write detailed road articles, im all for it. --Cloveious 04:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Stop the insanity. Gamaliel 04:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Ladner Trunk Road, Ladner or a reluctant delete. If someone wants to do the work for a road that has regional significance, I say let them. --Rschen7754 23:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep signficant road in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia--Simon.Pole 08:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bad Brucie

Delete. Hoax, fake, untrue, nonsense. Nothing in Google on this. (The "BBB" patch is actually the logo of the Better Business Bureau.) MCB 08:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete as a hoax, but when did the better business bureau get a team of military snipers? Brighterorange 10:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. — JIP | Talk 11:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have welcomed the new user and pointed them here. Alf 11:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bruce Forsyth :) (or delete) the wub "?/!" 15:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --Etacar11 00:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedyable as patent nonsense. Bearcat 05:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amonity.com

No search results. Domain name not even reserved. - choster 01:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-existent. Presumably a typo, but I can't manage to guess what it was meant to be. -Splash 01:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and even if it is real, "created in June 2005" makes notability of a web site highly unlikely. -- DS1953 02:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. I agree; two months isn't enough time to make a website notable. Jaxl | talk 02:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless surprising new evidence of notability is provided. Samaritan 08:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. KissL 09:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-existent website. Article only lists etymology and name of owner. Vanity. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-existent DV8 2XL 10:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-existent site. *drew 12:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per all the above. the wub "?/!" 14:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete – nn User:Nichalp/sg 17:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-existent site -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons outlined above. The Bearded One 17:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ofiend.tk

From the article: Canadian zombie related, Gothic,hardcore, obsessive Forumcruft. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 01:27:13, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

• Delete, non notable forum. --Fallout boy 01:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete zombiecruft without an Alexa rank. -Splash 01:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per ref. DV8 2XL 01:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn forum. Jaxl | talk 02:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, offends other notable forum, Gwat.tk. I suspect it is a satire.

How do u get an Alexia Rank?

• • By having a large number of visitors. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Cnwb 04:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Samaritan 08:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per criterion A6; otherwise, Delete. KissL 08:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, attack on other forum (which I doubt is dead) and fails to assert any importance. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable --Demogorgon's Soup-taster 09:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, forumcruft. the wub "?/!" 14:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article about a non-notable website. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 17:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted --cesarb 21:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benoit Meunier

nn vanity Groeck 14:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. No claim to notability. Probably vanity. Pburka 14:45, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Speed Delete Under A7, can be sent to a better place forthwith. Dottore So 15:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy A7 Placed the Tag --Aranda56 21:54, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Kaszor

While the student newspaper seems to be notable, I'm not sure if this year's editor is. DJ Clayworth 18:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete: non-notable bio JDoorjam 19:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete to The Gateway He is notible wrt his newspaper, but not on his own... :'( Roodog2k 19:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read the Guide to the Votes for Deletion. Merge and delete is not a compatible vote. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry. Just trying to help. Roodog2k
• Delete speedy or otherwise, no merge required, is already on newspaper article. Alf 20:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Verify, then Keep if his paper is woth being here, the editor definitly is HoratioVitero 20:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a student news paper, which means there's probably a new editor in chief every single year. JDoorjam 21:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Horatio, there is a middle-way between keep and delete. Not everything needs to have it's own entry. Multiple minor subjects can be discussed in one larger article. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that every one of this user's edits, save for one minor edit to Bible, is to VfD. Zoe 21:35, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Sdedeo 21:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the article on the editor and merge the article about the newspaper into the article about the school. Zoe 21:21, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Any other magazine or newspaper with a per-issue circulation of 11,000 would be allowed an article. The stated policy is that circulation of 5,000+ makes a publication notable enough to be on here. We really can't hold student newspapers to a different standard than we hold non-student publications; if you disagree with the 5,000 figure, take it up as a policy discussion rather than simply imposing a standard other than 5,000 on one particular publication. Bearcat 17:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the article is about me, it isn't needed. The merge on the Gateway page is unneeded though dkaszor 21:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as quickly as possible. Hall Monitor 23:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete editor, keep newspaper. Bearcat 17:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - what Bearcat said. Mindmatrix 22:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Uh, before anyone misinterprets my statement, I was trying to say as per Bearcat. I don't want Bearcat's comments to be stricken; really, I don't... Mindmatrix 22:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 15:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Underground barbecue

Article makes it clear that this is a new concept, invented by some guys who like to barbecue. Nice idea, but very clearly unenyclopedic and unverifiable. I don't see a good way to speedy it, though. So, Delete Friday (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I thought this was going to be an article about Kalua. Non-notable group. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn and possibly unverifiable. --Idont Havaname 00:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

In reaction to this deletion attempt:

I must still remind you that the original article with this exact content is on Wikipedia since june 25th, 2005. It seems inconsistent with Wikipedia's philosophy to engage an article who was approved and part of this free encyclopedia for 2 months in a process for deletion.

As for the reasons of why this article exists, even if it is uncommon in Wikipedia for one to justify and defend the presentation and description of a social activity, the Underground barbecue is -I must repeat- a social activity and it is pertinent for people to know about it and expand the idea. Some Internet content exists about similar activities, and the persons who created it are not related to me.

Thank you.

http://undergroundozarks.com/blog/index.php/2005/05/02/underground_barbecue?blog=2&c=1&page=1&more=1&title=underground_barbecue&tb=1&pb=1&disp=single

• In response to the above: it would appear that your article slipped through the cracks in June. Had someone noticed it then, it most likely would have ended up here at VfD. While it may be true that underground barbecue is pertinent to "people who know about it", that's not measure enough to be in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an avenue to publicity, it is a tertiary source that records information from other sources. Sorry. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Again in response to the above: We've had articles here that stayed on the site for several years and were deleted. Aside from that, I echo what Fernando said. --Idont Havaname 00:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sdedeo 01:01, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep this article alive, please. Or, you know, you might want to review my numerous articles concerning Hamas and the Ezzedeen-al-qassam brigades because some consider them as terrorists and writing articles about them may promote terrorism. Then, respectfully, you'd be missing the point, just as you do now. It's just about giving information. By threatening to delete this, you are judging the idea described because the article presents an activity wich is not widespread, but still exists, is very coherent and may grow. <unsigned comment by User:Joojoo>

• What does underground barbecueing have to do with terrorism? Please read WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Deletion policy for a clear understanding of why this article has been nominated for deletion. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Deleting an article is not judging the phenomenon; Wikipedia is not here to promote ideas which "are coherent and may grow". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is here to report on ideas which have already grown. It is a factual repository of things which are already famous and notable, not a meme vector to promote things that want to become famous and notable. Delete. Bearcat 16:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Fernando. Just because we didn't manage to delete it the first time it appeared doesn't mean we should let it stay. There's no rights attached to an article being able to survive detection for 2 months. It's nothing personal, but Wikipedia can only report documented facts. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:34, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too secret. Proto t c 09:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense. Dottore So 18:33, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete micro-social phenomenon. Mindmatrix 22:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Logan Aubé

• Delete. This bizarre and most likely fictional biography is unsubstantiated by a Google search. —Charles O'Rourke 05:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Good job on keeping these ruffians out
• Delete. Idiocy. jni 06:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no comment needed. MCB 07:52, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Logan Aube, the 3D-film maker is more famous. Alf 13:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 13:05, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete current content unverifiable, per Charles O'Rourke. search for -> "Logan Aubé" SARS <- had no hits. Might be salvageable if verifiable article re: 3D filmmaker is done -- WCFrancis 20:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• This is getting a speedy delete right now. This character was vandalizing the site last night something fierce with more or less this same garbage under the same name. - Lucky 6.9 20:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 11:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] H4xopolis

Not notable. --fvw* 23:47, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete barely 100 members --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; non-notable. Jaxl | talk 00:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Note from Creator: Aww, man, why does it have to be deleted? Does it really matter if it's insignificant at this point?

Posted an explaination and some links on his talk page. GraemeL ^(talk)

• Delete. Not notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not every webpage deserves an article. --NormanEinstein 12:03, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 16:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:42, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Janel_Loi

• delete-it appears to be a vanity page. Janel Loi gets 513 google hits, and "Janel Loi" gets only one. Quentin mcalmott 23:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn blogger. Flowerparty ^talk 23:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Alf 00:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; non-noatble. Jaxl | talk 00:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 16:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disturbing Productions

Non-notable. See also Machines Of Desire, the author's only other contribution. KeithD (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete 88 google hits, also see http://www.disturbing-productions.com/info.htm --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Etacar11 02:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 16:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. [[smoddy]] 19:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Machines Of Desire

Non-notable band. Only one Google hit. [3] KeithD (talk) 12:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: The article in question was moved early on, during in the deletion discussion, and the text was nominated for deletion under the new title as well, as a result, there was a second discussion about what to do with the content at: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_small_bands --Mysidia (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. No allmusic entry for either Machines of Desire or Ryan Arch Peever. Al 12:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all above is correct. feydey 16:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Please note that this article was renamed to List of small bands during this discussion by User:Ed Poor, who also removed the VFD notice from the article. We now have Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of small bands, as well. Uncle G 18:34:04, 2005-08-24 (UTC)
  • Gosh, you make it sound like a bad thing. If I messed up, why not simply undo it? Why all this fuss? Whatever happened to the wiki way? Since when must bold action be thwarted with 3-day and 7-day voting procedures? I'm not going to edit war over this. If there's a policy (or even a convention) that non-notable bands aren't worthy of an article, why is there even a vote? I'm an admin, just tell me to delete the page, for Pete's sake! (Instead of making a federal case out of it - and refusing to explain anything other than to say these are the rules and read the rules again. Do you think I'm too stupid to understand a simple explanation? Or what? Uncle Ed 19:39, August 24, 2005 (UTC))
    • I don't think Uncle G was having a go at you, simply explaining the situation to anyone who happened upon this VfD, because of the unconventional nature of these two particular VfDs. Also, I think there's a difference between being bold, and circumventing concensus-building. The reason for the vote is so that people can come to a concensus as to whether a band is notable or not. (Ed and I have been discussing the moving of VfD articles on his talk page, if anyone is interested). KeithD (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nn. Best to speedy it. --Blackcap | talk 22:20, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Etacar11 02:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 16:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cj mandrapilias

NN winner of a 3-on-3 basketball tournament BrowardHick 08:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Maybe if the tournament is notable it can be merged, but the guy certainly isn't notable enough for his own entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:42, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (changed vote from Comment - convinced by argument). (Claiming cultural ignorance) how notable is the 3-on-3 tournament? Alf 14:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be that notable, there's a concise description of the event and its history here, but the official site is www.macker.com. --TheMidnighters 16:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Even if the tournament is notable (which seems unlikely), an individual participant certainly isn't. --TheMidnighters 16:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, but I extend an invitation to take on my basketball team. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Groeck 18:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 16:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. JYolkowski // talk 23:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Luck

No sources or google hits for any of the relevant terms, probable hoax. --fvw* 05:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: He is the leader of a registered political party, so says Elections BC. He did not run as a candidate in any election (as far as I know), as such I remain neutral but interested in the outcome. -maclean25 06:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only 99 Google hits for the party, most of which point to the party site which only displays a message saying that the site is not available. Searching on "Tony Luck" has around 9k hits, but non of the first few pages seem relevant. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete already mentioned on the Emerged Democracy Party of British Columbia, which is pretty brief. I would paste the end of the sentence there but for slight diff. of naming I'm unsure of. Alf 12:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Emerged Democracy Party of British Columbia, since there's no further material here to be merged. Not a candidate, no indication so far that his party leadership has led to mainstream media coverage beyond "minor party's head said what party heads always say." Barno 18:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Tony Luck is a registered political party leader in British Columbia, and Wikipedia precedent allows party leaders to have separate bio pages (even in the case of small parties). CJCurrie 00:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This would set a bad precedent, in most jurisdictions in Canada takes a lot of effort to get and keep a political party registered in law. --Cloveious 01:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per CJCurrie and Cloveious. I have wikified the article. Ground Zero | t 16:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per the above, it may be a small, weak article at this point but the precedent is party leaders are article worthy. - Jord 01:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Butch Carter

Non notable bio Kurt Shaped Box 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; Sibling envy, nn | Celcius 22:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a no brainer D. J. Bracey (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete — being someone's brother is not a claim of notability, no matter how famous they are. The article needs to assert this persons notability, not someone else's. -Splash 23:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete- no content, no assertion of notability, no place in Wikipedia.

• Keep per addition of content and notability.--Scimitar ^parley 23:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, coaches the Toronto Raptors, assuming its the same guy. Kappa 23:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- see Cris Carter and verified by Google. I stubbed it, but it could certainly be expanded more. --Howcheng 00:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Former coach of professional team. Capitalistroadster 02:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep given the new information. Pburka 02:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa and Howcheng. -- DS1953 04:23, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per ditto --Awyllie 05:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep—Major sports team coach? Maybe it's the booze talking, but this ain't so bad. Needs expansion, tho. --Tysto 06:52, 2005 August 24 (UTC)
• Keep - Seems I was utterly wrong about this. Butch is notable after all... --Kurt Shaped Box 15:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --tranquileye 13:58:02, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freebooter the band

Appears to be band vanity. Google only yields an unsigned band of the same name. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Could be vanity I agree, but i've tidied up the page. If it does stay then the article should be renamed "Rebooter" and not "Rebooter the band" --user:Matt.whitby

Delete Vanity page. --Isotope23 18:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Skwik. Try it, you might like it. Alf 21:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 04:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, to suggest such a transwiki is a little bit outrageous. Punkmorten 20:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe Wikipedia, judging and deleting what is vanity, or what doesn't belong according to Wikipedia's view. It's unfortunate that the obscure must remain so because people keep it that way. Not everything exists in many places on the Internet. (Unsigned comment by 216.58.12.102 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stray katz

Appears to be band vanity. "Stray katz" and various band members google 0 hits. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:05, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Google finds a couple-hundred hits, but none appear to be relevant. Do not redirect to Stray Cats since this is neither a misspelling not a common typo. -Splash 22:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that is: the band name and various member's names googles 0 hits. The band name on this own finds unreleated sites. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with Splash. Fang Aili 12:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with Splash --tranquileye 13:52:27, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spamglok and Strange Presence

The first line says it all: "Spamglok is a fictitious rock band...". Google search with "Lance Bland" "Christopher Bland" gives 0 hits. Also delete Strange Presence about the same people, nowhere found through google. 80.223.148.221 11:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC) (logged in as feydey 11:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

• Delete both - appears to be band vanity. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 18:54, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 04:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mindmatrix 12:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Del Tucats 20:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted before, recreated, protected from re-creation. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marvin Lara

Non-notable Carleton University student. Delete. -- Spinboy 19:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Copy to Uncyclopedia and delete. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Not notable. --Quintin3265 19:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • As much as I may personally think it should be a speedy, I don't see which of the accepted speedy deletion criteria this could legitimately fall under. Just a regular delete. Bearcat 20:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Bearcat, this article meets the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, A7 - it makes no claim to notability. Accordingly, I've deleted the article speedily. FCYTravis 21:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - The creator of the page, who is also its subject, took it upon himself to recreate the page and vandalize my user page. I've redeleted it, and any further recreation will cause it to be protected. FCYTravis 00:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Well if the IMDB page is to believed, he had a couple of uncredited parts in motion pictures, as per the original text in the page history.[4] So that much may be true. However he still doesn't appear particularly notable. Delete — RJH 16:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• This yutz also gave himself a sentence on the Carleton page (since removed) ...Industrial design students were comparatively mature in my day. Delete. --Dhodges 04:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Boragina

Non-notable nobody who hasn't even won an election. Delete. -- Spinboy 05:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• I should also add that this is a vanity article, and violates the spirit of the policy on autobiographies. -- Spinboy 05:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I dont care. delete it if you want. Pellaken 06:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per page creator. --Alan Au 07:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy for user Pellaken or else delete as unsuccessful candidate who does not appear to be otherwise notable. Capitalistroadster 07:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pellaken, the page creator. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per page creator but suggest Pellaken having same/similar on his user page. Alf 12:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--losing candidate for provincial legislature. Meelar (talk) 14:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• I seem to recall that Wikipedia strongly discourages people from writing articles about themselves, no matter how notable they may or may not be. On the other hand, current precedent is that anybody who's run as a candidate in any election can be included in a collated "list of X Party's candidates in Foo election" article. (I can't say I like it, but it is the currently-established practice.) Either userfy or, if somebody's feeling really ambitious, merge into a List of New Democratic Party candidates in the Prince Edward Island election, 2003. Bearcat 19:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I just dont care. I could fight this, but I dont have the energy right now. Pellaken 12:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 19:00, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hugh Howard Gibson

This page appeares to have been created in Error the actual name for the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories was Hugh H. Rowatt, as verified by this link Commissioners of the Northwest Territories I think what happened was someone got confused between Hugh H. Rowatt and Roy A. Gibson Cloveious 19:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not fitting for redirect. Punkmorten 21:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, false imformation in any case as Hugh H. Gibson was NOT the commissioner of Northwest Territories. --Hurricane111 21:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Spinboy 00:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, good spot Cloveious. Alf 01:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'm going to deem this a speedy, on the grounds that it's an objectively wrong title that isn't suitable for redirect to the correct one. Go go gadget admin privileges! Bearcat 16:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Icewind

Non-notable band. Al 12:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, appears to fail WP:MUSIC. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 20:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. -- Spinboy 00:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 01:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delta Academy of Dance, Pacific Rim Performing Arts Studios

Looks like self-promotion for a local business offering dance classes since 1966 in a town (Tsawwassen, British Columbia) with a population of 25,000. See also links from 56th Street. Tupsharru 08:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable, and wikipedia is not an advertising agency. The JPS 15:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per JPS. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Spinboy 00:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 56th Street

Which 56th Street is this, you ask? Why, the one in Tsawwassen, British Columbia, of course! I mean, there aren't any other 56th Streets, are there? What we have here is a streetcruft article filled with a painful amount of trivia (including notes on where traffic lights are) on a road in a minor suburb. Mention a little of it in the Tsawwassen article, but this is ridiculous. I believe even the most inclusive guidelines for road articles don't include things like this. -R. fiend 15:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's incredibly comprehensive, but per R. fiend, we don't really need it. --Several Times 15:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• What? 56th Street was where Brad and Jimmy from the highly talented and influential Nobody (band) (currently signed to CD-R Records Ltd) got their idea for Yet Another Student Critique of Capitalism. (Yes, delete) The JPS 15:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to 56th Street, Tsawwassen, British Columbia notable road, we had similar issues over streets in west tulsa. Klonimus 16:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • True. But they were deleted. -R. fiend 21:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly why is this road notable? The article does not have any encyclopaedic content. The JPS 17:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, is not a notable road. Maybe include a blurb about it in Highway 17 or 99.Gateman1997 17:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, but Move to 56th Street, Tsawwassen, British Columbia and Don't Redirect after move. maybe remove some unencyclopic facts from the text - if any, redo the Wikipedia:traffic light markup and create article annual Tsawwassen Sun Festival. Zanaq 18:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable street. The very idea of trying to keep articles on every street in the world boggles the mind. Zoe 19:27, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what I enjoy about it though is that some of the intersections are in plain text, others in bold and yet others in bold italic. --bodnotbod 19:41, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, at a minimum, with the Tsawwassen, British Columbia article, although a delete is probably more appropriate. No secondary road is twice to three times as notable as the town it traverses; yet here is a 56th Street article twice to three times as long as the article about the town it runs through. And 56th Street may be a tertiary road. I quail to think what will happen to the WikiServers when the articles for the first 55 streets in Tsawwassen are created. — Friejose 20:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, completely and spectacularly ordinary road, thus, not notable. Being made of cement and having cars drive on you does not an encyclopaedia subject make. Lord Bob 20:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per User:Zoe Pilatus 21:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete textual description of a road. --TimPope 22:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The reason why this road might be notable and probably why this article exists is that 56th Street in Canada is the only road access to Point Roberts, United States. Martg76 22:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Over there, at Tsawwassen, British Columbia, where that piece of information belongs, it says so already. That's still no reason to include every single traffic light on that road. Pilatus 22:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, let's delete it. Martg76 04:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I wish the anonymous user who created the page and is obviously local to the area would get out his camera and upload a photograph of the border crossing point or of Point Roberts, Washington. That would be useful information; giving details of all intersections and traffic lights is just cramming irrelevant trivia into Wikipedia. Pilatus 11:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete completely ordinary street. ESkog 22:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - per WP:POINT, until we get a WikiProject:Roadwatch. If we're keeping every school in the country, might as well keep every road too. This one seems to have some decent claims anyway. But move to location disambig'd page. FCYTravis 23:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • One set of nutty obsessions doesn't justify another. --Calton | Talk 00:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry Travis, but it seems your vote is more relevant to WP:POINT than this nomination. Besides, if there are X-thousand schools in the world, then there are a thousand times as many streets. -R. fiend 00:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability. 23skidoo 00:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Why, it's got a McDonald's AND a Tim Horton's! Delete. Canadian roadcruft.--Calton | Talk 00:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC) (added sig - oops!)
• Merge useful content with Tsawwassen, British Columbia, then delete and leave no redirect. If this is the highlight of the community then it should be described in the community page. -maclean25 00:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Please read the guide to votes for deletion. Merge and delete is not a compatible vote. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, if possible, otherwise Delete is featured as a possible voting option, and it appears to me that this is the option maclean25 suggests above. It is certainly what I intended to convey in my vote above. — Friejose 13:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to 56th Street, Tsawwassen, British Columbia -- Spinboy 00:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, move, and clean-up. It appears to be an interesting and important major street in Tsawwassen. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Encyclopedic, verifiable. It should be moved to a more suitable name. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 04:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete However, it should be noted that this is the only major street in Tsawwassen. So if any street in Tsawwassen is deserving of an article it is probably this street. -- Webgeer 07:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete most streets. Radiant_>|< 08:41, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - any and all resons for this strip of tarmac being notable are already covered in Tsawwassen, British Columbia. Wikipedia is not an atlas. Proto t c 09:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• First move to more appropriate name, then merge a condensed version in Tsawwassen, British Columbia which should include it's the major street in that town and that it's the only access road to Point Roberts but not every single shop, intersection and traffic light. (This way, the redirect can stand as per GFDL requirements) Merge and delete is not compatible. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep at a diambiguated name. --SPUI (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete With all deference to Tony Sidaway and others in favour of keeping, this in no measure can be described as encyclopedic. It's a street. A street. Dottore So 18:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • HOLY FUCKING SHIT IT'S A STREET!!!!!! --SPUI (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow, you're comparing 42nd Street in New York, you know, the one that has has a musical named after it, with 56th Street in Tsawwassen, British Columbia? This shows a serious lack of perspective. Not all streets are created equal. – Friejose 12:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You seem to be confusing a street with a place. A street is just infrastructure. The 56th Street article does a much better job at detailing the actual street. The 42nd Street article discusses topics that happened near the street (not on it). All streets are created equally. Well, except dirt roads. --maclean25 22:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  18:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, but Move to 56th Street, Tsawwassen, British Columbia Piecraft 00:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to 56th Street, Tsawwassen, British Columbia because I said so! --Cloveious 01:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- Visviva 12:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment, do you people really think that someone would have the patience and time to write a lengthy and detailed article about just any old street, unless it was an important 'landmark'? I see no reason for people to want this article to be deleted. The author of the article is clearly trying to illustrate the importance of a street which is considered to be of some significance in Tsawwassen, British Columbia. No one should judge this article simply because they have never heard of it nor seen it. I'm sure there are many of you who don't know what the Blarney Stone is, but if I told you it was a mere rock that was of historical and mythical value to the people of Ireland would you all vote for that article to be deleted? Piecraft 03:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Counter-Comment, I realize that many people define their sense of space through their local street system. However, this does not make sreets places in themselves. The vast majority are no-man's-land in which no life can exist on them for very long. Yes, some streets have grown culturally important and evolve a life of their own and these deserve articles. (But) secondly, streets are not notable because what they are associated with. Would I be notable if I had Bill Gates and Michael Jordan living on either side of me? Are streets notable because of a notable business or landmark that exists on their flanks? Thirdly, nobody goes to a street. Streets are the means to achieve an end, and not an end it itself. If you told me that every sinlge citizen of that town used that street twice a day, I would say "Hey, that street should be mentioned in the town's article." If you can muster enough information on the street (that is relevant, on-topic and not duplicated in the town's article) to make the town's article uncomfortably long, then it would justify its own article. The point I'm making? The contents of this article should be moved to the town's article because it is locally important (in terms of access and infrastructure) but means nothing to the rest of the world. Btw, I thought the Blarney Stone was just a great pub in Gastown. --maclean25 05:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect it to Point Roberts, not Tsawwassen, British Columbia. Point Roberts is quite interesting because of it's special status, and 56th street is important to that hamlet. However, it is not that important to the people of Tsawwassen. Rename it also to something less ambiguous. It's a minor road, all the information can be included in the Point Roberts article. - Hahnchen 00:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if references added before end of VfD. JYolkowski // talk 23:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I cannot believe there is any debate on this. A random street in a random town with a few random facts that will not be kept current through the years anyway. One person's obsession that contains information that even a monagraph on the town would probably not mention. This is not encyclopedic. Indrian 06:51, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Street provides the only land access through Canada, to part of the USA called Point Roberts, unattached to the USA mainland. That lone should prove significance.--Simon.Pole 10:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Not really. Indrian 03:42, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Main road through a large town, but, especially, as per all those who've pointed out about Point Roberts.

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 04:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ontario provincial highway 140

Not sure if a highway is notable enough in its own right to have an encyclopedia article. Cheese Sandwich 19:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I disagree. Also, are you prepared to nominate for deletion and shepherd through the process the 1000 or more articles that already exist for highways in all different countries, only to find that 99% of them would be kept? Courtland 20:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Consensus is emerging that "minor" roads should not be kept. See [5] Sdedeo 20:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment. The notion of "minor" is a country-by-country (perhaps a region-by-region) judgement based on the degree of infrastructure development. Courtland 21:57, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete cf the British roads debate. A 12 km highway in Ontario certainly does not warrant an entry. The existence of previous cruft should not be used to justify the inclusion of additional cruft. Dottore So 20:24, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, primary highways are verifiable and notable. JYolkowski // talk 20:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all related articles into Ontario provincial highways. This article (Hwy 140) is simply a summary of an apparantly non-notable highway. Notable highways, like Ontario provincial highway 417 & British Columbia provincial highway 1 (backbone hwys, controversial, or otherwise important - ie. those with something to write about), should have an article. This, this is just a road that connects two other roads. -maclean25 20:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect I am changing my vote because the article is now redundent. All relevant info has been summarized into two sentences and merged into Ontario provincial highways. -maclean25 22:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not sure if the article's creator is permitted to vote (if not, disregard the vote, but keep the following points in mind...). The highway (along with Hwy 58, to be exact) links a city of 18,000 to cities of 48,000, 18,000 and 130,000 (and onward). It's maintained by a province of some 12 million people. If we delete this, should Hwy 101 also go? Hwy 138? Hwy 69? Etc, etc? What you are proposing is a major reorganization of the Ontario provincial highways series. (As for merging, I don't think merging all of Ontario provincial highways is feasible from article length point of view.) --qviri 21:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment: certainly the author is allowed to vote. Courtland 21:53, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment to address your concerns: The cities it links can be much better communicated using a map, not an article. Provinces maintain a lot of roads, this does not make it notable. Hwy 101 consists of one sentence, therefore notability not established. Same with Hwy 138 but it did get to two sentences. Hwy 69 is part of the Trans Canada Hwy, so it is notable and a keep. Putting two sentence summaries beside a name on a list is not a major reorganization. The article length can be shorten by sticking to relevant information and by remaining on topic. The current list goes into secondary and tertiary highways which should be placed into a sub list and noted on the main page as 'other highways' or what have you. -maclean25 22:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
    • By major reorganization I meant changing the format from a list of links, and the separate articles being as detailed as necessary to a list and two sentences for each highway, with a link to a separate article for more notable highways. (BTW, I fixed up hwy 140's two sentences a bit.) This is changing the format of an entire category. And what exactly makes a highway notable? The federal government designating it as "Trans-Canada"? A considerable amount of people using it? In my opinion a King's Highway (forgot to mention it before) is just as notable as an electoral district. Also, I am not sure about this -- is it possible to somehow link to the highway's entry on the big page? Otherwise, the user might get mightily confused when he gets the list of every highway in Ontario rather than the info of the one highway he's looking for. --qviri 00:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important highway. Kappa 21:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important highway. -- Spinboy 21:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important highway. --Nicodemus75 22:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. With no intention to troll, what are your criteria for notability? What is the advantage of having separate articles for each road in the absence of other notability? Sdedeo 22:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable highway. Criterion is that people are likely to search for information on this road using the term and high level of usage as per Qviri. Capitalistroadster 23:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is not the QEW. It's not notable. Nandesuka 00:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: uh, pretty much every highway in Canada "is not the QEW", save perhaps for the 401. --qviri 00:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • What a coincidence! It also turns out that "pretty much every highway in Canada" isn't notable! Nandesuka 12:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I see we're back to "different rules for Canadians" again. Unless you're seriously proposing a policy that highways should never have articles, highways in Canada are not one bit less notable than highways in the United States. Bearcat 15:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all numbered state and provincial highways - roads which thousands of people drive on daily are far more notable than Podunk Elementary, even though they're not cute and warm and fuzzy like schools are. Perhaps we need WikiProject:Roadwatch? FCYTravis 06:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment There already exists a Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways. Courtland 08:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a significant enough highway. I've used it myself and I don't even live in the country. Ben W Bell 08:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• I don't see any problem in keeping this Verifiable and NPOV article. It's not spam or vanity and clearly someone found it notable enough to write an article about it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. It's like raising both hands! --SPUI (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete after checking the map. Can be mentioned in a list and in the relevant location articles. Gazpacho 16:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• For the record, I added some more information to the article. It's not terribly important, and we could live without it should we decide to merge the articles into a big list, but for the time being it's there. --qviri ^talk 18:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; the definition of "notable highway", at least to me, is any highway that a federal, provincial or state government deems significant enough to be maintained and signed as a part of its official highway system. (I would not, for the record, extend this to numbered county roads, unless those county roads have an especially significant history.) Also notable within the context of Mid-Peninsula Highway and Highway 406 development plans. Bearcat 23:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please help out with Wikipedia:Consensus/B roads in the United Kingdom. Thanks. --SPUI (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • See [6], B-roads are local roads and since they do not form part of trunk routes they are county maintained. the wub "?/!" 21:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see anything saying that - from what I understand only the trunk roads (the most major of the A roads) are nationally maintained. And there are no states in the UK, so counties are next after the country. --SPUI (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
        • This is wrong, counties are not the equivolent of states. By the same token B roads are not state highways. In Britain, I would say that most state highways would be A roads. - Hahnchen 14:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• No vote since I know little about the Canadian road system. the wub "?/!" 21:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Ontario provincial highways If it ever grows to a size thats requires its own article it can be broken out from there. Pilatus 08:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- Visviva 12:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete insignificant road --TimPope 15:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, equal to a state highway in the US and we keep those.Gateman1997 17:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I point you to Talk:Washington State Route 900. We have hundreds of state highway articles from the US and there are several canada highway articles as well (so much that we need a new stub category because road-stub is being filled). --Rschen7754
• Keep - Although very short in length, the road is a state highway. I'm guessing this in UK equivolence would either be a Motorway or an A road, notable enough. - Hahnchen 00:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 13:33, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Messenger

Tiny band, fails WP:MUSIC criteria Secretlondon 19:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. -- Spinboy 21:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Secretlondon. --maclean25 00:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:14, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roger White

Member of Dead Messenger, non notable band Secretlondon 19:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Punkmorten 20:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. -- Spinboy 21:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete nn. --Firsfron 00:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:12, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roger white

Member of non-notable band, see above Secretlondon 19:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Punkmorten 20:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. -- Spinboy 21:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.--Muc Fíníneach 23:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:10, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Yates

Member of non-notable band, see above Secretlondon 19:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Punkmorten 20:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. -- Spinboy 21:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Secretlondon. --maclean25 00:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. No consensus to delete this one. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phillip Nozuka

Degrassi-cruft, non-notable actor with 14 Google hits. The reason I am bringing it here is to draw attention to User:Jenngonemad who has made several similar articles. Punkmorten 11:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• This needs to be cleaned up and wikified badly. We might just as well put this page out of its misery, but since I think that actors in televised shows are notable, and fondly remember the original Degrassi series, I say Keep and mark for cleanup. --DrTorstenHenning 13:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • A guest actor in two episodes? Come on. Punkmorten 20:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Pa-shaw. Get the ants out of your pants. He's going to be more of a major cast member in the new season. I don't like him. I think his Eskimo character is a major dick, but when he is a regualar cast member an imdb page won't be too far off. --Boycottthecaf 19:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. -- Spinboy 21:30, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't even have an imdb page, as far as I can tell. That's basically a bare minimum for any claim of notability as a screen actor. -R. fiend 02:11, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
• I've reviewed the user's other contributions, and they were all legitimate (albeit badly written and formatted.) But a two-episode guest shot by an actor with no other credits to his name does not warrant a Wikipedia article. Delete this; the rest are fine. Bearcat 20:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The character is recent to the Degrassi show as the resident token Eskimo, and will be more prominant in the upcoming season, starting next month in Canada. There will be more content to add before the year ends. Besides, when he does become as prominant as any of those other Degrassi actors, this article will probably be created again if it gets deleted now. --Boycottthecaf 03:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference to confirm that he's a regular cast member in the fall? I'm willing to withdraw my vote, but only if it's independently confirmed by a reputable source. Bearcat 16:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, and Tony should stop making a WP:POINT by relisting items that obviously have consensus to delete. Radiant_>|< 08:59, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriel Batz

Non-notable remixer who is "set out to conquer the world". 28 unique Google hits for this name. Zoe 07:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Time to Delete Antonio Little cute meawww Pink Cattish Dog Martin 9:57, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per zoe. Dottore So 05:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn/vanity/advertising. --DrTorstenHenning 13:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Relisting for more discussion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm not quite sure how WP:MUSIC should be applied to live DJs, but it would seem this one does not meet the bar of notability set by that policy. Thatdog 01:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Elfguy 01:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, going by unique google hits he's 1/7 as notable as wikipedia. (just kidding about the keep) Kappa 02:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Depending on which admin closes this VfD, your "just kidding" might not be considered sufficient evidence™ that you weren't actually voting "keep"... Nandesuka 04:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 02:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Amren ^(talk) 04:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable non-entity. Paul Klenk 05:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Horner

Some random theologian at a homophobic university. Not more notable than the average college professor. Dunc|☺ 20:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep I do not know what is particularly random about Michael Horner. Perhaps, duncharris can elaborate. LOL I also see no evidence that the members of the Canadian university are particularly afraid of homosexuals although they disagree with homosexuality which I think is tolerable in a free society. Also, I cannot imagine the fairly peaceful Canadians as being particularly hateful. I would also point out that a leading atheist debator Dan Barker went out of his way to debate Mr. Horner.

ken 17:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

• keep. Prof. Horner is a faculty member at Trinity Western, which is notable for winning an important case before the Supreme Court of Canada. He is well known in debate circles (as per kdbuffalo's comment above) across Canada, and serves as one of the premier lecturers for Campus Crusade for Christ, Canada. He is clearly more notable than "the average college professor", regardless of whatever his views on homosexuality may be. Simply labelling Trinity Western as "homophobic" is POV. --Nicodemus75 23:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The court case might add some notability to the institution, but it doesn't give any to it's employees. Would you include all the students, just because their school won a court case? -Splash 00:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Trollderella 23:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nothing in the article indicates he is any more notable than your average WP:PROF — it is far from unusual to lecture internationally. Further, [7] indicates that he is only part-time faculty. -Splash 00:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I confess that it is difficult to gauge the notability of the "average" professor, but it seems to me that he satisfies that standard. -- DS1953 00:47, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds like an article written by one of his suck-up students. The guy is a nobody and the article is written poorly. (Notorious4life 02:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC))
• Delete. The article doesn't establish notability, and the writings linked to are not particularly impressive. Martg76 03:00, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Martg76. -- Kjkolb 07:05, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Martg76. --*drew 07:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable professor. Gamaliel 07:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notableHomey 16:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:PROF, thus nn. Xoloz 20:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Participating in sixty debates does not make one notable. CJCurrie 01:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Important additional note:

I went to the leading atheist website which is infidels.org There were 52 entries on Micheal Horner in the infidels.org search engine.

Please see: Michael Horner - infidels.org search engine results

Clearly, the atheist community sees Michael Horner as a fairly well known and prominent Christian apologist.

ken 15:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

• Delete, non-notable. Nandesuka 23:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. -- Spinboy 21:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Famously debated Farrell Till who is roughly equivalent in notability and Till has an entry. Let's not discriminate against the Christians. User:Gilbertggoose 22:00, 22 August 2005 (CST)

• Assume good faith please and let's not throw around reckless and offensive accusations. Gamaliel 04:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Labelling Trinity Western as a "homophobic university" is clearly not good faith--Nicodemus75 06:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• It's far less problematic in the "good faith" department than Gilbertggoose's claim that any objection to this article at all constitutes anti-Christian discrimination. Bearcat 17:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Uh... the comment about homophobic universities at the top of this page IS the anti-Christian discrimination. I don't assume good faith in the face of clear and direct insults. Gilbertggoose 18:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• An allegation of homophobia does not constitute discrimination. Bearcat 22:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Let's keep it polite, no personal attacks please. It's not discrimination to say that the guy isn't notable. -- Spinboy 22:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 21:45, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Launie Anderssohn

I suggested that this should get pitched along with The Dissonants, but it didn't; so I'm renominating it now. Non-notable band; gets just 46 Google hits and nothing on allmusic. Nomination withdrawn. Withdrawal withdrawn, because the sockpuppet-to-legitimate-vote ratio has gotten too high for comfort. Bearcat 19:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. (I live in the band's hometown & I've never heard of them). Dottore So 14:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, I've heard of this band. They released an album last year, and the radio station that I work at received a promo copy (some idiot even called my show to request it). As much as I'd like to see this tossed for personal reasons, I'm going to have to vote keep. CJCurrie 19:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • CJ, I'm not sure that your reasons to keep are reasons that are acnowledged in WP:MUSIC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that your thinking is that since you've heard of them and they've released an album, then they are notable enough to be kept, which isn't the case. What's under contention as far as I can tell is whether they're non-notable or if having a member who was part of The Dears is enough to merit an encyclopedia article. --Blackcap | talk 19:05, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • The band is fairly well-known (or perhaps notorious) at the campus radio station where I work. In casting my vote, I extrapolated that other campus/community stations in Canada are probably familiar with this band as well. In any case, I'm reluctant to delete a band that has released a full-length CD recording, and has distributed it to stations outside of their hometown (the worthlessness of their music notwithstanding). The WP:Music guidelines only provide criteria for bands to be judged as indisputably notable; they don't cover all of the grey areas. CJCurrie 19:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 03:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no Allmusic, no sign of meeting WP:MUSIC. --TheMidnighters 06:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability provided by the article. Gamaliel 04:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes from unregistered and very new users

Please note that Wikipedia has rules around how deletion votes are conducted. If voting on this page is your first-ever contribution to this site, your vote WILL NOT COUNT. The sockpuppetry is to stop NOW. Also, note that Wikipedia is not a directory of bands "trying to get a break". It's an encyclopedia; to be on here, a band has to already have gotten that big break. Bearcat 18:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• For anyone who has never heard this band, let me tell you that they have some of the most original lyrics you will ever hear and blend it with an incredibly diverse range of music from country to rap funk and even calypso. They have toured 2 countries, and multiple outposts. A definite keeper. What a thrill it is to find them on this site. keep.--69.70.169.157 01:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You and your friends can forget about this little game of yours; VfD votes by first-time users of the site are not counted. Bearcat 04:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • You could, however, improve the chances of keeping the article by improving it. Farquard 17:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Of course if they have toured two countries then they fulfill another criterion for notablity (assuming those countries wern't, say, Barbados and Grenada). - Farquard 18:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Launie Anderssohn rocked my socks off the first time I heard them. In addition to accomplished musicianship, these fun-loving fellas kept me smiling with their sometimes raunchy, always hilarious lyrics.

keep - 70.49.202.51 02:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Launie Anderssohn is in the middle of changing the way music is played and listened to and appreciated. They are the best, or maybe second best, band in Montreal, no question. While everyone else is regurgitating the same old crap over and over and being lauded as brilliant, Launie is creating some really incredible rock music with some really smart lyrics. keep--24.203.43.147 04:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Best band ever. No joke. Incisive, devicive, and inherently awesome. Keep your eyes open for this band, cuz they're gonna rock your underwear right outta your pants before you even know what happened. I could go on for days, but alas I must go. Do not delete this band, they should never be forgotten. keep (Unsigned vote by 24.37.250.84 (talk • contribs), first edit)
• """keep""" --204.19.199.102 16:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Harmless fun! What's the problem, young good guys from Montreal trying to get a break """keep"""--216.113.203.187 16:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems to this Launie listner that all y'all haters out there are just scared. You're scared of the language they use and the feelings they give you at the tips of you pant pockets. But don't dismiss their importance in a sea of vastly unoriginal music and song lyrics. They are musicians and poets and lovers and future fathers and future lovers of each others kids. keep --204.50.131.2 21:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

And this has exactly what bearing on whether they belong in an encyclopedia or not? Bearcat 22:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

this band rocks """keep"""--24.202.237.179 16:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Important band on the Montreal indie scene. On top of which, WP:MUSIC says that a band should be considered notable if one member was once part of an "extremely notable" band . - Farquard 19:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • User's second edit.
  • Like everyone and their brother they've played the Green Room, Barfly and Swimming. How is that notable?
  • Okay, I withdraw the nomination. I overlooked the Dears connection. If you're familiar with the band, though, could you expand the article a bit so it doesn't look so much like a deletion candidate? Bearcat 19:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
    • When did The Dears become extremely notable? The Dears are notable, but not extremely so, therefore every single band each member has ever been with or will be with is not necessarily notable, especially if they don't meet any of the other guidelines. --TheMidnighters 09:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Can you actually quantify the line where one can realistically mark a clear division between "notable" and "extremely notable"? I sure as hell can't...to me, the line is contextually relative to the genre in which the band operates, rather than an objective scale that ranks all bands by the same measure. They're no match for the notability of The Beatles, granted, but within the specific context of indie rock in the 2000s, The Dears can certainly be described as "extremely notable". Bearcat 18:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
        • If a band has widespread popularity like the Beatles, then a side project (like George Harrison's solo work) is worthy of an encyclopedia. If a band doesn't have that, (as in the case of the Dears, having put out a few albums but, as far as I can tell, not know very much outside of Quebec), then while they themselves may warrant an encyclopedia article, their side projects may not. Anyway, in the realm of, say, Star Trek fandom, obscure bits on machinery might be considered notable, but would never make its way into an encyclopedia because it's too irrelevant to most people. This seems like music's version of that. It just doesn't hit enough points in WP:MUSIC to warrant staying. From going on their web site, they don't even seem to have a record label, saying only that you can get their music at Le Subalterne, a local record shop. They're a band who has one semi-notable person and nothing else. Maybe a good band, but not something for Wikipedia. Delete. --Blackcap | talk 17:32, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • To put it more simply, I think TheMidnighters' comment above says all it needs to. --Blackcap | talk 19:09, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

The Dears are considered "extremely notable" across Canada having had a near-cult following on many college campuses for years. There is no better guage for "notable" in indie-rock's transient and poor-student-driven world. Launie Anderssohn are genre groundbreakers misunderstood by the dull, and celebrated by intelligent witty townsfolk and hard to thrill musicians alike. As in, they have their own sound and message and media package. As in, they are influential. The fact that they play at smaller clubs should not make them less noteworthy for the history of musical progress. Wikipedia is a boon to music writers everywhere, let's keep it that way. The article should be expanded to contextualize them more distinctly """keep""" --24.80.81.229 06:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Proof by "because I said so". Can you show independent web references (newspaper articles, coverage or chart placement in Chart or exclaim!, etc.) which prove that they're notable? If not, they belong on skwik, not here. Bearcat 17:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 04:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perfectus imperium

Alleged secret society, said to operate in Canada. No proof of its existence. Started by the same poster who created the CNDP page, previously on vfd. CJCurrie 00:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Wouldn't be a very secret society if you could Google it, would it? Delete. --GraemeL 00:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Aw, I wanted to make the first snide remark. Delete. Flowerparty ^talk 00:17, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Not just the first snide remark of the article, but of the day's vfds!
• Clandestine Canadians... ))shudder(( gives me the willies. Delete per CJCurrie. JDoorjam 00:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:V.—Encephalon | ^ζ  01:05:45, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. Which is to say that I do not expect it be verified from Google, being secret. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist — if someone can show there is some media (or literarY0 consideration (however hyperbolic) of the purported existence of this secret society, then I'd reconsider. -Splash 02:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As alluded to above, a truly secret society could never be in Wikipedia, as they would be unverifiable. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete faulty Latin. Martg76 03:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not verified. Zhatt 06:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too secret. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article suggests a leaked .pdf on the web, no trace of any by the names given which seem to come from this SS. Alf 10:00, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-verifiable. -- Cnwb 12:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, in order to protect the secrecy of the secret society people. Yay! I'm helping! -- BD2412 ^talk 14:56, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Alex.tan 18:07, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Doesn't exist ;)Amren 00:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I am in this society and I want it to remain secret. Hahnchen 03:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-verifiable and non-notable - Farquard 19:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. -- Spinboy 21:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Gomez

Vanity/advertising in my view. A speedy delete tag was removed by User:JYolkowski, so I suppose this should be taken to VfD. Delete. Martg76 05:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. Subject seems to be on the cusp of notability; perhaps recreate when he wins a major award or becomes editor of a major publication. --Alan Au 06:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity page. Dottore So 06:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity. --PhilipO 19:59, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/self-promotion as it stands. --Etacar11 01:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity/advert - Tεxτurε 16:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anime Alberta

Not notable. Alexa ranking of 3,778,243. Wikipedia isn't a web directory. Coffee 04:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Works for me, Delete. --fvw* 04:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Coffee. (That reminds me, I need a drink.) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to my wiki if you please, thanks. Wikinerd 07:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A little bias, but that is where I stand. Anime Alberta has a history for bringing people in that province together, and I believe that people should know about the history of the site and the people that run it.--Jasohill 08:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Farquard 19:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. -- Spinboy 21:32, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fused

Tagged for speedy but not a candidate. It is indeed band vanity, and has in no way fulfilled any of the criteria of WP:MUSIC, so delete, but such things are not speedy deletion candidates. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity foolishness, which deserves to go straight to Wiki-Hell Digital Thief 10:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, leave a redirect to either Fusion or Fuse. I don't care which. Proto t c 11:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • We could leave a disambiguation between them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Aha, Fuse already is a good disambiguation page. Redirect there! Proto t c 11:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sorry boys, if you make it, we'll see you here later. Alf 14:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to my wiki if you please, thanks. Wikinerd 07:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity --Hurricane111 02:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity for now. Best luck for these guys to make it big! Sorry about an earlier mistag of speedy deletion. --Plastictv 02:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Diamond

Non-notable college baseball player. Zoe 00:01, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, "he received the coveted 'rookie of the year' award for the entire American East conference" Kappa 00:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Woo-freakin'-hoo. How is that even remotely notable? When he joins the major leagues, then he would rate an article. Or even if he made the Canadian national Olympic team. Zoe 00:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • So how do you propose to identify notable college baseball players? Kappa 00:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't. College baseball players are no more notable than college athletes in any sport. Only exceptions are for major, national awards. His award was not even for best player in his conference, only best "rookie". If he won the college baseball MVP award, then he would be notable. Zoe 01:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly "notable" in his sphere.Grace Note 00:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete He's a big talent. Cool. Now if he becomes a big player he can have his encyclopedia entry. What's next, voting to keep entries for every highschool's "most likely to succeed"s? --Lomedae 01:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Should Canada Games gold medalists deserve an article? -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • My sense is no. The event recieves sparse enough media coverage in Canada, and the only place most Canadians would ever hear about a particular athlete, even a champion, would be in a university or neighborhood newspaper talking about a native son/daughter. -The Tom 14:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is virtually no way to determine the quality of any school league from year to year. It is possible for some lower quality player to win one year while hundreds of better players in other leagues don't have a chance since their league has too many excellent players. Vegaswikian 05:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The America East Conference is a low Division I league, and being as far north as it is, its baseball lags further behind the "major conferences" than many other sports. I wouldn't probably consider the Big XII Conference's Rookie of the Year to be notable, but this guy is an easy call. ESkog 07:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

1. • Comment - it also bears mentioning that most of the best pro baseball players in the USA/Canada do not usually attend college but are drafted straight from high school (with a few notable exceptions). College baseball players are typically less well-respected as a result than their peers in football or basketball, where most pro players at least put in a couple of years at college. Because of this, a college baseball player is going to have a mighty notability hill to climb until he makes a major-league roster somewhere. ESkog 07:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, he's just a nn student. Radiant_>|< 13:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--college baseball players have a much higher bar for notability than, say, college football players, as per ESkog. Not many are notable--this one doesn't cut it. If and when he joins the major leagues, or gets some significant awards in the minor leagues, he can get an article. Meelar (talk) 14:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity.--Scimitar ^parley 14:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -The Tom 14:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I've heard of this player. He is the top Canadian baseball prospect for the Major League when he graduates from Binghamton.
• Delete. Revisit if/when he makes it to the majors. -R. fiend 16:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, looks verifiable information. Trollderella 01:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article can be recreated when he hits the big time. Alex.tan 03:13, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Road to nowhere

Non-notable band cruft, does not meet WP:MUSIC, non-verifiable, need I go on? ral315 04:17, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no allmusic.com, no sign of meeting notability guidelines.
• Delete - another new band trying to promote themselves — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Deleté MessedRocker 22:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not WP:MUSIC compatible. I had expected an article on the Talking Heads song. Tempshill 00:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DFDI

Vanity. --fvw* 04:43, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• delete as above. Manik Raina 08:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. I wish it was a speedy delete Digital Thief 10:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. --Mairi 21:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity; may actually be a speedy after all. Page's original author has twice almost-blanked the page; once to "girl singing group" and once to "DELETE THIS PAGE!!!!" Reverted both times. Bearcat 08:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. -- Spinboy 21:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE

[edit] Too Far North

No evidence of notability. No allmusic.com entry, no relevant google hits, no albums for sale on any online stores I could find. Gamaliel 04:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability is established. See also The Only Thing I Won't Give You Is The Antidote. Punkmorten 06:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:04, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Everything I Do (I Do It for You)

Ugh SchmuckyTheCat 21:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Brian Adams SchmuckyTheCat 21:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The song was no 1 in the UK for 16 weeks. I believe it was some sort of record. Flowerparty ^talk 23:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Indeed it was and was #1 in Australia for three months. Capitalistroadster 23:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep #18 List of best-selling singles (UK) and most importantly UK Singles Chart records#Longest run at number one - what ever value judgement you make about the music itself, that's a freakin' notable single. --zippedmartin 23:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• If you thought it should be merged, why are you nominating it for deletion? A merge does not require a deletion. Anyone can do it. But anyway, Keep, notable song. CanadianCaesar 23:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I've tidied it up a bit. Old version. Flowerparty ^talk 00:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • ...And moved it to its correct title. Flowerparty ^talk 01:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Poor faith nomination. --Madchester 01:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This wretched song was number one in the UK charts for longer than just about any ever. For that fact alone it should be kept, as testemant to the general poor musical taste of of a great many brits and the suffering of the rest of us. Sabine's Sunbird 01:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Not worth dying for. Keep. -The Tom 02:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not personally a fan of articles on individual songs, and would much prefer to see all song articles merged into the albums from whence they came, but as long as general consensus continues to favour distinct articles for songs, this one, while undeniably ugh-inducing, is as legitimately notable as a song can get. Keep. (Oh, and by the way, nobody named "Brian" Adams was involved with this song in any way.) Bearcat 04:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Please bear in mind that not all songs are pop songs. There aren't necessarily "albums from whence they came" in the first place. The idea that the only form of music is pop music is a widely-brought accusation of systemic bias that is levelled at Wikipedia. Please fight it. Also please note that even in the specific case of pop songs, not all songs "came from" albums, or have been released on albums. The pop music industry hasn't always worked, and still doesn't work, to the simple scheme of producing an album and then releasing songs off it. To see famous examples of how this neat and tidy idea is not actually followed in practice in the real world, read the histories of some of the individual songs listed on The Beatles discography. Uncle G 14:53:25, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
• Keep per all points above - Jord 05:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. According to the Allmusic.com article on Bryan Adams, this song sold eight million copies worldwide, was at #1 in the US for 7 weeks and won a Grammy as best song from a movie or TV program. [8] Capitalistroadster 06:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - as I recall, it was a hit for ever and a day in the States, as well, and continued to torture me for years as an Adult Contemporary DJ. Bad taste is not exclusive to either side of the Atlantic. -Satori 21:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Article expanded with sections on Making of the song and Chart success. More on awards to come. Capitalistroadster 10:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Article now finished. Capitalistroadster 23:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by another administrator. Redwolf24 01:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Audree tonomura

17 year old Sk8ter Grrrl. This page is the only evidence of Audree on the web that I can find. Vanity. Sabine's Sunbird 21:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy if at all possible, otherwise delete. Noooo indicia of encyclopedic notability. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:25, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy material, really. Flowerparty ^talk 21:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. -- DS1953 22:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. feederfish as pets??? Nelgallan 22:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn teen vanity. And feeder fish are cheaper than others. :) --Etacar11 02:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. Hall Monitor 17:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 00:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sour Grapes (band)

Doesn't meet any points at WP:MUSIC, not notable local group. Releases are self-releases to cassette [9]. feydey 14:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:MUSIC.—Encephalon | ^ζ  17:34:48, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
• Delete, as above.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 18:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE I've never heard of them--I-2-d2 18:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 02:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC) Please note, I am not an administrator. I close only keep debates.

[edit] Yves P. Pelletier

Definately not notable, not verified, unnaceptable pseudo-english grammar.Rainbowwarrior1977 06:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• All I can say is that he is kind of notable in quebec, and all info on here is true, I can confirm I am a quebecer. Unsigned vote by 65.92.244.188
• Keep. Article establishes notability and can be verified by his IMDB page. - Thatdog 07:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough. What's wrong with the grammar? I se no reason why this was nominated. Tupsharru 07:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Added the IMDB link that proves notability. --DrTorstenHenning 12:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable enough, yes. --Etacar11 02:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiably notable. Hall Monitor 17:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Minor grammar problems (and any problems here are very minor) can be cleaned up, and a member of Rock et Belles Oreilles can hardly be said to be non-notable. Bearcat 07:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Redwolf24 05:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talisman centre

"The Talisman Centre is a recreation facility in Calgary, Alberta, Canada." Recreation facilities are not notable. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 04:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. -- Spinboy 04:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.—Encephalon | ^ζ  06:31:01, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
• Weak keep. While I agree recreational facilities are not often notable, a facility which "is one of the first organizations to have survailence cameras in a changeroom in Canada." is worth looking into in my opinion. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A serious controversy about cameras at the Talisman Centre would not have escaped Google. --DrTorstenHenning 12:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• I can't verify the surveilance camera claim. More notable than some schools, but still delete. On a side note, it's named after Talisman Energy Co. --Scimitar ^parley 16:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keepor merge somewhere, notable to citizens of calgary. Kappa 17:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The surveillance claim may be a hoax. Dottore So 19:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a random gym. Pilatus 20:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Keep. According to the website it is the "the second most widely visited multi-sport facility in North America." (Note to self: check facts before voting) Pilatus 17:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn leisure place; the claim about the cameras is written in very hoaxy style. -Splash 21:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The lindsay Park Sports complex or Talismen Center as it was renamed (The City of Calgary sold the naming rights for 10 million dollars) is one of Calgary's most noteable attractions and structures. It is more then just a Leisure center. It is on par with the Olympic Oval and one of Canada's and premier swimming and diving facilities. The facility is used for professional and amatuer sports events It is also sorta across the road from the Pengrowth Saddledome and the Stampede Park Race Track Photos of the interior and exterior Exterior --Cloveious 04:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

By the way The camera thing listed on the page is true, it is in the disclaimer policy on the Taliman Centre website Talisman Centre Disclaimer --Cloveious 06:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep based on Cloveious comments. Vegaswikian 06:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seconded. Or thirded? Alba 17:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment I rewrote the article a little bit, to somthing that we all might find more agreeable. --Cloveious 21:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, seems like a notable building. It does need to be renamed to the proper capitalization. - SimonP 21:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by another admin. Redwolf24 03:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandra ianculescu

Wishing all the best to this ambitious 14 year old speed skater, her Wikipedia page will have to wait till she's older. Vanity. Sabine's Sunbird 00:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:N, WP:NOR—Encephalon | ^ζ  02:58:23, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
• Cute, but delete -- MacAddct1984 03:05, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. as not yet notable. Third best junior skater in Ontario is not notable enough. Capitalistroadster 04:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Spinboy 04:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - even if she was notable this article is virtually all trivia/fancruft. the wub "?/!" 08:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not only does she receive a stunning 16 Google hits, most - if not all - of the article is non-encyclopedic material apart from the fact she's a speedskater. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:15, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dottore So 18:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Extreme Keep. Redwolf24 03:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marcel Hossa

Delete. This appears to be a nn hockey player who "isnt polished in the defensive zone". I brought it here since I presume this doesn't fit nn-bio. -Splash 00:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep important player for the Montreal Canadiens. The article just needs some cleanup. - SimonP 01:16, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep professional athletes in top divisions. Pburka 03:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable ice hockey player. Capitalistroadster 03:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, also Marian Hossa's brother --Madchester 06:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep professional athletes, but the article is in desperate need of some cleanup. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This currently reads like a scouting report. Mindmatrix 11:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well duh - the words are right there on the page...Mindmatrix 11:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I re-wrote the article. It's much better, though it still needs a little cleanup. Mindmatrix 12:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all professional athletes, particularly ones of NHL caliber.--Scimitar ^parley 14:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Almost certainly - not a useless page at all--Knucmo2 21:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep D. J. Bracey (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, professional hockey player for the NHL. Hall Monitor 16:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:17, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manlike Woman the Indian prophetess of the Upper Columbia River

Nominating for deletion because it's non-notable. While doing a Google litmus test, I actually happened upon the blog of the article's author, where she said she wrote the article in order to increase the notability of the Manlike Woman, who she says "barely qualifies as a footnote in history." -D. Wu 01:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Does this qualify as some form of vanity? Good work, Tupsharru. Now this is how to convince the community to keep seemingly pointless articles. A lesson to all you inclusionists. / Peter ^Isotalo 02:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:26, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote withdrawn per excellent research by Tupsharru. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Kaúxuma Núpika, the name mentioned in the author's blog, got 14 google hits, and the title a whopping 38. It is interesting though, the amount of info gathered on someone's whose only claim is being a transexual, and being mentioned by afew tribes people to be considered a prophetess. Maybe a sentence mentioned somewhere in a related topic about that time and area would be fitting. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 03:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Change vote to keep due to evidence of notability. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 20:06, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Verifiable and interesting. Wikipedia is not paper. Pburka 03:50, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Its both of those things, but still not notable. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 05:11, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, clearly, but move to Kaúxuma Núpika. Transexual Native American prophet(ess) influential in the native population of British Columbia in the early 19th century. How many of those do we have? Would I be wrong to assume that a verifiable transexual prophetess influential in the white population in Massachusetts at the same time would have been kept without discussion? Google hits are a help, not a definite measurement of significance, and it is expected that fewer written sources exist for native American topics. She is apparently mentioned in this book on Amazon, the Biographical Dictionary of American Indian History to 1900. A JSTOR search results in a couple of articles mentioning her, one of which, "'The Natives Were Strong to Live': Reinterpreting Early-Nineteenth-Century Prophetic Movements in the Columbia Plateau", by Elizabeth Vibert, in Ethnohistory 1995, does so quite extensively, citing the same sources our article here does. Tupsharru 05:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Addendum: It seems using Western terms such as transexual is less appropriate, as this was not an entirely unusual type of gender role in Native American cultures, and there is a Wikipedia article on the topic: Two-Spirit; it has been refered to as "berdache" by some academics, although that is apparently considered offensive. Two-Spirit lists among its references another journal paper, which turns out to be entirely devoted to this woman: Claude E. Schaeffer, "The Kutenai Female Berdache: Courier, Guide, Prophetess, and Warrior", in Ethnohistory 1965, pp 193-236. Schaeffer writes among other things that she is "mentioned in the writings of Gabriel Franchère, Alexander Ross, Washington Irving, David Thompson, John Work, Sir John Franklin, the explorer, and W. H. Gray, the missionary. All of these men, except Irving and Franklin, knew her personally. Several modern students of Northwest history, who noted references to the Kutenai berdache in the literary accounts, have assempled data on certain events of her unusual career." He goes on to cite a number of 20th century authors who have written about her. Tupsharru 07:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be important to identify just how Kutenai construct sexuality and what westerners would call transsexuality/transgenderism. Every Native group does so differently. "Berdache" (being a western term, anyway) and "two-spirit" (a term used by one particular group whose name escapes me and since generalized) probably don't cut it particularly well and the tribe's own designation would be preferable. - Montréalais 15:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but I am not really familiar with the subject areas, neither with gender studies nor with Native American cultures; it would obviously be preferably if somebody who had at least half a clue would look at the articles I mentioned above (and possibly others I haven't found in my quick raid on JSTOR) and do something with this article. BTW, we have a three-and-a-half line article on Kootenai (tribe) and a two-line article on the Kootenai language - not exactly one of Wikipedia's stronger points... --Tupsharru 16:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup and rename as per Tupsharru. Well done to him for his research. Capitalistroadster 10:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and rename. A. J. Luxton 11:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Tupsharru. --Apyule 11:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move as per Tupsharru. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Tupsharru --Mysidia (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Nice research job. Needs major cleanup and a title move, but keep. Bearcat 22:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete—Being unusual is not the same as being notable. This is an obscure historical figure of no importance to history. I might even agree that she "deserves to be more than a footnote in history" but she's not, and an enclopedia is not the place to start changing that. "Would I be wrong to assume that a verifiable transexual prophetess influential in the white population in Massachusetts at the same time would have been kept without discussion?" Probably so, because only three of the men and women executed as witches in Massachusetts at the same time have their own articles, and everyone knows about them. Moreover, the whole point of the article is that she was not influential. She was disliked, mistrusted, sent packing, and not mourned when she died; if you want to right those wrongs, write a book. --Tysto 23:28, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
  • Screw it. keep her. I just looked at my list of Dumbest Articles on Wikipedia, and this doesn't even scratch the surface of those dozens of idiotic cartoon robot Gundam articles. --Tysto 23:39, 2005 August 14 (UTC)
• Keep. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-08-15 02:41

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 14:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rudyard griffiths

Looks like a vanity page. I suggest merging relavent material into a cleaned up "dominion institute". Laura Scudder | Talk 19:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — It probably is vanity, but he appears to be notable enough to have a page. If the dominion institute portions are excised and the remainder cleaned up, it's a working bio-stub. — RJH 15:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to "Rudyard Griffiths". He has made a name for himself, and appears in the media regularly talking about Canadian history. I think that he is distinct from the Dominion Institute, and worthy of his own article. I have copyedited the article to make it sound less canned. Ground Zero 17:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Spinboy 04:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and move to Rudyard Griffiths as per Ground Zero. There should be more focus on the individual, rather than the institutions in which he is involved. Mindmatrix 11:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Subject has a real presence in Canadian media. Is this another American takedown?--Simon.Pole 04:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Entertainment Centre

Appears to be about some guy's front room. Zero informative hits on Google. --Dtcdthingy 17:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, much as nominator. Author also helpfully added a reference to this on Chunky Monkey which I've removed. -Splash 18:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and move to BJAODN. JDoorjam 19:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 19:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We seem to have a spate of BJAODN candidates today. Capitalistroadster 00:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Spinboy 04:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mindmatrix 12:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Eugene van der Pijll 02:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] D.E. Unrau

No evidence of notability. Denni☯ 02:45, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

• Delete; 0 google results. Jaxl | talk 02:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: googling "Getting the money shot" Unrau also yields no hits. JDoorjam 03:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't find any evidence that there is a Sir Winston Churchill's Movie Awards Show. Pburka 04:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The creator made several related pages which have been speedied already. Flowerparty ^talk 13:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 19:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Extra credit for making it sound somewhat genuine anyhow... Zotel - the Stub Maker 05:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Necarem

Non prolific. 600 hits on google. A band should at least have a record contract to justify inclusion. Erwin Walsh

• Delete -- NNBV. With that said, there are standing policies regarding whether a band is notable; please review. JDoorjam 19:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, but alreadyspeedy deleted. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 03:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan klamot

Apparent Philanthropist. Zero relevant google hits - [10], page mistitled. Slac speak up! 02:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Speedy if possible: absolutely no significance or encyclopedic worth. Such articles should be speedied next time. -- Bubbachuck 03:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. -- Spinboy 03:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. We seem to have a different google count, though. I see 8 hits for him. Perhaps you have a different crawl cache or something down under. Nonetheless, they don't verify much more than he works for Goldman Enterprises. It is, however, definitely not a speedy candidate. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. DS1953 05:48, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Alex.tan 06:49, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 22:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless references added to article before end of VfD. JYolkowski // talk 16:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --Dysepsion 22:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 01:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian and American health care systems compared

This falls under the category of "what wikipedia is not" because it is essentially "Opinions on current affairs". I have never seen one encyclopedia article anywhere that attempts to compare any two subjects. Any page that attempts to compare the merits of two things or two systems in inherently unencyclopedic. Barneygumble

• Keep. Comparative politics is a large and well studied field, and we have many such articles Canadian and Australian politics compared, Canadian and American politics compared, Canadian and American economies compared, British and U.S. military ranks compared, Chinese and English compared, Judaism and Christianity compared, and others. - SimonP 01:02, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup. - Jersyko talk 01:22, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - SimonP makes an excellent point. Explodicle 01:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, might need a little cleanup but otherwise it's worth keeping.Gateman1997 01:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Healthcare system. Edwardian 01:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Definitely do not merge into healthcare. That would totally muddle the healthcare article. 132.205.95.43 23:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If there is any place where healthcare systems should be discussed and compared, it is in Healthcare system... which is an entirely different article than Health care. There are currently NO health care systems discussed or compared in Healthcare system, yet this one exists. Edwardian 00:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per SimonP. Article in question is actually quite NPOV given the subject matter. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Obviously needs cleaning up and has POV but is beneficial for outsiders to understand the views and beliefs.rasblue 02:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment although I don't think articles that compare and contrast various entities is strictly speaking "encyclopedic", there is alot of good work involved in this one. It will be interesting to come back to it in a couple days and see if any edits are applied that improve the current content. Hamster Sandwich 03:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful + true = encyclopedic, this seems to meet these standards, and is NPOV. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 03:54, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neither "usefulness" nor the existance of other overly detailed articles are criteria for inclusion. The level of detail of subarticles is almost bordering that of scholarly papers by now. This does not add to our credibility. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. How can an abundance of information affect an encyclopedia's credibility? Collecting and disseminating information is the whole point of this thing. 23skidoo 13:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
    • There is an extremely fine line between "abundance of information" and "excess of information" and every new article adds to the burden of those who have to verify it. That these kinds of nearly essay-like articles keep getting added at an ever increasing pace is going to make that burden so much harder to cope with. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. If we're going to worry about "excess of information" than we might as well stop contributing to Wikipedia now and consider it done. Zhatt 16:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per User:SimonP, but add footnotes CanadianCaesar 21:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per User:SimonP. --Apyule 05:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. — J3ff 05:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The person who nominated this article is essentially a vandal/flamer, there's no reason to just let him go around deleting things he doesn't like, or can't successfully vandalize--172.154.221.179 14:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The points are well made. Has POV but with attention could be a useful article. zaw061 14:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The comparison is intrinsically political and seems designed to cheerlead Canada's health care system instead of offering even-handed analysis. Dottore So 20:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Dottoreso
  • So fix it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:21, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    • If fixing it is possible. It's hard not for any article comparing the two systems to "appear" to "cheer" Canadian healthcare over the U.S. Even handed analysis of the two systems invariably will look like cheering since Canadian healthcare is virtually free. Gateman1997 01:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • If a NPOV, verifiable, even-handed analysis seems to favour the Canadian system, then why shouldn't it? If it would be POV and biased to try and make the analysis a draw, don't delete the article, admit that one side comes out smelling sweeter. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The 'politics' of the article is through omission. What is the rate of MRIs/patient in the US v. Canada (or Great Britain, France or India for that matter). What are the specialists/patient ratios, the number of teaching hospitals per capita, the number of GPs per capita? More to the point, why do we need such a comparison. Shall we compare Togo's health care system to that of Fiji? Or Myanmar's to Bangladesh? Or Spain's to Portugal? What useful information is here (mortality rates, for example) could be merged into the existing articles on Medicare (Canada), or the Canada Health Act. But this comparison, in my view, is flawed in its very premise. (I do not doubt, however, the sincerity and good intentions of the author.)Dottore So 16:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keepuseful information well presented--AYArktos 01:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mills lighthouse

Not notable company, I don't think this should be in an encyclopedia, this is not a business directory. Ajshm 18:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per above. Not notable. Hamster Sandwich 18:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising a company. maclean25 22:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable by a long shot. -Joshuapaquin 00:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's hardly advertising if the company has been closed since the 90s but it is unverifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nahnebahwequa

This article seems like original research on a historical, Native American subject. Contributed by an anon, it surely falls under WP:NOT. Delete. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 23:45, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I would originally have felt inclined to mark it for copyediting, but a cursory Google search doesn't turn up any references for the subject. Sadly, I must vote delete; it is clear that said anon has obviously put a lot of effort into the article, and Google searching doesn't show it to be a copvio. Nonetheless, clearly original research, and thus must be deleted.
• Establish source, or delete. This looks to me like a paper someone wrote for another purpose and then pasted into Wikipedia. Now, if we can establish that (a) the content is sufficiently documented to be considered not original research, and (b) the author of the piece is willing to release content under the GFDL, I see no reason for a (considerably) revised version to appear here. -Joshuapaquin 00:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Bad article, but a real Canadian historical figure. She is listed in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography as Nahnebahwequay (note y on the end); documented here. Needs major cleanup, but keep. Bearcat 02:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Wikipedia should have an article on her and this one, though needing a great deal of clean-up and copy-editing, is a very interesting start. There is a concern that it is a copyvio because it was obviously copy/pasted from somewhere but it doesn't seem to be an online source. If it's kept, I will volunteer to do a brutal copy-edit on it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. This does not fall under the definition of original research (compare Nancy Ward), and with this many citations it doesn't have to be on Google. Gazpacho 17:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and brutally cleanup as per User:DoubleBlue offer. Subject is notable in the history of aboriginal land claims in Canada. Dictionary of Canadian Biography entry is here: [11]. This article is part of DoCB initiative project. I have added a link to the DoCB web site article to the wikipedia page. Luigizanasi 17:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. DS1953 06:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash 16:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SooToday.com

Alexa ranking is around 81,000. WP:NOT a web directory. Joel7687 00:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Also note Sootoday.com, which was nominated for a separate VfD vote a few days ago and had a speedy consensus (it was a one-liner), but has now been redirected to this. Whatever consensus is reached on this vote should stand for the redirect as well. Bearcat

• Actually, to be honest, the site is significant beyond its Alexa rank; it was one of the first local news websites in Canada to emerge as a response to CTV's local news cutbacks (see MCTV). Said cutbacks were one of the most intensely controversial concentration of media ownership issues in Canadian history, which reminds me that I've been meaning to add a section on Canadian media to that article for ages now. Fark also seems to have taken a liking to the site; posts there have linked back to SooToday several times (more than any other Canadian newspaper that I'm aware of, actually.) I've done some initial cleanup on it which makes its notability a bit clearer, so I guess I'm on the keep side. Bearcat 01:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• As someone with a personal history in the area, I can confirm this as notable. Keep. CJCurrie 02:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Bearcat. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• I know I'm the one who nominated it, but since I never actually typed the word "Delete," I'm going to vote Keep. The Alexa ranking isn't all that bad, I wasn't aware of the information Bearcat presented, and the article looks a lot nicer now. At least this VfD resulted in improvement of the article. --Joel7687 03:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No worries...you couldn't have known. (As written, the article really wasn't making its notability very clear.) Bearcat 03:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keeps as above. DavidH 04:30, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after re-write. Nice Work!. Hamster Sandwich 04:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - per rewrite. FCYTravis 17:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). A very slight majority for deletion, but no consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sacred Heart School, now moved to Sacred Heart School, Halifax, Nova Scotia

"Sacred Heart School" gets ~85,000 google hits. It's gonna take an amazing disambiguation page to straighten them all out some day. Not notable. Delete. Or at least rename to something more specific. Or maybe this could be made into a list of all schools named Sacred Heart. -- Mwanner 02:02, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand (my comp can't open the PDF prospected so I can't right now). We can move to a better title if need be. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:03, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
• Delete: no claim to notability, as noted title is less than helpful. The chances of someone search "Sacred Heart School" and intending to get this article are close to zero. 128.112.24.137 03:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No longer an issue, thankfully. Factitious 22:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until notability established by article.Gateman1997 06:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Drat, and I was hoping for an analysis of the wacked-out education system in New Orleans. Eldereft 08:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there must be 10,000 schools with this name. Disambiguation would be utterly impossible. I'd suggest moving the stub to Sacred Heart School, Halifax, Nova Scotia, but I'd rather see it deleted. Proto t c 09:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand/disambiguate. Kappa 10:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless you can come up with any schools called Sacred Heart that are notable enough to deserve their own articles, in which case dab them. Dunc|☺ 12:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Location established. Notability established. It's a school. Osomec 15:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As Osomec so perceptively puts it, it's a school. Specifically, it's a mixed-sex Catholic school in Halifax, Nova Scotia. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Nandesuka 17:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Move to geography-specific name.--Briangotts (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this article and expand, or else merge into a school district article. Arguements about a need for disambiguation don't appear relevant to the question of a need to delete the article on this specific school. — RJH 17:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  If we're going to keep the article it should be moved to a region specified name. I went to "Sacred Heart School" as a kid but it was in California, not Canada.Gateman1997 18:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• keep please we do not need to use this place to rename articles Yuckfoo 18:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy delete: It's a perfect criterion #1 speedy delete, in my opinion, as a predicate nominative is not an article. At present, this is an answer, a Yellow Pages entry. Further, the article is wildly misnamed. Further, there is nothing here to explain what is unique (other than the address) about it. All the school harpists can go back to sleep, since I know none will actually do some work to affect the improvement, and save your energies for an actual article on a school listed on VfD. Geogre 18:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Geogre, poppet-me-pet, could you please indulge me? HOw could an article called Sacred Heart School, written about a school called coincidentally Sacred Heart School, possibly be described as "wildly misnamed"? What name would satisfy you? Wild Hogmistress of the Deeps of the Western Frond Marshes? I'm sorry but I cannot imagine an occasion on which I would regard "Sacred Heart School" as an inappropriate name for an article about a school of that name--I hope you're not joining those advancing lack of disambiguation as a reason for deletion of an article.
  • And then there the other falsehoods you pile on this. You tell us that the article is "a Yellow Pages entry". Well so what? You claim that it's a CSD 1, no it isn't. "No meaningful content or history, text completely meaningless or unsalvageably incoherent (e.g., random characters)". The article is an excellent stub because it's useful, it informs someone who didn't know (I didn't) that there exists a school in Halifax, Nova Scotia, called The Sacred Heart, it's a mixed sex, multiple-age school and the current Canadian leader of the Sacred Heart Society is an alumna. This is not a CSD1 and the fact that you blatantly assert falsehoods in proposing its deletion does not help the case. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Content-free article. --Carnildo 19:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete not enough content, can be recreated if necessary when someone has some info to put in article. --Tim Pope 19:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this article has no informative content, nor will it probably ever. --jonasaurus 21:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Dejvid 22:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, describing schools is necessary to the coverage of education. Kappa 23:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment did Kappa vote twice? I don't think he would, so maybe a someone trying to confuse the vote? Vegaswikian 05:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops yes that was me, I forget I already voted. I'll have to be more careful. At least it shows someone is following the discussion. Kappa 12:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV schools. I think it should have been moved to Sacred Heart School of Halifax, however, as the school website titles it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • SimonP has a good point. This was supposed to be a vote on Sacred Heart School, which is a dab now. I vote keep to the dab page as well. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until the notable schools by this name have been found, and given better article names anyway. -Splash 23:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. •Zhatt• 23:25, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Immaculate Conception School.

  Why the redirect to that school?Gateman1997 00:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep on building a better Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the reasons above. Vegaswikian 05:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand disambig page. - SimonP 12:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Salsb 20:49, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. Jonathunder 02:43, 2005 August 7 (UTC)
• Keep Important and notable. Unfocused 03:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand. By the way, you're really not supposed to move articles while a VfD is underway. -- Visviva 11:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. - brenneman^(t)(c) 13:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: yet again Aaron plays his silly trick of referring to Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete and piping the link so that it appears to refer to Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:07, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes Tony, I was trying to fool those people who either didn't know how to scroll up or would not wonder what that extra text was about. I would have gotten away with it to if it wasn't for those meddling kids! - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • One has to wonder why you so desperately wish to obscure the anchor tag however. It makes it appear that you wish for someone to read your rationale and, not clicking the link, believe that Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments shows why this school should be deleted, when, in fact, it shows both sides of the argument. Surely, that is not what you intend but it is how it appears. I agree, btw, that those in favour should anchor their link as well. Perhaps the arguments page should be split into 2 sub-pages. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think it would be a good idea to split up the arguments just because Aaron is engaging in abusive and dishonest editing. Let's leave him to it and refuse to let his disgraceful behavior influence the disposition of the page, which is currently perfectly fine. If someone were to transform the headings into unanchored bolds, however, I would not oppose this. This would cause all links to go to the page, in the absence of "#Keep" and "#Delete" anchors. Aaron was not the first person to engage in abusive linking to that page. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • DoubleBlue, I'd like to draw attention to your vote, and the link provided: verifiable and NPOV which actually points to Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance#No. Rather than assuming that you're being devious, I'll keep faith. I'd secondly like to draw your attention to the manner in which Tony has comported himself with regards to editing my votes. I've listed the diffs and made notes on Tony's talk page. I've also shot my mouth off a little there, but being called a "liar", "disgraceful", and "dishonest" tends to piss people off. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Replied on talk page. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Real place --malathion ^talk 22:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not all real places are notable. This one isn't. CDThieme 00:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Spinboy 00:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and major expand. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)
• Keep. I'm uncertain whether this is a vote on Sacred Heart School or Sacred Heart School, Halifax, Nova Scotia. The former is a useful disambiguation page, and the latter is a useful stub on a verifiable topic. Neither of them causes problems for Wikipedia. I see no reason to delete them. Factitious 22:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Factitious. arj 21:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. Now not ambigious, but still no particuler indication of notability. DES ^(talk) 23:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: not notable. No Account 00:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 12:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Noon hour basketball

nn local basketball club - but gently folks this is a first attempt --Doc (?) 15:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — NN. — RJH 16:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Decent article but unsuitable subject. Delete Agentsoo 17:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn Forbsey 18:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 11:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Life Lies Bleeding

Not notable. Does not fulfil WP:MUSIC either.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't seem sufficiently notable yet. Add back once the band has an international tour or releases a couple of albums. Pburka 23:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the article suggests they will not release their first anything until late this year! -Splash 00:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity. --Etacar11 02:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete new, unsigned band. Come back when you're achieved more. Punkmorten 09:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Planet Zebeth and Kabutroid

This was nominated as below, but received no useful votes beyond the nomination. I am relisting it here for a further 5 days.Splash 19:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

There are a very small number of notable sprite comics. This is not one of them. Nifboy 22:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Edit - Added Kabutroid, its author. Nifboy 22:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Disagreement - Would you like to know why it's not as widely known as, say... 8-bit theater? It's because I'm highly against spamming my readers with advertisements. Because I don't advertise on my site, nor do I myself ask advertisements to be posted on other sites, it won't be as well known as a site that spams it's existance into every orifice of the web. Remember... some things that don't spamvertise you constantly may not be all that bad. And given I have over 500 comics to date, I can safely say that this site is already doing better than many others out there. And an added note... given many of the major Metroid information databases link to me (Metroid Database, Metroid Source, Metroid Galaxy, several lesser-known ones) of their own free will, that should count for something. - Kabutroid —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.239.196.6 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 3 August 2005.
• Disagreement - You're right. Planet Zebeth is not a notable sprite comic, it's one of the damn best ones out there, and the only one worth my time to read. Admittedly, the first few strips did suck, but if you read past 100 at least they get pretty damn funny. Kabutroid is also one of the coolest people I've ever talked to. There are few who can compare with him on his juggling skills, also (Life, not eggs). He IS late with the updates sometimes, but if I were in his position, I'd be updating ONCE weekly, not three times. And I have virtually no life! So please withdraw your vote for deletion, as it has no logic behind it. Maybe some misdirected emotion concerning the author, but other than that I can't think of what you might have against the comic. Minion-34094 18:51, 02 August 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.180.43.5 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 August 2005. (user's only edits are to this VfD page)

• Disagreement - Basically everything Minion-34094 said. I am a big fan of Zebeth, and, although there are some great comics out there, this is one of the best. Hydragon 00:19 03 August 2005 (user's only edits are to this VfD page)

• Disagreement - Gotta say, I'm a fan. I've got quite a few webcomics on my daily list, several of them sprite based, and Kabs does one of the best. The occasional late updates are the only downside i can think of, but then again, what comic doesn't have them? Kacy 8-3-2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.110.156.234 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 3 August 2005. (user's only edits are to this VfD page)

• Delete. Non-notable. A reliably produced sprite comic that doesn't spam ads is still... non-notable. The sockpuppetry here, combined with the illogical argument of "it's a good comic, and I read it, and he updates regularly, therefore it's notable and encyclopedic" make me even more fixed in my vote. And by the way: "Disagreement" is not a vote! --FreelanceWizard 19:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Y'know, this kind of makes me doubt his commitment to not spamming the whole web with his comic. Delete. Meelar (talk) 19:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for nonnotability as per above. --Several Times 20:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. No Alexa ranking. --Carnildo 23:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, the sockpuppets convinced me. --Etacar11 01:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. (I forgot to vote when I relised this nomination, and I did not vote previously.) -Splash 01:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• KeepPart of the reason its on Wikipedia is so people CAN learn about it. I mean, thats one of the points on here, right? I'm Cyrus, from the Subsector on Planet Zebeth. I think Wikipedia is a wonderful site, and great for all kinds of "useless" but at the same time, "useful" information. So what its not as poppular as 8-bit? Its still a great comic none-the-less and should be known about.~Cyrus

• Keep why the hell do we just delete him because you folks have never heard of him? Ive never heard of alexa, lets delete that article... but whoever wrote the article was not... neutral.

fluke 14:41, August 5, 2005 (EST)

User has a total of 12 edits --Allen3 ^talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (since my first comment was disregarded as a vote to keep) I've never heard of most of the comic strips mentioned in Wikipedia. I guess we should submit to delete all of them then. For those asking to delete it... how often have you SEARCHED for a Metroid sprite comic? Guess what... Planet Zebeth is the largest, longest running one online. EDIT: Oh, and would you like to know WHY it doesn't have an Alexa rating? It used to. However, I'm in the midst of changing from kabutroid.com to zebeth.com. Because any mention I give of the site anywhere (such as a message board signature, etc) is now listed as Zebeth.com, Alexa has dropped it's status of kabutroid.com, since it's significantly less used now. When the conversion from kabutroid.com to zebeth.com is complete, and all sites linking to Planet Zebeth use zebeth.com, Alexa will once again list it with a rating. - Kabutroid (Unsigned vote by 205.239.196.6 (talk • contribs))

• Keep With all the other things that few people care about that happens to be on Wikipedia, how is this non-notable? It's a webcomic that has a fanbase of over... let's see... 2000 people. Being in Wikipedia just means it's an easier way for fans to explain to their friends what Zebeth is about. And again, with everything else on this site, WHY SHULD YOU CARE ABOUT THIS ONE?! - Blackflame (Vote by 24.161.34.151) --Allen3 ^talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Dude.... Planet Zebeth has inspired hundreds of dorks to keep on being dorks. It's worth your time, and worth a spot on this site, so I want everyone here to stop being a tittybaby and give it a chance. If you haven't heard of it, Get your hairy nerd ass over there and read through 20 comics and then make a judgement. -Nasty Sputnik (Vote by 81.15.88.103) --Allen3 ^talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Guys, if you are saying it doesn't deserve an entry because no one knows about it, then do you think that the problem would be solved by taking this article down? C'mon guys, use your heads! The purpose of this site is for information! Give it a chance, check it out. It's one of the best sprite comics online. -Neon Ninja (Vote by 208.186.52.34) --Allen3 ^talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as mentioned above, why do you all want it gone purely because you've never heard of it? For all you know I could've never heard of, say, Albert Einstein. Should his entry be removed from here then? Seriously, just "non-notable" or "unknown" is not a good reason to remove it. Isn't this place to give explanations on things that aren't known very well? Removing something because it's unknown would pretty much defeat the whole purpose of this site. - L33ch (Vote by 62.166.169.20) --Allen3 ^talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep As Kabs himself said, how many Metroid sprite comics have you actually *seen*? There aren't that many out there, and even fewer good ones. Few sprite comics, period, have run for as long as this one has. Have you checked ProjectComics? Zebeth is listed as #4 out of several hundred, and has consistently been in the top ten there. This despite the fact that the "vote" button on the home page is pretty well-hidden. The site gets nearly 2000 unique hits per day, and has accumulated over a million. I see no reason not to keep it. Indeed, I see no actual reason to *remove* it--there are lesser-known sprite comics that have their own entries in Wikipedia. Is Wikipedia really in *this* much need of pruning? I think not. MarsJenkar 19:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)MarsJenkar

This vote is user's only edit --Allen3 ^talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Jesus Christ. You people are saying to erase this because you haven't heard of it? You fucking dumbasses. Zebeth is one of the world's best Sprite Comics, and it has a enormous fanbase. You may not have heard of it, but it's still good!(unsigned vote by 71.247.57.45) --Allen3 ^talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep A comic based on a massive fan base, that helps to feed said fanbase, thusly keeping it alive. I know many of the readers would not still be interesated in the games if it was not for this comic; This, I believe, makes it notable. Also, with it's wide range of characters, plot twists, sub-plots, etc. there needs to be a place for people who have never read it to keep track of what's going on, and for those who do to let the world know what it is. Again, I shall use Albert Einstein: During his lifetime, was he all that notable? No. For the most part, he was just a guy, doing what he had to to live. So, following that, how can you call something "non-notable" when it hasn;t been given the chance yet to become notable? (unsigned vote by 216.138.232.17) --Allen3 ^talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep (My first vote wasn't counted, so I post one here) As one of Zebeth's many fans, I would kindly like ot mention that over 300 different fans have made comics in honor of Planet Zebeth and Kabutroid, with thousands more who haven't made comics. The comic is #5 on one of the Top Web Comics sites, and you think it's not noteworthy? Sheesh! -Hydragon

User has 3 edits, all to this VfD. --Allen3 ^talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I like the comic, and I think everyone deserves a spot on wikipedia. Not to mention how easy it would be to post 20 keeps. (Unsigned vote by 65.12.52.28 (talk • contribs))
  • I invite you to read WP:SOCK. --Etacar11 20:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Not that I expect you'll read it or heed it, but let me make a point here for the people who are no doubt being directed here from this web site. "Never heard of it" isn't (really) an issue for notability. Consider, instead, whether you think a sprite comic would end up in an encyclopedia. I suggest you read WP:NOT, remember also that Wikipedia is not a webguide, and consider a more appropriate place for this entry, such as Everything2. Chances are, if a researcher isn't likely to ever search for you, you aren't notable. Furthemore, unless you're the absolute exemplar of sprite comics, with a truly massive fan base (such as 8-bit Theatre) or significant age (Bob and George) and preferably both, you really don't belong, because a researcher would be looking for general information on sprite comics, not information on your comic in specific or information on Metroid sprite comics (and if they were, you should make your comic an external link from the Metroid page). In general, this means that sprite comics are, like Internet forums, personal web sites, and other such things, by default non-notable. You're making the claim for notability; back it up with some Alexa rankings that come close to or match the exemplars, provide something that is extremely important (for instance, "first sprite comic to be featured on CNN," "first sprite comic to be talked about in the media by a major public figure," or "first sprite comic to have a video game based on it, not the other way around"), or realize that you just don't fit in here. Subjective quality is not a concern in this vote, unless you can claim you were the first sprite comic to be discussed in a journal of literary criticism or the like. Yeah, I'm mergist/exclusionist -- especially where sockpuppets who delete their IP signatures are concerned. *shrug* --FreelanceWizard 20:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Kabutroid - Actually, I was the second Metroid comic strip to exist online. The FIRST one was about 10 comics long, and no longer exists online. And as well, I'm the largest, longest running Metroid comic strip in existance. Thusly, if anyone wanted to do any kind of research on Metroid or Metroid fans or the like, they would most likely want to know about Planet Zebeth. And above I gave explanations for the Alexa ranking. However, if NONE of those points count for anything, then I would be glad to just add a link from the Metroid wiki. Given you've said that this is data-based as opposed to vote based, I'll remove my request for people to vote. And I apologize if it appears I'm deleting an IP signature, but I have absolutely no clue how that even gets there to begin with. I'm clicking "edit page", and adding my comments.
  • I didn't mean you when I was talking about deleting signatures. Some of the people who are coming here and voting are, however, doing so, and that shows bad faith (after all, if you stand by what you're saying, why wouldn't you want people to know who you are?). This vote is, I should note, not a democracy (I think WP:NOT describes that), but rather one in which a consensus among Wikipedians is sought with input from others. People from your web site who have never edited here before will, in all probability, have their votes ignored, and it will seem like bad faith on your part to actively drive people here (WP:SOCK). Anyway, I do want to mention something about Metroid fan research. I think a topic like Metroid fan phenomena might not be a bad article, given that it's one of the oldest game franchises around; I think similar ones for Mario Bros. and Sonic might not be bad topics either. A discussion of your site in such an article would be beneficial, but that's because it's part of a notable thing, but is not, IMHO, in and of itself notable. I can further support my argument in that regard by citing this page, where a common argument is that it's the "best" and longest running Metroid sprite comic. Are Metroid sprite comics notable on their own for that reason? I don't think so. However, are they notable as part of a discussion on the fan community of Metroid or sprite comics in general? Definitely. Admittedly, however, this is just my point of view, and there are others. The "vision" of what WP should be is not quite so clear as one might at first surmise. ;) --FreelanceWizard 22:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reason given by MarsJenkar--El cid the hero 22:56, 8 August 2005 (GMT)

This vote constitutes all 3 edits by this user --Allen3 ^talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Metroid-Star - Despite the fact that some people 'never heard of it,' Kabutroid and Planet Zebeth still exists and should be kept here. It has an enormous fanbase with numerous fancomics that are regularly updated. (Unsigned vote by 69.139.25.48) --Allen3 ^talk 22:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect, already userfied. Dmcdevit·t 06:04, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creases

Delete Nonsense PhilipO 22:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy into User:Creases? This looks like a mistaken attempt to make a user page to me. --FreelanceWizard 23:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It was. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. --Creases 23:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• No problem Creases. Optional speedy delete, then redirect to Crease (cricket). Kappa 23:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• We all make mistakes. Speedy delete now that a user page has been created. Robert A West 23:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Swerd

Delete Just some kid trying to take credit for a neologism. Necropenguin 07:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, can't these punks tell the difference between Wikipedia and UrbanDictionary? >:( --Merovingian (t) (c) 12:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. Maybe we'll force him to look that up. Wikipedia IS educational! Hamster Sandwich 18:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, uninformative article on neologism. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Punkmorten 11:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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