Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< November 11 November 13 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] November 12

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 16:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3wk underground radio

Commercial site with ads, probable advertisement. Website with a Alexa rank of 126,158. Would fail WP:WEB as far as I can tell. --W.marsh 18:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. We have articles on TV stations, maybe radio stations (I've never looked for one), so what would be the rational for either including or excluding Internet radio stations? - Dalbury (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Probably based primarilly on listener base. We don't have articles on TV/over-the-air radio stations that just serve one town or an otherwise small audience (per precedents). I can't find such information on their site. They have about 100 listeners on a Saturday night per Shoutcast, but that's 145th of internet radio sites listed on Shoutcast, which is a considerably smaller site than some of the more mainstream radio sites. That's the best stats and I can find and doesn't make it sound terribly notable. --W.marsh 03:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. Thank you for that information. - Dalbury (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too small to be notable. --G Rutter 12:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 50 Unit

Not on AMG, in fact I can find nothing at all referring to this alleged rapper... no related results for his name, his alleged songs get no results. [1]. You'd think there'd at least be something. Seems to be a hoax or at least non-verifiable. --W.marsh 22:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable Niz 22:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Probably a hoax and non-notable. The reason: there is a popular rapper called, 50 Cent and his rap posse is known as G-Unit. According to web searches and just by the article, it is just screams as hoax and quick way to make an article. --J. Nguyen 23:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination dr.alf 00:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the same reasons as stated above Snurks 08:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 02:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acrobaldgenic Seizure

BJAODN material, at least probably. Definately needs to be deleted in any case. Karmafist 21:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. Neologism for seizures caused by baldness? Epilepsy is a real disease. Don't abuse the public trust. Durova 00:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unbelievable. - Dalbury (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the "probably" is whether it's funny enough for BJAODN, not whether it's real or not. Karmafist 15:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Zero google hits, no surprise. Definitely not BJAODN-worthy either. Denni☯ 00:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if not a hoax (and I highly doubt that), it's so "extremely rare" that I don't have any information with which to verify it. (I tried multiple search engines) Jacqui ★ 01:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably a hoax. *drew 02:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addictinggames.com

Rambling promotion of marginally noteworthy website. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. tregoweth 05:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, i know the site, but the article is obviously unencyclopedic. if someone thinks the site is notable (it has an alexa rank of 1324), they could re-create the article later. --ColdFeet 06:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, definately unencyclopedic. Quote from the article: "I like the site and highly reccomend it to anyone who like games." - Akamad 07:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:WEB. I've removed the earnest entreaty to sign up and the promotion of the author's favourite game. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a perfect example of a subject that should receive an article, but this isn't an article. I'd be happy to keep it if expanded, so feel free to prove me wrong and let me know once it's expanded. As it stands now it shouldn't be kept. - Mgm|(talk) 15:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, establishes notability. Kappa 02:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Substub#Differences_between_a_stub_and_a_substub. I believe substubs are not helpful and should be deleted. If one cannot write a decent stub on a subject, filing a request instead is the way to go. - Mgm|(talk) 14:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I believe any article which adequately defines a topic and establishes notability if necessary is valuable, and certainly not worth going through an AFD process to remove. This article gives users the valuable information that addictinggames is a popular games website and not just a random one someone set up yesterday. Kappa 14:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bad metawiki stub article on site with no original content. -- Grev -- Talk 04:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 14:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 14:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agitated (band)

Band vanity. No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 17:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN (insert standard wish for speedy band here) Turnstep 18:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:Music. HGB 11:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. *drew 19:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An introduction to BLAST - Basic Local Alignment Search Tool

Nothing useful here that isn't already covered in BLAST. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I particularly like the taunting at the end of the article, practically begging someone to delete it. Turnstep 01:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • LOL! That wasn't there when I put in the nomination! --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 06:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Substandard article. But not sure that BLAST doesn't deserve a better article someday... can't figure out what BLAST is but the NCBI which I guess is part of NIH does have an entry on it...
  • Delete Almost feel bad voting to delete. When someone begs..I dunno just hard to not take pity on them lol:-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 04:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete BLAST rocks, but this article is unnecessary. Jasmol 04:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a usage guide, tutorial or glossary. Title fails to follow naming conventions too. Everything is covered in the external links of BLAST. - Mgm|(talk) 14:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP is not a tutorial, though a few tidbits could be merged into BLAST. HGB 11:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep should have had "wikify" and "cleanup" tags, rather than deletion. I cleaned it up there so it should be okay to keep it now. 203.122.218.47 16:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, didn't notice the BLAST article. My bad. 203.122.218.47 16:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 12:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Askthefool.com

Non-notable website. This nomination was incomplete; listing now. Anville 12:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: WP is not a web guide. This web site, incidentally, has "limited functionality" and serves mainly as the author's blog host. WP is most assuredly not a blog directory. Geogre 14:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. mdd4696 15:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. Turnstep 17:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. It was me trying to nominate it, but I obviously missed out a stage. Non-notable website doktorb 07:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. *drew 14:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was strong consensus keep for the rewrite. Xoloz 04:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Athletic scholarship

It's a bitter POV dictionary definition. - squibix 15:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. - squibix 15:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten. Yay! - squibix 21:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Scholarship - Bobet 15:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC) -> Change to Keep since rewritten article expands on the definition in the Scholarship article. - Bobet 18:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Scholarship mdd4696 15:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above: that article already contains a paragraphs saying that “the recipient (of the scholarship) may be determined by students’ athletic, academic, artistic or other abilities.”. Current article says just this + POV + OR. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) Keep the rewritten version. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite. Athletic scholarships are a class all their own, deserving of separate article to cover their origins, nuances of NCAA regulation, famous instances of manipulation, and to contrast the critiques raised in the article as it stands with the perspective that athletic scholarships provide educational opportunities to students who otherwise might not have them at all. BD2412 T 16:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Note - mad rewrite begun. BD2412 T 17:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with major cleanup/rewrite. Certainly more than a dicdef. Possibly a future subsection of Scholarship, but probably best as a separate article per BD2412. Turnstep 16:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand; many issues related to this should be taken up here. Karol 17:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if rewritten (already in progress) Punkmorten 17:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. --Metropolitan90 17:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep BD 2412's rewrite. Well done to him. Capitalistroadster 18:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep valid subject, good rewrite. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep good subject and seems to be rewritten well. --W.marsh 19:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Excellent rewrite, well done BDA. AndyJones 20:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The original was a petulant POV gripe, but the rewrite is good. Reyk 21:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Austin Audi Club

This article looks like a vanity article and has no real concrete information in it. Thepedestrian 16:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete notability not established, and probably impossible to verify if stated. Club is free to "join", so "membership" may be substantially inactive. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 398 Google hits, but they are almost all lists of Audi clubs or links from other Audi clubs. NN. - Dalbury (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inoffensive, but non-notable. -Colin Kimbrell 17:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 19:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 03:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bab el wad

Bab al-Wad is the Arabic name of a place on the Tel-Aviv-Jerusalem highway (Sha'ar Hagai in Hebrew). It is not a name of any convoy, as far as I know, the convoy described in this article is probably a reference to the Hadassah medical convoy massacre, which did not go through Bab al-Wad. There is no settlement in the place, only a road interchange, and otherwise it is only notable as an old Israeli Independence War song (as the article correctly notes) which is in itself unnotable. Doron 07:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Seems to be verifiable if relatively minor event, see e.g. [2] Dlyons493 Talk 10:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Lots of convoys went through Bab al-Wad during the war, because it is on the highway to Jerusalem, as I have noted, but there was no convoy named "Bab al-Wad" as far as I know. There must be thousands of songs on that website, we can't have an article for each. Is there something special about this particular song that warrants an article?--Doron 11:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree with what you say re this being the location of ongoing conflict in the struggle for control of the highway during the blocade of Jerusalem and I can't verify this specific convoy from here. I was starting from the premise that geographic locations should be kept and still think that they should. I now feel it would be best to emphasise the location and the context rather than one incident probably not especially notable among many fairly similar. The historic specifics of this article could maybe be merged somewhere else? Dlyons493 Talk 15:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think the location itself is not particularly notable, the whole corridor to Jerusalem saw fighting during the war. If the only information we have about this place is that it is on the way to Jerusalem (and thus saw fighting) and that a song was written about it, I don't thing this is enough for an article, and this information can be merged into the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article.--Doron 20:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I've no objection to a merge of the incident(s) - not that there's much to merge. There's a web ref 22 mars- Une violente bataille se déclenche à Bab El Wad (Shaar Hagaï), lors de lattaque dun convoi de trente camions et de sept véhicules blindés. (Summary: 22nd March attack on a convoy of 30 trucks and 7 armoured vehicles). There was protacted fighting between Givati and Harel Brigades with the ALA forces and irregulars later on in May. It looks to me like there was an Arab village in Bab el wad in 1948 - does that seem correct to you? For me, that would add to the interest of the place. Dlyons493 Talk 22:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
There was an Arab village nearby, named Dayr Ayyub. There was also an old caravan inn, which still stands. Now there's a petrol station.--Doron 01:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Cursory Google search shows this place is of considerable historic interest, from at least 1948 Arab-Israeli War and probably earlier. E.g., former PM Rabin mentions it in a speech found here [3]

" I remember the cars in flames on the road at Bab-el-Wad, whose drivers gave their lives trying to break the siege of Jerusalem. " --FRS 21:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep --Rogerd 03:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Backwash (musical group)

No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Google search for Bachwash Ruidoso gives 119 hits. Punkmorten 17:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PJM 17:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as yet another NN band/"musical group" Turnstep 18:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:Music. HGB 11:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 19:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Robert T | @ | C 02:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BasketMaking

I suggested that this page be deleted because it is more of a dictionary entry and does not contain any substantial content. Possibly a candidate to be moved to Wiktionary instead. Stifle 19:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no specific preference as for the new name, but I would just not base a decision only on these figures. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. A useful article could be written about basket making or basket weaving. "Basket making" gets 267,000 Google results, "Basket weaving" gets 378,000 so article should be renamed as "Basket weaving should be title. However, the article needs more information than what is currently in the article. Capitalistroadster 23:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even as a definition this has problems, as baskets are made of other materials besides willows. - Dalbury (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep good potentioal article. --Mateusc 15:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Basket weaving and expand. Jacqui ★ 01:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it is a legitimate hobby and vocation --Rogerd 03:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. The subject matter is noteworthy, but the article needs serious expansion. Zunaid 08:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful enough. *drew 17:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "bigger than Jesus" controversy

It's already at The Beatles. This might be large enough to become an article of its own, but i'm unsure there. No Vote on the article itself, on the content, Expand if Kept, Merge if Deleted, although the latter is moot since it's already merged retroactively into The Beatles. Karmafist 22:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge into The Beatles or John Lennon Niz 22:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Beatles article has more information than this as it happens so this is surplus to requirements. Capitalistroadster 00:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. - Dalbury (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per above, however this was a major controversy in the 1960s, so it might be worth an article if it didn't duplicate information alresdy in place. 23skidoo 03:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Beatles if there is no need for merge. Xoloz 04:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect -- very, very unlikely search string. Jkelly 05:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because it's already covered elsewhere. I agree that this is an unlikely search string. Jacqui ★ 01:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't merit its own article. *drew 02:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bitterheart.

Subject is not worthy of inclusion in wikipedia and is poorly written and unclear. Lopman 23:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, appears to be an original concept (WP:NOR). Kappa 01:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, personal essay and original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personal essay, no encyclopedic value. - Dalbury (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original concept. *drew 02:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Kramer

Non-notable radio personality. The stations that he works for only serve a city of about 15,000 people, see the links from List of radio stations in Washington. There are only 572 google hits for "Bob Kramer"+radio, and because the wikipedia entry on him has been around for a while, it is the first one. Therefore, delete as a non-notable radio personality. Graham/pianoman87 talk 14:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Actually, I get 1490 following the link to Google. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. Turnstep 16:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable radio guy. --W.marsh 19:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. *drew 18:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 03:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Borrowdale dance

I dont even know what this is but it only has 87 unique google hits so its probaly nn Delete--JAranda | watz sup 21:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep Given the scarcity of Web material about Zimbabwe I'd keep this as it's verifiable although somewhat localised see e.g. [5] Dlyons493 Talk 22:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. It seems to be associated with musician Alick Macheso who also has the nickname of Borrowdale see [6].

. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. It looks to be real, and notable in Zimbabwe. - Dalbury (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks to be notable in Zimbabwe. Denni☯ 00:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough in Zimbabwe. *drew 02:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chak 217 GB

this article does not provides any usefull information about chak 217, Just a political propaganda الثاقب (WiseSabre| talk) 05:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Basically the article says it's a village, and that's it. mdd4696 15:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And it's promoting Haji Muhammad Irshad, who 'won' an election when his opponent was declared ineligible for the seat[7]. - Dalbury (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete odd advert. Xoloz 04:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 17:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 23:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "colin botts"

May be a non notable subject. (However tens of google hits.) SGBailey 09:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Also needs major cleanup and moving to Colin Botts if not deleted.
  • Delete. Does not assert notability. --Nlu 10:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: The title is unusable. The content smells of c&p from a band website. The biography makes no particular claim for him. Accomplishments are not given. If there were major clean up and a page move, we're nearly at the "write a new article" stage. Geogre 14:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: per Nlu. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Niu and Geogre. - Dalbury (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN - lots of people bott. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't know why this one is "colin botts" rather than just Colin Botts. He does get a lot of hits on google, and this Ryan Shupe and the Rubberband also gets enough hints to suggest notability. Considering the depth of this article, I don't see why we are deleting the article. Its not like its a 2 line thing. Need some references and such though. [8] [9]. They are also signed to Capitol Records, which is a major label, so that in itself suggests notoriety. 203.122.218.47 15:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. WP:MUSIC says two or more albums from a major label or one of the more important indie lables, so he can have an article when his second album is released, or he meets one of the other criteria in WP:MUSIC. - Dalbury (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 15:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete both articles. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Thomas Pryor, Rodan media

NN company (fails WP:CORP by a wide margin) and its founder who has an interesting story, but ultimately fails WP:BIO. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: If this is deleted, there is a reference to this article in Rodan that needs to be removed too. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Company has "met with little commercial success," and its founder has arguably not had a significant effect on the wider world, although I'm sure he's beloved by his employees and family. Geogre 03:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 04:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. Rodan media appears not to have set the world on fire. Google does not come up with much re Pryor suggesting that verifiability is a real problem with his article see [10]. Capitalistroadster 04:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. I can give up voting delet on spammers any time I like, really I can. I don't have a spammer deletion dependency, honest. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom. Turnstep 17:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The AFD tag had never been added to the Rodan media article. I have just done so. Please restart the 5-day clock from this point. Rossami (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both per nom. *drew 12:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Note that no less than five of the keep votes are by sock puppets. — JIP | Talk 15:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC) --I am curious where the number of five came from and how you came to this conclusion. My apologies for the edit, but I feel this statement is incorrect. Also, I cannot be bothered for a review of deletion--Jbutter 01:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dattebayo

Non-notable; strongly suspect that it is troll playground full of nonsense; even the linked website looks fake; the subject isn't appropriate for wikipedia - Motor (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: the article is accurate and verifiable, and the links are not fake (the group and their recent releases, apart from Naruto, can be verified by checking on AnimeSuki: [11]). Whether the subject-matter is suitable for Wikipedia is another question. — Haeleth Talk 15:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dattebayo is currently the biggest fansub group for Naruto, an extremely popular series. However, there is nothing notable about them beyond that, so I don't feel it warrants an article. mdd4696 15:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't the place to list information like this, even if the group IS somewhat notable for continuing to release illegal fansubs of a US licensed property. If an article like this is left in place, what comes next? Listing warez/hackz sites? Nezu Chiza 16:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mdd4696. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)3
  • Comment. It is when its one if not the largest site when torrents are downloaded. Terabytes of info each week. And it is only recently that the united states has aquired the rights to naruto. Skyswordsman17:51, 13 November 2005
  • Keep informative + verifiable article. None of the "linked websites" are fake. No evidence of a "troll playground" aside from occasional vandalism of the article. --Timecop 00:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Artice gives useful info. All content can be verified and links are not trolls. Group has had impact in fansubbing circles.--68.191.79.202 01:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I see no claim to being the largest anime subbing group. You can verify the download counts presented on the torrent page of the website (yhbt.mine.nu/t/). The website and irc links are both valid. This page is only informational regarding the name, it is no less valid then any other subbing group's articles (which several of which already exist). The information is presented in an objective way, not expressing opinions.--131.128.143.182 01:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Point out the other "subbing group" cruft, and I'll be happy to submit the articles for deletion, because they don't belong here either. - Motor (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: article is very factual in nature, and in my opinion at least, does NOT violate any of the policies on deletion. the article isn't self-promoting or in any way a 'troll', the linked website is Dattebayo's official site and tracker, definitely not a troll site. To make a simple analogy: According to the Wikipedia guide on band listings (which release work for public consumption just like fansub groups), a band may be listed if it has had a song listed on a top 100 chart. This implies that for bands at least, fame and success (and records) are the criteria for being listed on Wikipedia. Extending this observation to fansubbing, as the single-most-downloaded group actively releasing, I believe Dattebayo has earned its place on Wikipedia, just like 3 Doors Down or the Beatles. -alx
Comment: Really... The Beatles eh? I hope some admin is taking note of the number of IP/new users/socks voting here. - Motor (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I think the article is informative, and would enjoy seeing other fansubbing groups start their own pages. As it stands, the fansub community is quickly growing in popularity, and no group should be exempt/censored/deleted from the pages of wikipedia.--Bakashrimp 01:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article allows for information about Dattebayo to be more accessible to an audience that does not necessarily take part in the anime community. I feel this is the main reason for Wikipedia--allowing information to be more accessible to the general public.--Jbutter 02:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Article offers comprehensive and concise information that is not generally available without more extenseive research. Interactii 02:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and beat back SP with a stick. Dottore So 15:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: useful information on a very influential group in the fansubbing community. Phorque 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. *drew 16:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge into Desi, then delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Desi's being stereotyped

This article combines what seems to be a narrow interpretation of the term "Desi" with a discussion of the struggle of Indians against stereotypes, and combines it all under an unencyclopedic title. Any useful information here is probably already elsewhere, so... Delete. Joel7687 19:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge into Desi Niz 22:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought this was going to be an article about I Love Lucy. delete. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything of use into Desi. - Dalbury (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Desi. *drew 01:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Superceded by events as Merge/inappropriate nom. in the first instance. Xoloz 04:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Devil's Panties

I created The Devil's Panties prior to noting the existence of this article. After I managed to find it I utilised the image contained therein for the other article. The existence of both of them lends itself to a questionable matter in regard to the title of the webcomic and judging by the graphic, I feel this is the redundant article. TheMonkofDestiny 12:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (A7). Physchim62 (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Devrim Çamoğlu

Article is in Turkish, despite (I think) the author knowing well enough that this is the English Wikipedia, and is about a researcher in a Turkish university. Because I don't understand any Turkish, I don't know anything other about this. The creator, and only contributor, is User:Devrim, so I think this is vanity. Delete. — JIP | Talk 11:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, thus default keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diary-X

This was previously nominated by an anon, voted on and deleted. The article had been rewritten to assert notability several hours prior to the closure of the previous discussion, so the AfD was contested and overturned. Relisting for the sake of completeness.

Previous AfD Discussion
Notes about Diary-X in the media
  • Keep per nom and previous discussion. --Stephen Deken 18:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • What's with this trend towards making a nomination and then making a recomendation? Stephen Deken's nomination's and "keep" opinion should be one paragraph, as this isn't a vote. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry; I seem to recall the AfD instructions saying "you should get the ball rolling by adding a vote", but they don't say that anymore (or did they ever?). Amended the previous to clarify. --Stephen Deken 02:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to have a large enough community activity to warrant an article. --W.marsh 19:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Nice rewrite. Xoloz 04:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree, well written, but the links supporting the article in Stephen's user space say "not encyclopedic" to me. When your only mention in media is having your name gotten wrong in a list...
    brenneman(t)(c) 00:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Since I'm extending this, I've stricken my recomendation. I'd prefer a wider audience, and will personally abstain in order to get it. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • After some consideration, I'd like to change my recommendation to delete and apologize for resurrecting this in the first place. The site isn't overwhelmingly popular, it hasn't had an impact on anyone aside from people who are involved, and Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of thing. I've already userfied it as a prelude to getting it off of WP, so it can be yanked. Thanks. --Stephen Deken 16:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Femmina 02:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Unusual nomination with low participation. Extending to allow clear consensus to develop. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Well written presentation with basic degree of online notability. Jtmichcock 01:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 02:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-written page, and appears to be fairly notable page (ranking over 10,000 in 2005 is good enough for me). --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 02:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Trollderella 02:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Probably a waste of time repeatedly dragging articles of this quality back to AfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • When the creator of the article says "delete" it doesn't hurt anything to ensure that there is clear consensus. No one is forced to participate, so how is it a waste of anyone's time? Have we yet found anything per WP:CITE better than the paucity linked above to differentiate this from advertising? - brenneman(t)(c) 00:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Pedantic mode on: I didn't create the article, I just rewrote it to be more encyclopedic. What I did create is the site the article refers to. Truth be told, I'm on the fence about the whole thing and really should be abstaining, since on some days I'm a self-centered egomaniac and on others I'm an insignificant speck of dust. My vote should be discarded and / or given more weight, etc. --Stephen Deken 04:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Preaky 22:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. My normal reaction to a re-listing would be "We already decided what to do, no need to drag it up again". That being said, with so few people participating in the first vote, I can't object to the re-posting. All that being said, I don't see any independent evidence that this is anything other than advertising for one of a million random websites. --RoySmith 00:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Izehar 16:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Inphinity

NN musician. No AMG entry. No discogs entry. No media article. Titles in article have no AMG entry. -- Perfecto Canada 05:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Perfecto Canada 05:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Jasmol 07:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: DJ vanity/graffiti. Geogre 13:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity --Rogerd 02:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 14:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dotinfo

I had a look at the .info link page, and this looks largely like a vanity page/advertisement to me. -- Frekja 18:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Vanity and NN. --PTSE 13:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete good intentions (web site teaching various computer stuff) but the site has just started and is not notable enough. This article made me realize that when wikipedia started, it wasn't notable enough for having an article about itself. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete They would choose a name that is absolutely useless in a Google search, but in any case, too new. - Dalbury (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert --Rogerd 03:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ads. *drew 17:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete both articles. - Mailer Diablo 10:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edmund Knock

This is a possible hoax, Google turns up a lot related to such a person. I did check alternate spellings. -- Curps 18:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this article is absolute rubbish. Delete as all characters are fictional. -- unsigned comment by User:Mafr100

The following was added after the above vote:

Also Timothy Cork by the same author Edmundknock (talk • contribs) -- Curps 18:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. What a fantastic story! - Dalbury (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is confusing. I deliberately posted my vote on Edmund Knock above the line adding Timothy Cork because I thought Timothy Cork was listed elsewhere. By rearranging this discussion, Curps has made it look as though I was voting on both. As it happens, Timothy Cork also looks very much like a hoax, but I didn't know that when I voted on Edmund Knock. - Dalbury (talk) 11:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The author almost had me until Knock spent time at an Inuit camp in Newfoundland. Um, no. Bearcat 06:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. No google references other to a kid who won a scholarship to Sedbergh School (hmm!) and is also not in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography which is pretty comprehensive on explorers. Luigizanasi 06:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably a hoax. *drew 01:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 16:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] El GGoDo

It's already been deleted once a year ago (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/EL_GGoDo) and there's nothing on the page saying what has made it more prominent after that. Also fails the google test, with most entries having come from the brief appearance on wikipedia. The person in question might be locally notable, but there's nothing to show for it except for a personal website. Bobet 11:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment from what's in the page, it seems to have some kind of notability, but the only thing here that seems verifiable is [12]. All other external links are to pages in this artist's web site. I will not vote on this one. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I do wish we had more to go on. He may have published two books, and he may have had some major exhibitions, but I can't tell for sure, so like Paolo, I won't vote yet. - Dalbury (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The reason I believe there are not more entries about him on the web is that the people who know him are not web literate; i.e. they can not respond to this comment. This entry in Wikipedia is intended to bring El GGoDo to a wider audience and encourage debate and discussion; though he is noteworthy - he is a private man and I suppose this may be against him. Regards, Dr Who 08:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment His 1991 book is available for hire from some Spanish libraries and from the Bayside City Library (http://www.bayside.vic.gov.au/ see under "services" then "library" and then search for "elggodo" and you will see the book is available for hire and therefore exists. You can of course check with the publishers....
  • Comment You could also telephone the Telediario de Leon (http://www.diariodeleon.es, Telephone details can be found on the website) and get more background detail about El GGoDo and his life - invite them to comment perhaps on Wikipedia. Hope this helps with what to go on. Cheers, Dr Who 08:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment to Alex@elggodo.net. Unless a consensus developes to delete, the article will stay. Articles do need to be verifiable, and it is very hard for those of us in English-speaking countries to verify this. Is there an article on this artist in the Spanish language Wikipedia? - Dalbury (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment to Dalbury. No, there is no Spanish version yet - my first language is English (Australian) and the Spanish I know is pretty rough. However, his 1979 catalogue and 1991 book are in several languages; just look at the quality of his artworkDr Who 22:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Discussion. The fellow is real enough. This link is about his latest painting and provides some sketchy biographical details (second paragraph, e.g. where he came from, the fact that he didn't want to work in the coal mines, where his name comes from etc...). Also, the book that is scanned in has a preface by Jose Camon Aznar, professor (I think) at Univ. Autonoma (Madrid). However, all that said, this is an artist of very, very local reputation. I don't think you could even go so far as to contend that his reputation in Leon is particularly significant, let alone outside of the city. I am in Madrid and a quick (granted wholly unscientific) poll has found no-one here who has ever heard of him. Finally, per the website, unless Dr Who had a translation done for the site, his Spanish should be more than good enough to put up a site on the Spanish WP. Which makes me a bit suspicious of the comment above. Also, could you clarify the relationship? Are you the grandson? I'll abstain voting for now. Dottore So 15:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment one of my reasons for abstain as well is that, beside what's in the web site http://www.elggodo.net, there are few other references about him in the Web. One seems particularly promising: [13]. His name mentioned here seems to support the fact that he donated something to Russian musemus, confirming written in the article. The block of text in the linked page reads (thanks to Altavista):

    We will be grateful for your opinion about the site and for the opinions about our museum: you will estimate, if you please, exposures, exhibition, excursion, lecture, occupation in the circles, concerts, scientific activity, conference, publication, the care of visitors. Unfortunately, museum does not have a possibility to answer the questions, which emerge beyond the framework of the designated thematics. You can present the question into the conference: Museum cafe. Examination on THE INTERNET museum does not produce, slides and electron images it does not send.

    Not very useful. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment this is the strangest AfD ever!  Grue  19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment agreed. I imagine the closing admin writing “The result of the debate was... Comment”.Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I am the son of Pedro Rodriguez Fuertes ("El GGoDo"), however at birth I was taken away by my mother (Sue Alexander) to Australia. Part of the story can be found here: http://www.elggodo.net/en/id1.html. Because of the distance and my poor Spanish over the years I have had a different type of relationship with my father; than most families. Nevertheless, it greatly improved through the use of modern technologies and the creation of the website ElGGoDo.net; where we can both share in each others stories. Although, he is my father, I am able to be very objective about the quality of his work as a result of our unique realtionship. If anyone here is interested in Art then I believe if you saw his work you would see that he indeed has genius: I think this photo say it all: http://www.elggodo.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/elggodo_with_clay.jpg (the clay picture - has a double meaning, I believe it is also a protest against bullfighting)

And thanks for the hint about the Prof above I will see if I can get him to comment here Dr Who 00:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC).

Comment in 1999 when I was last in Madrid this restaurant had number of ElGGoDo's great works in the restaurant. The address is:

Restaurante CARTA MARINA Tipo: Restaurante Cocina Gallega Dirección Padre Damián, 40 Provincia: Madrid Localidad: Madrid Zona: Tetuán Metro: Cuzco Telf: 914586826/ Precio: Aprox. de 45 a 60 €. Especialidad: Pescados .

Perhaps if you have time you could check this out as well. In the meantime I will see if I can get in contact with that Prof 155.143.63.97 10:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC). Note: This is no ordinary restaurant it is a celebration of three forms of art (Food, Painting and Interior Design) and a hommage to El.GGoDo.Dr Who 22:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the clarification. Having reviewed the information, my belief is that this fellow is simply not notable enough to warrant an entry. He has practically no web presence - which means that he is unlikely to have been featured in exhibitions which invariably leave some webprint behind. The fact that the article is authored by his son does not assuage concerns that he is unnotable. And I can find no-one in the country who has heard of him. I wish you the best of luck in helping spread his reputation. Wikipedia, however, is not a venue for promotion. I vote therefore to Delete. Dottore So 10:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment It is true recently he has not had an exhibition. But as good as you exist he has exhibited on a number of occasions. The fact that he does not have a web presence does not mean he is not a notable artist; it simply means that he is not a generation X, Y; but rather before. On another note I have just tried to email Jose Camon Aznar to see if he can add an entry he in support of El GGoDo; hopefully, you can wait a bit longer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.143.63.97 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Sorry, Dr Who 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment you have been accidentally logged out -- it happens sometimes. Do not forget the signature at the end of comments, as it helps a lot following the discussion. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 11:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the fact that your father is not part of the internet generation is not germane. Neither is Antonio Martínez Mengual, yet a google search turns up 900 entries. Notable artists generate web presence through expositions, gallery showings, etc.... This is not a question of judging talent - it is about determining notability. Dottore So 12:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Time to decide. I see no evidence in all this discussion that he meets the criteria of WP:BIO. - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 11:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment to Dalbury. This is the criteria: Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field. Well, his painting is in the famous Cathedral of Leon, so it will endure for near eternity in the historical record of the province of Leon Spain. Leon, is an important province in the history of Spain...


At least I have tried Dr Who 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electrograters

Fails to meet WP:NMG. Delete. PJM 17:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Hitchhiker89 17:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not even claims for notability. - Bobet 17:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. Turnstep 18:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. *drew 19:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eurotrek

Bare minimum of content, probable vanity, no assertion of notability. Deltabeignet 23:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, travellers who love to travel doesn't sound very notable. The only link leads to a sparsely populated message board. - Bobet 02:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lots of hits on Eurotrek, several domain names included. If we have an article about Eurotrek, it definitely will not be about this group. - Dalbury (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 03:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DO NOT KEEP, i.e. delete after minus sockpuppet votes. - Mailer Diablo 10:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evan Lee Dahl

An extra. No assertion of notability. Deltabeignet 23:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete five minor film roles means NN. Thomas Edison's couch probably had more screentime, and his movies were all under five minutes. Xoloz 04:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE Evan Lee Dahl is a dynamic character actor who has appeared in many theater plays, films, and television shows including "Criminal Minds", "Zoey 101", "Arrested Development", "7th Heaven", etc. He is a member of the Actors Equity Association (AEA), the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA). Vote by Just Me, who created the article on Evan Lee Dahl.) - Dalbury (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. Note that Just Me also added Evan Lee Dahl to the cast list for Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star. - Dalbury (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. In Arrested Development he played the role of "usher". In Still Standing he played the role of "boy," which he reprised in What I Like About You. I wish this young actor well. Some of his parts are named roles. He just isn't prominent enough yet. Durova 18:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until he gets a credit with a name. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE.

-Evan Lee Dahl has never done extra work. Being a member of three professional actor unions shows notability. -Evan Lee Dahl has had more than five minutes of screen time. -Evan Lee Dahl was in the film Dickie Roberts: former child star. Rent it. Check the credits. Research is a good thing. -Evan Lee Dahl started out in bit parts for television, he then went to Network and tested for the role of George-Michael Bluth for Arrested Development and has since filmed guest starring roles. -Evan Lee Dahl has just rapped the film Christopher Brennan Saves the World with the credited name of Christopher Brennan. - Evan Lee Dahl is also guest starring as Miles Brody (another credit with a name) on Zoey 101 for Nickelodeon to name a few.

  • Actor's Equity has 45,000 members, SAG 120,000, and AFTRA 80,000, so no, mere membership in these unions confers no notability whatsoever. So Delete. --Calton | Talk 06:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE. Not all American working actors make millions of dollars and have their names headlining. Evan Lee Dahl works as co-star and guest star on major television networks. This shows notability. (This is the second vote by Just Me (talk • contribs).) - Dalbury (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • User has only one edit which is not to this page or to the article in question. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • COMMENT. I am new to this site and did not realize by writing DO NOT DELETE I was voting. I was merely deflecting your harsh opinions. I plan on writing more about this actor. I placed a stub simply to establish his name before going back in with more information.
  • "KEEP!!!" This is a teen prodigy! Years ago, during a comedy show, I was surprized to see a boy be the MC at Martini Blues Comedy Competition. He was the best part of the show. Then, I see him on a popular new show called, "Criminal Minds" in a dramatic role. He co-produced a fundraiser, etc. etc. My neigbor's kids all know of him. This is a great add, "Just Me". ILV
    • The above is by 72.130.35.28 (talk • contribs), who has made no other contributions to Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment.*Congrats Zoe, you have found the first comment I have made on this site. Yes, this "add" interested me enough to comment. Oh, my gosh. Feel free to add this to your "Comment World Record Report". Now, this is about Evan Lee Dahl and his contributions to acting--which I have been fortunate enough to see in person. ILV
    • Comment. Note that the vote from 72.130.35.28 (talk • contribs), "ILV", is also manually signed "Just Me", who has been the only user arguing against deletion. - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 10:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE
    • Comment.**Congrats to Dalbury for showing you can not read properly. Look again. I am congratulating "Just Me" for adding this fine teen to Wikipedia. I am signing "ILV". This is about Evan Lee Dahl who was a co-producer of a show to help a mom when her son died an unfortunate early death. "ILV" "ILV" "ILV" "ILV" "ILV"
  • COMMENT. The arguments are no longer about the article, but personal attacks against the users and viewers of this site. This is a reminder that this site is "The Free Encyclopedia" that "Anyone Can Edit". The negative votes probably came before I could expand the article. This article will be updated quite frequently, since this is a fast paced actor (ie. He was in the second episode of "Criminal Minds" a hot new show!).
  • "KEEP!!!"Evan Lee Dahl is a upcoming guest star and is seen on major television networks. This shows notability. I would like to see this positive teen's profile stay! DO NOT DELETE GeoDev
  • Keep this entry! Like most good character actors, Evan shows up in numerous roles, none of them a starring role, but instead each supports the action and the plotline. What constitutes a great characer actor is the value of their whole body of work, not a particular or single role. Neither Frank Morgan nor Burt Lahr had a major starring role in any movie, yet The WIZARD Of Oz would not have been the same movie without either of them. And those roles are not the only ones either actor is noted for. Evan is part of the newest generations of faces you know, yet can't always recall the name. M.Alario —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.13.73.109 (talk • contribs).
  • "COMMENT" Preceding signed as 'M.Alario'--anyone can see that! Your adding templates directly on someone elses writings. That's just wrong! Personal attacks against users have now become sneeky editing tricks directly on other people's "Keep" comments. Evan Lee Dahl is "hotter" than I thought! 'Just Me' Please keep Evan's profile and keep it updated! "ILV" "ILV" "ILV" "ILV" "ILV"
    • Comment. The vote I tagged was made by someone who was not logged in as a Wikipedia user. There is no Wikipedia user named "M.Alario." Everyone is urged to be signed on as a valid user, and to sign all edits in deletion discussions with the four tildes (~~~~), in order for the vote or comment to be properly signed. - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 20:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. At this point, why would anyone want to do what Dalbury suggests since Dalbury has already spoken so negatively and repetitively against this article. There are over 800,000 other articles on this site. There is no need to be harrassing the users and viewers of this particular article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Fair Dinkum

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

  • Merge with Australian words. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 09:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Clean up and Merge per Angr. Chick Bowen 17:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Fair dinkum doesn't mean fair go. It means something honest or reliable see [14]. Ironically, this article isn't Fair Dinkum. It certainly isn't worth merging in its current state or being transwiki'd to Wiktionary. Capitalistroadster 18:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak deleteRedirect. Fair dinkum can have the meanings in the article in the right context, but honest and reliable is the main meaning. "He's fair dinkum"=="He's telling the truth" or "He's serious about s/t" or "you can rely on him". "Fair dinkum, Joe!" could translate to english as "You can't be serious, Joe!" The term is not unnotable, but this article on it is not worth keeping. A improved or future article might be. Ben Aveling 20:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 18:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Change my vote to Redirect (no merge) to Australian words. I have added entries for "dinkum" and "fair dinkum," based on the OED, to that article, and so both should be redirected there. Chick Bowen 21:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or Redirect Reyk 21:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Australian words as per Chick Bowen above. --Martyman-(talk) 22:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Australian words as per Chick Bowen above. We had a dog named 'Dinkum' (from 'fair dinkum') when I was kid. Can I add him to the meaning? - Dalbury (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Australian words, where there is already a definition for this phrase (which, as the ever reliable Capitalistroadster points out), is incorrectly defined in this article. Cnwb 23:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Australian words. Capitalistroadster 23:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Chick Bowen. ～J.K. 09:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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


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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fatfemnudist

Article is spam.

Claims:

According to Google's PageRank, her site gets more hits than any other BBW sites, and by a sizable margin. [1]

However, the PageRank is basically a measure of how many links you have to you. Links such as wikipedia.org, which counts a lot as a very big site.

PageRank does NOT measure hits, it measures the number and weight of inbound links. In addition, the supplied link shows very low page rank, although it is higher than the other articles in t hat directory. However, the directory makes no claim to be definitive for BBW sites.

In any case, a more real measure of site popularity is alexa.com, which shows it is the 587,155th site in the world http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=www.fatfemnudist.com

Until the 587,154 sites above it are listed, this article should be deleted. --unsigned listing and comments by User:87.74.12.83

  • Excuse me, anonymous poster, but this article is NOT spam. If the reference to Google's PageRank offends you, I'll remove it now. As stated elsewhere, I think there's ample reason for inclusion, especially considering that Wikipedia already has pages devoted to such less-notable porn sites as Wifey's World and Ideepthroat. For that matter, Wikipedia is filled with entries for little-known musicians, artists, and even obscure role-playing game characters. At least fatfemnudist has been seen by many hundreds of thousands of people, and I don't think I'm required to have to make articles for the 587,154 sites you mentioned before doing this one. But give me time, and I will. wikipediatrix 02:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Note: Wikipediatrix is the article's author.
  • If the delete votes win on this one, I'll nominate the other two sites for deletion as well. Reyk 04:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons given by wikipediatrix. The idea of the site itself in no way floats my boat, but it is different, Wikipedia is not paper, and a subject's notability isn't always a criterion for deletion. --Fire Star 02:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't much care one way or another about the topic, but Wikipedia is not a web guide, and several wrongs won't make a right. If we are carrying articles about minor websites with low significance, then they should be deleted, precisely because they will be cited as precedent and will give people the wrong idea of Wikipedia's intended scope. While this site may be of an uncommon type, it is not seemingly a trailblazer nor innovator. Geogre 03:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As Geogre said, this would set a bad example. Reyk 04:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Geogre. Jasmol 04:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep. Firstly, I don't claim Wikipedia should be a web guide. Not all websites are notable. I would say this one IS a trailblazer and innovator for reasons I could expound upon if anyone really is listening. Secondly, the page is really just as much about the minor web-celebrity "fatfemnudist" herself, not just her site. This can be clarified and cleaned up if deemed necessary. Thirdly, fatfemnudist's site and her posts on amateur-porn message boards are well known to, well, those who know. If you're not a devotee of the amateur BBW pic-post world, then you may not have heard of her, but if you're not a marine biologist, then you probably haven't heard of Silicoflagellates either. I presume no one wants to delete the Silicoflagellates page, even though 99,999 people out of 100,000 neither know nor care that silicoflagellates are unicellular heterokonts whose only living genus has a golden brown chloroplast. wikipediatrix 04:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Note: Wikipediatrix is the article's author.
  • Delete per Geogre. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 04:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Andrew. It is not notable enough. The other websites mentioned should probably be deleted as well. -- Kjkolb 08:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not sufficiently noteworthy to fulfill WP:V and WP:RS. Re WP:ISNOT paper: that it is not paper is a reason to accept articles that meet our article space policies but which are not usually carried by traditional encyclopedias owing to space issues. It is not a reason to accept articles that do not meet our policies. encephalon 08:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB - Alexa shows this is not significant, and not widely linked. The Google stat is almost certainly skewed by this article. No information will be lost to the world by deleting this, as anyone even remotely interested will be able to find the site without difficulty, and the content is largely self-evident. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. I used to work with a guy that would love this site, but that doesn't make it notable enough for Wikipedia. - Dalbury (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, ad, sorry WPtrix (great user name, btw) FRS 16:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are a number of people who have gained a significant measure of notability in the field of amateur porn. There is no evidence to support the claims by the article's author that "fatfemnudist" is more notable than those people, and in fact I've just done a simple experiment. On a P2P program (which of course I just downloaded only for the purpose of this experiment of course of course) I type in "ideepthroat" and get 410 hits. I type in "Wifey's" and get 196 hits. I type in "Dawn's" (for Dawn's Place) and get 78 after subtracting five accidental hits. I type in "fatfemnudist" and get 0. Now, consider that Wifey's World, Dawn's Place, and Ideepthroat are all pay sites that don't want people sharing their stuff; fatfemnudist wants people sharing -- but no one is. It kind of dispels the claim that fatfemnudist is more notable than all of those. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Mr.Feldspar, surely you can understand that commercial sites like Wifey's are far more likely to generate hits than ffn's. What I think I haven't made clear is the fact that ffn's web-popularity is largely through her posts on adult pic-post sites and XXX message boards, almost none of which get fully crawled by search engines. I am curious to know who you mean when you say that there are notable people in the world of amateur porn. Let me know and I'll do articles on them too (By definition, professional paysites like Wifey's and Dawn's are not amateur porn in the true sense). I think the real dangerous precedent here is the "I've never heard of her, so she's not notable" mindset. Most people have never heard of MOST of what's in Wikipedia: that's why human beings need encyclopedias. I know ffn is very well-known in certain (shady) circles of the net because I've witnessed it firsthand for several years. She's no jennicam, of course, but by some people's criteria, apparently even jennicam doesn't warrant an entry here. Anyway, I won't berate the point, but I do sense an anti-porn bias here (as well as sockpuppetry). wikipediatrix 20:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Note: Wikipediatrix is the article's author.
      • The fact that you choose to classify fatfemnudist as "true" amateur porn and Wifey's World as somehow not true amateur porn is really irrelevant; we're not asking "is this person notable within their league-determined competition category" but "is this person notable?" No evidence has been submitted that shows that fatfemnudist is notable; we only have the testimony of the article's author that she is. Be careful with your accusations, by the way; accusing people of being sockpuppets just because they say things you don't like is the sort of thing that damages the accuser much more than the accused. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Wow. Did I accuse any specific person of being a sockpuppet? No. And if I did, it would be for far more tangible reasons than "just because they say things I don't like", so you need to plug up your own emitter of accusations, okay? Okay. (Also, you didn't answer my question before, asking you to be specific about your earlier comments. My question was not a rhetorical one.) Clearly certain folks are getting cranky and all up in my face now, so I suppose I will regard this article as a lost cause for the nonce. I had hoped for a higher level of discussion than this though. wikipediatrix 03:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
          • You don't want to just bandy around vague accusations of sockpuppetry. Levelling these claims, in effect, at everyone who voted delete is just as bad as accusing an specific individual. Did you mean me? Geogre perhaps? Maybe "Mr. Anonymous User"? Everyone who voted delete is the subject of your petty attack. Don't try to trivialize people or their opinions just because they don't agree with you. Reyk 01:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
            • I think your inflammatory and false-assumption-laden statement is far more uncalled-for than my brief and cryptic passing reference to sockpuppetry. If you really think I intended "everyone who voted delete" as the subject of my alleged "attack", you seriously might lack the reading comprehension skills necessary for Wikipedia. I said no such thing, nor did I even hint at it, so stop trying to put words in my mouth, Jack. And hey, I abandoned this dead horse already, why are you still flogging it? wikipediatrix 05:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Badvertising at its purest. Not notable by any standard. Karmafist 03:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable website, no third-party sources, violation of NOR, no possibility of becoming encyclopedic. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising and POV. FFN's entry isn't sufficiently encyclopedic to justify keeping it. --Frekja 11:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - if you actually looked at the web site, it is basically a personal homepage. This person called Linda wrote it, and all of the pictures are of herself. Yes, they are pornographic pictures, but that doesn't stop it from being a homepage. She doesn't have a single picture of anyone other than herself in there. Its free, yes, for a reason. Whilst there have been girls who have made pornographic homepages and then charged people for entry - and also for example famous models (and porn stars) who have had free pornographic web sites, this is not one of them. This classifies comfortably as a vanity page. Perhaps the article shouldn't have been deleted without a discussion, but it should have been deleted just the same. Unless you're is Linda or you think that Linda is hot, I don't see why you'd want this in the encyclopaedia full stop.203.122.218.47 16:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. Zunaid 07:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Spam. Carina22 15:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Spamity? Calton | Talk 05:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ads, NN. *drew 13:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fergacan

Unverifiable. OR. --Tabor 06:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A schoolyard game invented this year, with no claims to popularity beyond its original school. Durova 06:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete No attempt made to explain significance. Jasmol 07:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Kids kick a can instead of a Hacky Sack, and yet they think they're "hacking" the can. Wow. Private diversion, no references elsewhere, vanity post. Geogre 13:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons mentioned above. --Joel7687 19:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity game. *drew 14:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] F.I.L.M.

Non notable course run by non notable tutors. Vanity and promotion. Delete The JPS 12:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete An article on a local NN film club? PTSE 14:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. -Dalbury (talk)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. *drew 16:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 03:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frosty Wooldridge

WARNING: This page was written by Wooldridge himself and you must be aware he is a major figure in the anti immigration movement.

This looks like a vanity page to me, and it was signed.  Denelson83  04:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright. I'll make some adjustments to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.224.41.232 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep and cleanup. The notes about the consent of Frosty Wooldridge should go on the talk page and it needs wikifying. Nevertheless, a Google search for "Frosty Wooldridge" gets over 28000 hits see [15] and he is listed on Galenet's Contemporary Authors as an author with a number of publicised works to his credit as at 2003. Capitalistroadster 06:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but cleanup POV. Several books for sale on Amazon, notable magazines. Jasmol 07:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Yes, notable as claimed, but as-is it's a PR piece not an encyclopaedia article. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep , I NPOVd a little more, it still reads too much like a vanity piece FRS 19:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks to Just zis Guy and FRS for their work. Capitalistroadster 23:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Preaky 03:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough. *drew 14:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedied per A3 by Titoxd. Xoloz 03:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fun cat facts and other cat stuff

no content, just links. Also the topic or at least the title seems to be not suited for an encyclopedia--Austrian 00:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. ♠PMC♠ 00:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete only links placed the tag --JAranda | watz sup 01:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is just links... nothing really to merge to other Cat articles. --W.marsh 01:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

NOTE 01:40, 12 November 2005 Titoxd deleted "Fun cat facts and other cat stuff" (CSD A3) - WCFrancis 19:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George fornero

This article doesn't look like a notable bio of any real sort. Googled it and confirmed that the person is real, but I question if it's notable enough to warrant remaining on Wiki. Delete. --Martin Osterman 18:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominaton. Durova 00:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. What has he done that distinguishes him from the 3,000 or so other school superintendants out there. - Dalbury (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominaton. *drew 01:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Georgia State Route 160

Its a former state route so its a nn road Delete --JAranda | watz sup 01:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The article does not definitely establish that this is no longer a state route. Gazpacho
  • Question are decommissined state routes automatic deletes? If so fine, but otherwise I'm not sure somebody might not want info on it someday/
  • Weakest keep. This is right on the edge of what I consider encyclopedic for roads. It's not simply surveying info, but goes into the confusion over whether the road was decommissioned and why parts of it were decommissioned. Furthermore, its western end lines up exactly with US 41, suggesting that it has some historical connection to that road and the Dixie Highway. Gazpacho 03:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- It's just not notable. Reyk 04:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep We keep all state highways. For example Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Washington State Route 900. Eventually a Georgia WP will come around too. And it's not even a stub. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 06:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Just because it is no longer a state highway does not mean that it has lost the entire historic interest. The article may be useful to readers interested in the Georgia highway network. Why is it no longer a state highway? What replaced it? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per precedent and because the article itself makes a good case for inclusion. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, I don't much like separate articles on roads, but being decommisioned shouldn't change anything about the article except its content. It's not a reason to delete it. - Mgm|(talk) 14:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. People don't lose their notability because they die, and things don't lose their importance because they are decommissioned (otherwise, we would have to delete a lot of articles about ships, among other things). - 70.146.99.6 15:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC) - this is me, my login had expired. - Dalbury (talk) 15:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, notable, and encyclopedic. —Cleared as filed. 15:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability orthagonal to current status. Turnstep 17:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please... we keep all of these type of roads anyway Yuckfoo 23:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Preaky 03:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the same succint reasons listed by Just zis Guy. Jacqui ★ 01:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all current and former state highways. -- Grev -- Talk 04:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, all state highways are automatically kept.Gateman1997 03:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Provides encyclopedic and useful information. *drew 13:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gitch

neologism/original research 70.122.87.59 05:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. 70.122.87.59 05:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:ISNOT a dictionary—even of established words. encephalon 08:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 14:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. If editor wants it usefied, let me know. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Lehey

  • Delete Vanity 65.34.232.136 01:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity - Femmina 01:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Definitely reads like vanity: minor assertion of notability in books written, but that is not the focus of the article. Groogle might like to userfy, but failing that, delete. AndyJones 20:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity --Rogerd 03:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete -- Vanity g0sp-hell 03:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity --Timecop 03:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy or delete. --24.68.132.132 03:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. *drew 17:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grimmer

canceled, NN comic that is currently hosted on myspace. Seems like we could live without it. Broken S 05:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; not notable per WP:WEB#Webcomics. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Chief claim to notability seems to be it being run in a student newspaper. Appears to have lasted under a year, and will almost certainly not be a memorable one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: A very minor, ephemeral web comic. Geogre 13:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. *drew 14:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haidl

NN-bio. Being a felon is not notable in and of itself. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 07:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. — JIP | Talk 11:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I wish such crimes were unique. As it is, this particular crime is not discussed outside of the local area, nor has it had a wider judicial or legislative effect, so no merge and no article. Geogre 14:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. mdd4696 15:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. *drew 15:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Handsomegaz

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as of now, doesn't seem notable based on WP:MUSIC Bobet 14:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC based on description in article. - Dalbury (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:Music. Xoloz 04:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. *drew 17:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hatboro-Horsham High School

So it says where it is. Big deal. 68.148.196.162 02:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep One of the first schools in the USA to implement a paperless curriculum? Dlyons493 Talk 14:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain because merging it into the school district is against the religion of some folks :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand if the claim of notability Dlyons493 has made is accurate; otherwise merge with the school district article. Honestly, why the inclusionists don't just go and set up a Schoolspedia for non-notable schools, I can't understand. It was such a nice solution for webcomic-cruft and Starwars-cruft, so why is schoolcruft special? — Haeleth Talk 14:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all schools. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We're not proposing to delete the school. Just this one sentence substub. If the claim Dlyons493 made is correct it warrants either serious expansion before the end of AFD or a article request. Not a one line sentence link platform. A sentence is not an article. - Mgm|(talk) 15:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, one sentence is plenty to define the topic. Thanks Dlyons493 for adding the factoids. Also per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 18:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP is not paper: may be a short article, but fails to qualify for deletion (or merge). Turnstep 18:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all valid High Schools. — RJH 19:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Nominating high schools is pointless and disruptive. CalJW 21:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep For my reasons, see here. Xoloz 03:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • CommentPlease visit Wikipedia talk:Schools and help come to a consensus on school articles. Denni☯ 21:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 07:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge depending if it gets expanded a bit more. I have created a potential merge location at Hatboro-Horsham School District, but, as Denni mentioned, please visit Wikipedia talk:Schools and help come to a consensus on school articles with regard to merging criteria. David D. (Talk) 20:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no independent sources --redstucco 09:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Get real. —RaD Man (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with district article for later expansion per developed consensus at Wikipedia talk:Schools.Gateman1997 20:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, per Gateman1997. Note: Merge means that a redirect from the school name to the district article will continue to exist. When the section in the district article grows long enough, it can be copied back out into the redirect. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, the Hatboro-Horsham School District page has more info on the school than the article does. All that's needed is to turn the article into a redirect. Take a look. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Humanauts

Nowhere close on meeting WP:MUSIC. 45 google hits. Punkmorten 14:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. mdd4696 15:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not on AMG, no releases... not notable. --W.marsh 19:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. *drew 18:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I, fanblades

Fails to meet WP:NMG. Delete. -- The Anome 21:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • So this band doesn't deserve an article because the people here haven't heard of it before? Meanwhile, they are pioneering sounds and methods that few others have tried before, let alone dove into with such passion. I motion to reconsider. Chaosinterface 22:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Note: Chaosinterface is the article's author.
  • Strong Delete because whenever a sockpuppet likes it, it must be bad. Karmafist 22:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "people here haven't heard of it before?". exactly.non-notable. Niz 22:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above, nice of Chaosinterface to argue for the delete ;-) dr.alf 00:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. When Rolling Stone says you're "pioneering sounds and methods that few others have tried before," you'll have my vote. Durova 00:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Their web site provides no evidence that they meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. --Metropolitan90 01:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:Music. HGB 12:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So exactly how many of us are from the town in which this is occurring? Also, rather than going to a capitalist-infested establishment (ie: Rolling Stone) for advice on whether something is different or new, why not sample the goods? There is material linked right in the article. Chaosinterface 22:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It doesn't matter whether we personally like their music or not, or whether their music is different and new or old and the same. We have specific guidelines for whether a musical artist should have an article about them in Wikipedia. See WP:MUSIC (the same article cited by The Anome and HGB). --Metropolitan90 00:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Believe me, I understand that, I had looked over it, and I'm certainly not trying to imply that anyone specific has to like it or dislike it. But the final sumation of the criteria that I'm seeing seems to be that what matters is whether or not the artist is notable. The fact of the matter is, this will change things. This will become known. If the issue arising is simply that it isn't known yet, or it's not felt to be verifiable, I understand. It can wait. Chaosinterface 15:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • That's exactly the point, yes. Wikipedia has to make a point of reflecting that which is already notable because otherwise we'd be deluged (hell, we still are) with the submissions of people trying to use Wikipedia to become notable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:Music. *drew 02:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Gibson - The Leading Light In Intelligent Electronic Music

Vanity page created by Iangibson365. 31 Ghits for quanta+"Ian Gibson" almost all for other people. Dlyons493 Talk 21:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as vanity/nn bio. - Bobet 21:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 22:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Dalbury (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Question - who released In The Beginning and Say Goodbye? I.e. major label, pressed in someone's garage, or something in between. Firewall currently preventing me from finding out myself, sorry. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internet accuracy project

Not yet notable web project, although sounds like a good idea. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, though I hope it becomes notable enough to recreate. Maybe it could be added as an external link on some other page? Indium 01:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a good idea which has not yet made its mark. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I suspect that this is just the founder's notes put on the Web. The second paragraph of the article is lifted whole from the FAQ [16]. - Dalbury (talk) 15:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as an ad, basically, two-thirds of article was directly copied from site's FAQ page FRS 16:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. HGB 11:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep looks like a good article. Not really vanity or anything, and should be notable enough long term to warrant keeping. 203.122.218.47 16:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Then we add the article when the project becomes notable. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect or mege. Maybe this reasoning is totally screwy/lame—but I might well never have learned of this intriguing website if there hadn't been a Wikipedia article on it and it hadn't been recommendation. Then again, this little bit of info could be put into an article on organization or policing or control of the Internet. President Lethe 21:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet to be notable. Good project though. *drew 12:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning to merge. As long as it's not delete. =P - Mailer Diablo 00:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and Slavery

this is either the wrong title or belongs in Islam--Herzog 07:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to Islam Religion and slavery. Thelb4 07:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I wrote the article and I don't care if it's merged with Islam, but lookat it, It amlost doesn't need the Stub tag anymore with the verses and all.--The Brain 09:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comments only, no vote: Is it necessary to delete this or merge this? I think the article has sufficient potential to mature over a period of time. --Bhadani 14:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Religion and slavery, which already has a section called "Slavery in the Qur'an and hadith" that could usefully be expanded with this material. — Haeleth Talk 15:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
A nice idea indeed. --Bhadani 15:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Haeleth. — RJH 18:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge the Islamic material from Religion and slavery to here. Religion and Slavery is very incomplete and has the potential to grom much further - the major religions should be split off into their own articles. --Doc ask? 01:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Religion and slavery per Haeleth --Rogerd 03:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Religion and slavery BrandonYusufToropov 11:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Religion and slavery--Irishpunktom\talk 13:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep valid topic, too big to merge.  Grue  19:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Religion and slavery. It belongs there. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and NPoV. It's a valid and interesting topic. -- Karl Meier 07:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep valid topic. Arniep 19:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Haeleth. Radiant_>|< 12:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Religion and slavery per Haeleth Yuber(talk) 04:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a lot to be said on this topic, though there are some who would consider this blasphemy.--CltFn 11:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Alison Biljac

NN-bio. WP:ISNOT a memorial service. Mentor of Daniel Thomas Pryor, also up for deletion. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. mdd4696 01:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete also NN: no Google hits at all under that spelling. Turnstep 02:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Memorial. Geogre 03:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO. Interesting, but trivial. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 01:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Carina22 15:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 12:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Rickards High School

Non-notable high school. JW1805 17:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - Please come and comment in ongoing discussion at WP:SCH. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Happily, these days users can rely on wikipedia not to destroy information on verifiable high schools. Kappa 17:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not only non-notable, but below average academics. Durova 18:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes I can see that we should only cover the best schools, because wikipedia is an encyclopedia by and for the elite. Kappa 18:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Frustration of continual school debates is getting to people - it's not like Kappa to be sarcastic. But I don't think he's being serious here either :-) Dlyons493 Talk 19:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I am totally serious. If wikipedia only takes "above average schools" then people who attend(ed) "below average schools" will have no reason to feel the project is for them. Kappa 20:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Just like people who are/were in bands that haven't made it, blog authors that CNN haven't noticed and politicians who haven't been elected are all boycotting this project in droves. Oh, and token delete - the article may not be deleted, but damned if I'm letting inclusionists claim 'consensus'. --Last Malthusian 09:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Those people are exclude because no-one wants to look them up. If you start excluding things that people do want to look up because they aren't good enough for wikipedia, you will alienate anyone who tried. I find the idea of an elitist wikipedia really repulsive myself, not something I'd really enjoy spending my time with. Kappa 10:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
              • What logic leads you to the conclusion that someone will want to look up their local school on Wikipedia, but never a local band? --Last Malthusian 16:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • A school can be noteworthy for many reasons besides academics. It could be architecturally significant. It could win sports championships. It could run a significant charity drive. It could earn a place in Guinness World Records. What I am saying, as with any other local institution of similar size is that it needs to set itself apart from the crowd in some way. Failing to provide adequate basic education only makes it more insignificant. Don't you think it would serve the purposes of education better if a school could aspire to Wikipedia inclusion? Durova 22:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Failing to provide adequate basic education makes a school much more signficant if most schools do provide it. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be rewards or incentives for the subject, they are supposed to be a resource for people who want to understand the world better. I don't know if excluding schools for low performance would serve the purpose of education better, but it would certainly motivate a lot of vandalism. Kappa 01:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
        • By what logic is any obscure institution, academic or otherwise, rendered noteworthy by failure at its primary mission? Spectacular failure may invite derision. Do you suppose this qualifies? Durova 04:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
          • You yourself said "it needs to set itself apart from the crowd in some way". I didn't realize you meant in good way, as if wikipedia is some kind of beauty contest. Kappa 14:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Earning a D score from the Florida Dept. of Education isn't particularly unusual, for what it's worth. As far as I'm concerned, it's not a claim to notability, but that's only if you're worried about individual notability. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Well one reason I strongly oppose trying to apply notability to schools is that people consider "less than average academics" as making a school less notable, guaranteeing a systemic bias I would find it hard to live with. Kappa 14:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
                • A good point. In the (unfortunately unlikely) case that a WP:SCH proposal that required notability was ratified, it would need to have clear criteria. While I disagree that all schools should be included, a school guideline would need to be consistent, with any inconsistencies erring on the side of inclusion. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • Other positive factors may discount academics. A school in a depressed neighborhood whose faculty and students build houses for Habitat for Humanity could be notable. The oldest schoolhouse in New England would be notable for historic reasons, regardless of academics. A school for homeless children in Ghana could be notable for its humanitarian mission. However it is special pleading to protest that quality performance should not be one basis for evaluation. Wikipedia does not feature every film of 1942. We feature Casablanca.
                    • Hmm by that logic wikipedia shouldn't feature every Simpsons episode. Kappa 23:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - does not meet any deletion criteria. Turnstep 18:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all valid High Schools. — RJH 18:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • So every one of the 10's of thousands of virtually identical high schools in the US should have its own Wikipedia article? Dear God! --JW1805 21:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes. Wikipedia is not paper. High school is a notable period in many people's lives, and each typically affects many thousands of people. If we can have individual articles on television show episodes then I see no reason not to document High Schools. Anyway this argument has been rehashed many times and I see no reason to change my vote. Sorry. — RJH
      • It is a near certainty that that is going to happen with in few years, so you will have to try to live with it. CalJW 21:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Would having those articles be a bad thing? I like the idea of there being a lot of useful information in Wikipedia. Factitious 00:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Not only nationwide: this is the world wide web. I suppose there are hundreds of thousands of primary and secondary schools. Imagine the number in China alone. Many schools have identical names. You may have the pleasure of disambiguating them. Durova 18:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I have set up disambiguation for school articles before, in fact. It's not very difficult. If you're aware of some other schools called "James Rickards High School," let me know, and I will do the same here. Factitious 01:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - if anything it's more notable for allegedly doing "poorly" - as it's fuel to the controversy that's raging now over standardized tests and the No School Board Left Standing Act. FCYTravis 20:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • All FL schools get a rating, and a lot of them got D's (or even F's). That doesn't make this one notable. --JW1805 21:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Nominating high schools is pointless and disruptive. CalJW 21:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete another NN school Pete.Hurd 22:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Another NNN school. --Centauri 00:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator did not suggest any downside to keeping this article. Keeping it has the advantage that we retain accurate and verifiable information. Factitious 00:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for my reasons, see here. Xoloz 04:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Bicycle. Get serious.--Nicodemus75 08:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. --Vsion 10:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Please visit Wikipedia talk:Schools and help strike a consensus on school articles. Denni☯ 23:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as part of the fight [personal attack removed]. The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of an article. Kurt Weber 23:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Please be aware that there exists a tightly structured definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism.
    • You have been warned that comments which label everyone with whom you disagree as vandals are beyond uncivil and are attacks.
    • If you persist in this line of attack it is probable that a request for comment will be filed.
      brenneman(t)(c) 00:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and a Comment: The name of this school is James S. Rickards High School and should be moved accordingly at the end of this AFD. Mike H (Talking is hot) 03:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and please be aware that I have moved this for you Mike Halterman. Yamaguchi先生 07:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn school. I wish we could follow fr.wp where the threshold for inclusion actually counts for seomthing. Dottore So 15:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per developing consensus at WP:SCH. We keep all verifiable highschools now.Gateman1997 18:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please we keep all high schools that can be verified now Yuckfoo 00:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, As a student who attends this high school, I dont think its nonimportant. However, some may see it that way. But is there any need to get rid of it? Below average academics? Yearly we attend and get top 5 in Mu Alpha Theta entirely due to our IB Program. Get your story straight. We may have poor overall academics, but we have some of the best students in the nation roaming through our halls year after year.
    • That's interesting, is there convenient way we can verify it so we can put it in the article? Kappa 01:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Although the results for the 2005 Convention haven't been posted, the results for the Florida convention are up, as you'll see, our students are consistently near the top or are at the top. www.musnews.tk
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 00:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no independent sources --redstucco 09:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • LOL, and your point would be—? Are you implying that www.rickards.leon.k12.fl.us is not a reliable source of information? Have you any idea how many articles there are on Wikipedia with *ZERO* sources cited? —RaD Man (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, and that's a big problem in an encyclopedia that does not rest on the authority of its contributors. However, even though it is true that many articles are not in accord with Wikipedia's policy on citing sources nobody has suggested that that is inappropriate policy. And, although people in these school debates keep asserting that verifiability should be the only criterion for inclusion, What Wikipedia is Not would seem to say otherwise. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • www.musnews.tk is governed by FAMAT (Florida Association of Mu Alpha Theta) and is part of the National Mu Alpha Theta organization. I think thats pretty credible.
  • Keep. www.rickards.leon.k12.fl.us works for me. —RaD Man (talk) 09:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Nardo

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, hoax. Punkmorten 14:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If anything, a vanity page. mdd4696 15:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not vanity but a hoax. A nice try, but there's no such thing as an "MVP award" in association football. — Haeleth Talk 15:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Turnstep 17:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax (and not even a very well-researched one - e.g. "Liverpool United") Qwghlm 16:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity.--Dakota t e 16:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity --Rogerd 03:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. *drew 18:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Isaac

Delete, doesn't seem to be a notable blogger. Google for "A word to the rest of us" gives 143 hits (53 displayed), and none for the same + his name. --Idont Havaname 05:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; hardly "world-renowned". —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing in this article to distinguish this blogger from any other bloggers. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. *drew 14:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katharyn Powers

NN-bio. Being a writer on a TV series is not notable in and of itself. If she's won an Emmy, maybe, but the article makes no such claim. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 07:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: The issue, for me, is whether a person is just doing her job. The usual person doing his or her job is unremarkable, and that's why Random J. Professor is out, even though he has published a book, and Jane Executive is out, despite controlling many employees' fates. "Celebrities" are slightly different, but writers of TV shows are not in that category, and there is no indication that this screenwriter is doing more than her job. Geogre 14:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • But we have Random J. Journalist who is just doing his job writing for Slate magazine. Kappa 17:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unless there is a policy preventing this, IMO being a writer for a notable TV series, and getting to a fairly high position in a long-running series, is notable. Needs some serious clean-up, though. I'd also check to make sure that first name is actually spelled properly. 23skidoo 15:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the imdb has an entry [17] which may be useful for this discussion. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, creative writer whose work has an audience of many millions. More notable than Cyrus Farivar. Kappa 17:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A story editor is a low ranking position in the world of television writers. Anyone mid-level or above would have producer in the title. Might be arguable on the basis of viewership, but since no episode titles are claimed this is really unverifiable. The piece is cagey about the credits. Burden of proof not met. Durova 18:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Having worked in the industry, this just smells fishy. Any television writer normally gets a producer credit after 4 or 5 years. After 10 or 12 years they become executive producers and show creators. This writer claims 20 years experience and never got past story editor? Can't list a single episode credit? There are many many people in entertainment who pad their resumes. We don't take unverifiable musician or actor bios on faith. Writers are not a special exception. Durova 22:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Response. Why do you consider the information at the imdb link posted above by Paolo Liberatore "unverifiable?" Monicasdude 02:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Keep. Doubts resolved, thank you. Lengthy television credits and three films. To answer other objections, a credited feature film writer is called above the line and therefore significant. A television writer holds an even higher position in status and creative input. Tens of millions of people have seen this writer's work. Durova 04:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. "Being a writer on a TV series is not notable in and of itself" ? Of course it is. And even there's an argument about the threshold for credits, being a writer for US network TV series for more than 20 years certainly is notable. Monicasdude 19:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I just don't see how this person's work on the series is important enough to warrant an article. Just because someone works on a big project or projects for a long time, doesn't mean that makes them important. Look at the credits of any move or TV series. See how long it is. I'd wager half the people on it have been in the industry for a long time and had their work viewed by many people. But we don't have articles on all of them because they are, ultimately, just people doing their job. This article does not assert that Katharyn Powers is any different. Reyk 21:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Wikipedia should always err on the side of keeping information rather than removing it. Bytes are infinite. Wikipedia should be inclusive, not a snobbish listing of members approved by the in crowd Jsnell 02:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed not. We should err on the side of verified information, as we are attempting to make an encyclopedia, which is a reference work. Wikipedia differs markedly from Everything2 in that it requires that its articles be on subjects appropriate for an encyclopedia and that the articles be verifiable and non-promotional, as well as in NPOV. We have a burden of proof that must be met, and we should not include anything that is doubtful. Geogre 03:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      • "When in doubt, don't delete". Kappa 15:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Which gets an encyclopedia full of uncertainties, and yet more criticism that we are not a reliable source. While I have other criteria as well, verifiability is first and foremost. Can't verify? Delete! Denni☯ 23:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't think verifiability is the question here. Kappa 23:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Citing Cyrus Farivar and other entries that have managed to slither under the notability threshold is hardly relevant: one wrong does not justify another. Dottore So 15:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Cyrus didn't "slither under" anything, AFD would officially be broken if it deleted his article. [18] Kappa 16:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes he did. 2/3rds to delete yet his nugatory promo vanity article is kept. When a 1/3 favorable vote ends up in retention, slither seems le mot juste. I don't see how [19] is germane; JW is not God and ignoring consensus in a consensus-driven community is wrong. Dottore So 17:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Her work is sufficiently prominent that I feel she merits an entry. If it makes anyone feel better about keeping her, some of her TV scripts have been reprinted and sold in paper copies #. -Colin Kimbrell 17:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Karmafist 01:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kimi Finster

This article is pretty much ruined due to the fact that it's pretty much biased.

I've noticed that the contributors aren't being objective about Kimi Finster, they are just showing their point of view about the character without letting other people to contribute on the article.

The Page is full of paragraphs speculating about uncertain future events which is forbidden here, they have included little irrelevant details that just help to make the article look bigger but not adding something important to it, they have enlisted skills about the character that are barely shown and instead of explaining them they just quote scenes where Kimi appears.

And they do not let other contributors to add stuff to the article which is very unfair becaue Wikipedia does not belong to them and their biased opinions shouldn't be part of the article either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamao (talk • contribs) 19:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC).

  • Keep, deleting shouldn't be used to conclude edit wars. Bobet 14:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bobet. —Cleared as filed. 15:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Bobet. There are procedures for resolving disputes, such as mediation and RfC's. AfD is not one of these procedures. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 15:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The article should be deleted, is not just an editing war, the article is messed up without any important information, instead just scenes where the character was at and pictures which people are using more as a fansite devoted to the character instead of an information page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tamao (talk • contribs) 17:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC).
    • comment as part of the wikipedia policy: Neutral point of view , the article is completly biased and it does look like the contributors want to make a fansite using wikipedia which is forbidden too.Tamao 18:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment ∾ Multiple votes on a page you've nominated is bad juju. If you have things to add, you can add comments. Adding multiple votes doesn't serve your purpose at all, and smacks of petulance and an attempt to game the AfD procedures. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 17:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment ∾ Also, you can sign your votes and comments by typing ~~~~ at the end. The Wikipedia software will automatically turn that into a signature displaying your username and so on. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 17:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Certainly it should be possible to write a neutral article about Kimi Finster, who after all is just a fictional character. The editing dispute should be resolved in some other way besides deletion of the whole article per Bobet and Extreme Unction. Also, each person gets a maximum of one vote in an Articles for Deletion discussion; if a voter has more to say after voting, they should phrase it as a comment rather than a separate vote. Keeping this article does not mean we endorse everything written in it, just that the article is worthy of staying in Wikipedia even if editing is needed. --Metropolitan90 17:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • comment If this page is still worthy for wikipedia, it needs a lot of cleaning, it's not only the biased comments around the character, it also is speculating ,the contributors should Check the facs because a good amount of the information is about uncertain future events, and other information like coupling that doesn't happen in the show alas is irrelevant information. Tamao 18:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I used the clean up page, so I hope this page can be finally fixed and get rid of the biased and unecessary stuff, Thanks for your help.Tamao 05:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Listen, I'm one of the contributors and to say we do NOT allow other contributors to add there stuff is false. Check the history of most of that which was removed. Most of it were additions that were extremely negative towards Kimi (one of which stated she was bi-polar) other additions are usually left alone. We had been trying a best to be unbiased, we never knew we were. We will make the neccessary changes asap. However, the discussions about future episodes has happened on the other AGU characters articles, like about TP+KF. Staredcraft 11:04, 13 Novermber 2005 (UTC)
  • comment the page is biased because it has information that doesn't support the points you have about Kimi, plus you constantly use the same information to make it look bigger, and about the uncertain future events I mean episodes not confirmed yet, and the coupling shouldn't be included because it isn't part of the show, it's stuff from the fans so is irrelevant to the character.Tamao 16:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment I already did, I posted my complains about the article there, so I think this is no needed anymore unless someone has something to say about deleting the article. Tamao 16:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong merge, after cleaning up with a tactical nuclear strike (It's the only way to be sure.) Wow, this article has loads and loads and loads of nonsense and trivia, but after judicious pruning, it would make a great listing on a list of characters in Rugrats/AGU. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: You people have the opportunity to contribute to the first truly free base of human knowledge in history, and you fill it with character profiles for obscure, poorly-written-and-drawn cartoons that no one will care about in 10 years? Get some priorities. — Phil Welch 18:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I certainly remember Kirk. I dont quite get the idea. Fiction is welcome on wikipedia, no one cares about Verdandi, a fictional character. I find that to be a poor argument. --Cool Cat Talk 20:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Straw man. I said "obscure, poorly-written-and-drawn cartoons that no one will care about in 10 years," not "all works of fiction and mythology". — Phil Welch 22:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep... How I hate Vfds, let me count the ways (votes)... --Cool Cat Talk 20:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough. It needs copyeditting though. *drew 18:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kulachi

previously deleted, but different this time. Still, nn vanity page, I think. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete; some sort of weird vanity page, but it's hard to tell, it's so badly mangled. —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Dada. Or maybe Delete. Jasmol 07:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: "The purpose of this site is to introduce you to...?" WP is not a free web host. Geogre 13:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Make some allowances for the writer not having English as a first language (I know many talented Indian developers whose English is no better than this). But I can't find much evidence that the article documents anything notable, so I suggest the redirect below. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - nothing encyclopedic in the present contents. --Bhadani 14:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Kulachi Hansraj Model School Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Al Haj Sardar Inayatullah Khan Gandapur, who is apparantly the same as the Al Haaj Sardar Inaitullah Khan Gandapur in the article, is a member of the Provincial Assembly of the North West Frontier Provinces in Pakistan[20]. He was elected in 2002[21]. That would seem to entitle him to an article. I think there is encyclopedic information connected to this article, but the author is having problems expressing himself in English. I think we need to help this editor fix this article, rather than deleting it.. - Dalbury (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Never mind, I withdraw my keep vote. The page was created in August from an IP address that has no other edits, so I don't see how I can contact the author. - Dalbury (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I thought there might be some salvagable material here, but most of it is already in Gandapur. Once that is removed from this article, all that is left is vanity material. -- llywrch 20:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverified, pov. *drew 14:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was boldly redirected to Sgt. Frog. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kururu

Delete. This is a single character in one anime series who is covered in the main article on the series. Merge whatever is worth saving with Sgt. Frog. ♠DanMS 18:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete minus anonymous votes. - Mailer Diablo 10:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LANmaniac

Wikipedia is not an announcement board for LAN parties - unenclopedic. Delete. --DrTorstenHenning 13:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. NN. mdd4696 15:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 16:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Turnstep 16:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Note page was blanked by 66.214.237.50 (talk • contribs); reverting -- Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The article I wrote does not announce dates or times of LAN events, but scratches on the surface of what LM is. With enough time and contributions, my goal is to make the article's format close to that of the Quakecon article. Please give it a few more days for the other attendees to kick in their own edits and work on the history section. Save.--24.55.215.136 05:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

> Informative, educational topic about a growing culture. Surprising, that an ONLINE encyclopedia would move so quick to censor the acurate and truth about an established history making LAN party such as LANmaniac. It is real, it deserves to be recognized, so that people who have never been to a regularly scheduled LANmaniac-sytled event may embrace the information found here at Wikipedia. Save.--68.233.242.29 07:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Save: The LANmaniac wiki is a work in progress. Please bear with us for the next few days as our members make their contributions. Thanks!--67.101.165.248 08:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

>This is just an informative article describing what LANmaniacs is all about. Its like the Quakecon but in more detail. There is no reason to delete something which is informing others who may beinterested in this subject. Give time to revise and edit this article
      • Repeated pleas from anonymous IP addresses are not persuasive. Regular deletion takes five days. You do have time to address this. Read the article creation guidelines and adjust accordingly. You may have difficulty demonstrating noteworthiness. LASFS [22] is an example of a noteworthy club. Durova 17:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
        • While I'd love to clean up the article even further, (It's changed quite a bit since the initial post), I was unable to find the "article creation guidelines", finding only the extremely broad "Wikipedia style guidelines" which seems like a wild goose chase to determine what would sway those voting for deletion. If you could please reread the article and tell me more specifically what needs to change, I'd be happy to revise it again. As to the LASFS, I'm not really sure how that's related since it's written in the first person and not even on Wikipedia. --24.55.215.136 23:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. *drew 18:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page was speedily deleted by Geogre, with the summary "Duplicate material, per VfD". encephalon 01:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Letter to his Father after King Frederick denies pardon.

I think this belongs to wikibooks or some more appropiate sister project. However, abstain-- -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. The text of the letter should be transwikied, with appropriate references, to Wikisource. This page should be deleted without prejudice to addition of the ideas to appropriate articles, in cotext. encephalon 07:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I moved a duplicate (by the same author) of this text from Hans Hermann Von Katte's Letter to Talk:Hans Hermann von Katte. That way the content will be kept, and can be used in a future revision of Katte's biography. If someone wants to copy it somewhere else as well, that's easily done. No reason to keep this duplicate of the same text. Speedy delete. u p p l a n d 08:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Since this has been placed elsewhere, speedy deleted as duplicate material. Geogre 13:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. - Mailer Diablo 10:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linux/login, Linux/files, Linux/man, Linux/environment, Linux/alias, and Linux/IO

Unencyclopedic, and partially a copyvio from http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-tutorial/ch-basics.html. — A.M. 01:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • See also Linux/shell, Linux/processes, Linux/PATH, Linux/type, Linux/top, and Linux/finger. Before anyone makes the obvious comment, please note that Wikibooks has not one but four wikibooks on this subject, all of which are better than this: Guide to UNIX, Linux commands, Linux For Newbies and Linux Guide. Uncle G 02:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, per above: inappropriate for Wikipedia, and already covered on the appropriate wiki. — Haeleth Talk 13:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not a howto. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a howto, partially copyvio and on discouraged subpages, mostly orphans. I do think that linking to the specific Wikibooks in the external links section of Linux may be useful though... - Mgm|(talk) 14:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: setting aside all of the other arguments for deletion, I find it hard to imagine any text taken from the Debian project itself could be a copyvio -- which is strictly limited to only GPL & GFDL materials. Unless the submitter has made a mistake, & these are taken from a book on the Debian distribution, then the copyvio chrage should be dropped immediately; otherwise, provide the non-GPL/GFDL source & these materials will be a CSD on that one argument. -- llywrch 20:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The Debian tutorial is GPL-licensed, whereas Wikipedia is GFDL-licensed, and the GFDL is not GPL-compatible. — A.M. 02:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Your link is informative, but irrelevant. How is reuse of this material a copyright violation? The whole intent of any GPL or GFDL is to permit reuse by the user as long as that freedom is shared in turn; worrying about the "incompatibility" of these two licenses is splitting hairs, & hardly comparible to a copyright violation akin, say, to distributing copies of Brittany Spears' latest songs. I am pushing this point because several people have agreed to the accuracy that this is a copyright violation without discussing it, or even acknowledging the irony of the claim. And their uncritical agreement over this one claim brings into question both their understanding & depth of critical reflction of the other claims made above. -- llywrch 22:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
        • It is copyright violation because the GFDL contains restrictions which are not present in the GPL (for example, the restriction on "technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute"), and the GPL explicitly forbids distributing GPLed works under more restrictive terms (see clause 6). You may consider this "splitting hairs", but the Debian project does not; according to them, the GFDL does not comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and they intend to remove all GFDL materials from Debian (or move them to the "non-free" section) by the time that Etch is released. — A.M. 23:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 13:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of advertisement agencies

Non-encyclopedic list, impossible to maintain; and right now it's also advertising for the one company on the list. - squibix 15:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. - squibix 15:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Advert. mdd4696 15:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom + spam. Too bad it does not meed any criteria for speed. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination, and redirect to Advertising agency which has a better list of major ad agencies. --Metropolitan90 17:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam, and a spam magnet. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I cleaned up the article and got rid of the spam. Well, the list could be encyclopedic if it listed the major ones such as Saatchi and Saatchi, Omnicom Group, and TBWA\Chiat\Day. However, the list is clearly created by a person related to the company so it makes automatically an ad and the advertising agency article has already listed the "major" ones and the category "Advertising agency" is doing it is job as a "list." If you think "impossible to maintain" then we should delete List of computer and video game companies, Lists of companies, etc., :-P --J. Nguyen 23:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now and extract the list from advertising agency, or failing that merge into advertising agency. Kappa 01:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Edwardian 06:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 18:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 03:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of articles about Progressive/United Farmer MPs

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and move to List of Progressive or United Farmer MPs. Anville 16:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and move as above. Kappa 17:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Moved as suggested, list now complete. Homey 18:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as moved. Youngamerican 04:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as moved. Jacqui ★ 01:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as moved. "Or" isn't quite right for the intended meaning, although I'm not sure I could really explain why. Bearcat 06:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Part of a series of lists of Canadian MPs by party. How about List of United Farmers and Progressive MPs for a move? Luigizanasi 06:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Austrian Jews (alphabetical order)

Strong Delete a) a list like this one already exists List of Austrian Jews b) that list is certainly more correct than this one where as much as 50% aren't even Austrians or Jews

Delete. The list doesn't seem to be done very carefully (the entry for Friedrich Adler links to a dab with four links, two for Germans, one for a Czech-Austrian and one for an Austrian). - Dalbury (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Durova 17:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to may page. (move by me) --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 02:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete one already exists 72.144.183.73 22:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Duplicate list. *drew 18:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of music videos by year

Another useless, unmaintainable list. Everything said at the AFD for List of music videos by name goes for this one too. Had I known it existed, I would have included this with the previous (unanimous) nom. Too late now. -R. fiend 19:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. - Dalbury (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination and all reasons cited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music videos by name. --Metropolitan90 01:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and metropolitan90. JFW | T@lk 02:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination, agree with Metropolitan90. --RobbyPrather (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Yes, much the same really, but this time with a massive MTV logo to boot. I assume this vote applies to all the subpages too. Flowerparty■ 04:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • To clarify, yes, it does. -R. fiend 15:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Edwardian 05:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Gaius Cornelius 09:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Archive, as it is nice to know what singles are being released in what year. --G VOLTT 16:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem with that is it has to do with songs, or singles, and not videos. I'm pretty sure the "X year in music" articles cover such information better than this does. -R. fiend 16:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unfortunately. I voted this way for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of music videos by name, too. I think this list could have been useful if it described articles in which there was actually information about the music videos, but it didn't. And I could be idealistic and say that information about the music videos should be added to the appropriate articles, but it won't. (I am an eventualist, but not that much so.) I think making a category for song articles that describe the music video made for the song could be useful, though. Jacqui ★ 00:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. *drew 01:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Losting

This is blatant advertising/viral marketing. -- Frekja 18:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all adverts with extreme prejudice—and as speedily as can be justified. — Haeleth Talk 15:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. mdd4696 15:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Should be speedied, but WP:CSD does not allow to do so. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Edwardian 07:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert --Rogerd 03:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ads. *drew 18:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maballz

Delete Hoax? NN? At least it's just unverifiable. Broken S 03:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Unverifiable, probably original research -GTBacchus(talk) 04:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's the "asshole" game, the "shit" game, the "penis" game, the.... A private diversion by a couple of dudes, and now they've said "my balls" on Wikipedia <sound of three guys laughing>. Unverifiable, unknown, unremarkable, unencyclopedic. Geogre 13:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete student "hilarity". How bored would you have to be before bothering to document this nonsense? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This should not be deleted. Wikipedia is here for users to make it the most comprehensive resource on the web for a wide range of information- including information about a game that some may deem silly. (Unsigned vote by 66.65.17.128, author of article -GTBacchus(talk) 00:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete junk --Rogerd 02:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity game. *drew 14:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manascrewed

Non-notable neologism; delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

yep delete per nom -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree. encephalon 08:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Private slang. A couple of dudes have come up with a slang term. That's not very unusual. Geogre 13:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete though it's far from private slang. The term is probably one of the most well-known words to arise from Magic: The Gathering and has moved into common use for most trading card games in one contect or another. Still, dicdef's for neologisms don't belong on Wikipedia, at least not in a seperate article like this. Nezu Chiza 16:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't private slang; it's a common, if somewhat obvious, term among M:tG players. That said, WP is not a dictionary, and there's no way this could be anything but a dictdef. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Carina22 15:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 14:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manga_Volumes/Chapters_Guide

This is actually supposed to be an Initial D chapter guide. While normally I would say move, at the same time, there should not be a redirect from this location, so I am also having it on VFD. This is to delete the article from this location. - WhisperToMe 04:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete it all. Wikipedia is not advertizing, and the plot summeries (if you want to call them that) seem like what would appear on the outside of a DVD case. Gentgeen 04:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per nom. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 04:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, mangacruft with no encyclopedic value. — JIP | Talk 11:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, or merge into Initial D Episode Guide; I realise the manga and the anime have subtle differences, but that doesn't mean we need two complete plot summaries of the series with this level of detail. (Or even necessarily one, but that's a different debate.) — Haeleth Talk 13:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as comprehensively unencyclopaedic. I don;t see it adds anything to the body of knowledge on this already substantially over-represented subject. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; I do not see how this series is different from the The Simpsons, for which we seem to aim at having 1 article for every one single episode. I support a Move to Initial D Manga Volumes and Chapters Guide with Leave no Redirect. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • A quick check of the viewing figures provides a clue :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Uhm, well, there is a difference after all ;-) It's just that it does not motivate the deletion of this article enough. I mean, this still appears to be a popular series, even if not as much popular as The Simpson.
    BTW, nice new signature, Guy!
    Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Initial D Manga Volumes and Chapters Guide is a bit wordy, but if this indeed deserves to be kept it needs to be moved in accordance with naming conventions. And while we'd be at it Initial D Episode Guide would need to be merged with the same thing as episode guides are only for television related articles. - Mgm|(talk) 14:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As per nom , and as per nom only. VFD is sort of the wrong place to ask questions like this, since all you get is delete delete delete. As long as the data is kept someplace, find an admin and go for it. If you have consensus from everyone working at this page, this should qualify as a Speedy Delete. Don't believe any "CSD criteria" stories you may have heard. Consensus has priority. Kim Bruning 05:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mangacruft. *drew 12:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by Geogre. Xoloz 04:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marcu Nelare

Non-notable, could possible be a prank because google search for: Marcu Nelare (with no quote marks either) yielded no results - Akamad 11:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete, non-notable, per nom. --Locke Cole 11:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, saying someone is "famous" is not enough. Gazpacho 11:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

NOTE 4:10, 12 November 2005 Geogre deleted "Marcu Nelare" (I am the fastest runner in the universe!) - WCFrancis 20:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marientina Gotsis

Wikipedia:Autobiography, apparently. Might be considered notable, though. GregorB 21:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, a page consisting of nothing but personal interests, education and jobs isn't notable. - Bobet 21:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable Niz 22:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also, the article is word-for-word from[23]. - Dalbury (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 17:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marloes wittenberg

NN, vanity page. --mdd4696 15:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. mdd4696 15:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - Bobet 15:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Change to Keep, athlete at high national level, as per [24] (which uses a bot check for some reason). - Bobet 17:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject is a Dutch judoka high in the national leagues. Almost all information is in Dutch, though, so hard to be realy sure. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, establishes notability. Kappa 01:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson's personal life and controversies

No reason to have this separate from the Michael Jackson article. Trying to assume good faith, but this seems like an attempt to suppress controversies about Jackson from the main article.--chris.lawson 06:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete with extreme prejudice. POV fork, an attempt to whitewash the main Michael Jackson article by removing all criticism to another page. android79 07:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 07:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The main Michael Jackson article now contains sections on Personal Life and Controversies, meaning this article doesn't need to be here and should be removed. Street walker 08:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Street Walker. Unnecessary article. Capitalistroadster 08:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Content forking. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Sjakkalle. The content used to be in the main Michael Jackson article, and there's no reason why it shouldn't remain there. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 13:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. - Mgm|(talk) 15:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An article which focused on Michael Jackson's personal life and controversies would not be inherently a POV fork. However, the announcement of the article's creation here shows that the intent was exactly what the nomination described: an attempt to surpress controversies from the main article. There is no justification for the claim "This article (Michael Jackson) is only for Michael Jackson's musical career." -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV fork.--Sean|Black 23:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No need for a separate article. *drew 14:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Million Pixel Music

NN site. No incoming wikilinks. Google search for "site:millionpixelmusic.com", "link:millionpixelmusic.com" and "link:www.millionpixelmusic.com" show zero results. No alexa data at all. First and only contribution of an anonymous user. Likely using Wikipedia only to promote site. Pray tell why site must stay. -- Perfecto Canada 15:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Perfecto Canada 15:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Got an edit conflict trying to afd it myself. —Cryptic (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems this "million pixel" thing is another fad anyway. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 16:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete another of the million "million pixel" wannabes we're likely to see here... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ads, NN. *drew 18:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morgan Stanley Chile S A

  • Delete as vanity, advertising, non-notable.--Dakota t e 22:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Dalbury (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for want of verification; Morgan Stanley's web site does not mention it. See also Silva. Gazpacho 05:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    BTW "Cititrust Group Ltd. of Canada" is not affiliated with Citigroup, but appears to be Mr. Silva's own front company. Gazpacho
  • Delete Almost certainly a fraud, as the proximity to the name of MS is designed to provide legitimacy. I have eliminated the self-authored bio at Silva as well. Dottore So 15:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It maybe a hoax or not notable. *drew 02:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, and then redirect to Movin' Out. - Mailer Diablo 11:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moving out

dicdef, U.S.-centric, simply wrong in almost every assertion it makes; Wiktionary doesn't want this kind of stuff do they? I was expecting an article about the Billy Joel song. -GTBacchus 02:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Dictdef. There is a Broadway show (heaven help us) by this title, but it would be "Moving Out (play)" (two majiscule and descriptor) and not "Moving out." Geogre 03:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment ∾ <pedantic>To be more precise, the name of the song and the play are both "Movin' Out". There is a wiki article for both.</pedantic> → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 04:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Fair enough. Anyone who says "majiscule" deserves a pedantic correction. :-) Geogre 13:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. Gazpacho 03:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not even sure if it's worthy of dictionary inclusion. Jasmol 04:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless dicdef. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 04:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef, pretty pointless. --W.marsh 05:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect to Movin' Out. Kappa 05:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. per GTBacchus encephalon 08:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Article is certainly U.S. centric. I personally was well into my 20s when I moved out, and Finnish universities and colleges do not have "dorms". Instead, there is state-funded student housing in separate apartment buildings. — JIP | Talk 11:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment That's why it says after one's 18th birthday. That means any time after one's 18th birthday, include in your 20s, because your 20s are after your 18th birthday. Foogol 12:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. I'm pretty sure that some people have moved out before their 18th birthdays. --Metropolitan90 17:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. violet/riga (t) 12:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect to Movin' Out. Foosher 13:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete substandard dicdef Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and then redirect to Movin' Out. No need to keep this in the edit history. — Haeleth Talk 14:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Moving Out and make it into a disambiguation page for the song and the play and everything else a search can turn up that's relevant. - Mgm|(talk) 15:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Movin' Out. —Cleared as filed. 15:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Movin' Out. I think most people searching with this term will be thinking of what's there. Jacqui ★ 01:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Movin' Out. *drew 13:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MPhil Futures Studies

Academiacruft (do we have a cruft for that?), and completely non-wikified. Could one wikify it? Certainly. It would still be crufty, though. Boxclocke"!" 10:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, a study program specific to one single university is too narrow in scope for an article. — JIP | Talk 11:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Specific degree program at one university. If the name were adopted industry-wide, or if it became the masterplot of all such studies (as "The Age of Johnson" became at Yale when Frederick Pottle taught it), it would be encyclopedic as a term that outsiders would encounter and need explained. None of these criteria are met now. Geogre 14:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. One-off university programs are f=rarely interesting to outsiders (I got my M.A. in one). - Dalbury (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 15:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My calculus beats your algebra

NN bandity. No AMG entry. Fails WP:MUSIC. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Indium 00:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above Banana04131 01:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, especially since they are "against the admiration of success" Turnstep 01:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, band vanity. — JIP | Talk 11:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until they are successful enough to embrace the admiration thereof. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:Music. HGB 11:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. *drew 12:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep. The AFD tag was applied to the article by Cornflake pirate (talk • contribs). Since that user did nothing but tag the article, didn't create a discussion sub-page, didn't transclude the sub-page, and didn't even give an edit summary indicating the reason for nomination, I have rolled back the tagging. A nomination where only the tag is applied, and no edit summary is given, is functionally indistinguishable from vandalism, albeit that it may have been done in good faith. Such woefully incomplete nominations should not be rolled forward to completion. If any reason for nomination had been evident, or a discussion sub-page had been created, the situation would have been different. Uncle G 19:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nakatsu Station (Osaka)

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep since I can't think of a reason to delete it. mdd4696 15:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep since nominator failed to give any reason why it should be deleted. The edit in which it was AfD'd had no edit summary, and no comment was even made on the article's talk page. It's hard to consider this a valid nomination. — Haeleth Talk 15:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, no reason given, nothing to discuss. Kappa 17:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Is this a bot submitting AfDs? Turnstep 17:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • No. Crypticbot (talk • contribs) completes AFD nominations that other people have not fully completed, as explained above. Uncle G 19:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 17:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Lisst

Not notable webcomic, not meeting WP:COMIC standards. feydey 23:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a notable political cartoon, done by notable artists - a Texas writer and a Canadian Cartoonist. It's been read in over 75 countries, been translated and published in Israel and Germany, made editorial pages in the print media, and it is only two months old. It is read by thousands daily. Even a cursory search produces many hits.

It is political satire. It is not a Marvel comic, it's a political cartoon, not a webcomic of the variety to which Feydey refers.

It is widely republished daily throughout the world, and is the leading comic of over 400 worldwide comics hosted at a well-known site. Most of its reads are OUTSIDE the site.

       ---Neil Lisst, member
  • Delete. This webcomic debuted at the end of August, 2005. Most Google hits seem to be on webcomic sites. Notability not established. - Dalbury (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • RETAIN

I invite you to read the comic, read its coverage, and if you want to read a print editorial from a newspaper, it's out there.

The two most dominant online sites regarding politics are the Democratic Underground and Free Republic, both places where the politics of America are born daily. Neil Lisst is well-known at both places. Cutting edge American politics is the topic.

Perhaps if you read the September 19, 2005 comic, you might feel differently, Dalbury.

--- Neil Lisst (This unsignedvote and comment is the only edit (actually, three edits on one comment) from (IP removed)(talk) 18:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

    • Comment. I did read a couple of the strips, and while I like the subject, that doesn't make this webcomic notable enough for Wikipedia. - Dalbury (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Correction. The note IS signed. I signed it. I'm a member and my member name is Neil Lisst.

  • Comment. Please do not remove anything from another user's comments in deletion discussion pages. That can be regarded as vandalism, although I understand what you were trying to do. If you do not want your IP address exposed, then sign on to Wikipedia with your user name, and then sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), as explained near the bottom of the edit screen. That will automatically mark your comments with your user name and hide your IP address. By the way, anyone who clicks on the 'history' tab will see only your IP address, and not your user name, for your six out of your eight edits up to now. - Dalbury (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment

Thanks for the info regarding IP addresses. The gist of your comments seems to be that you want to be certain everyone knows that the comments are all mine except those made by you and the first gentleman. I don't think anyone should have a problem understanding that.

You seem to know a lot of rules. Perhaps you'll be kind enough to cite the standards which you use to determine Neil Lisst doesn't meet your perception of those standards. That way we can talk about the standards, and whether they're applicable to this political comic, or whether you're misconstruing them.

(Neil Lisst 22:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC))

  • Comment. While it is not yet an official policy, we refer to the section on Web Comics in Wikipedia:Websites for guidance on whether a Web comic strip is notable enough for an article. If you can document that you do meet any of the criteria given there, I will reconsider my vote. I did check Alexa, and the whole of webcomicsnation.com has an average traffic rank for the past three months of 72,847. Since there are many other comics splitting that traffic with your comic, I have to assume that your Alexa score would be over 100,000. - Dalbury (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment

Did you note that the traffic on that site has increased dramatically since Neil Lisst debuted? That it has shot up from somewhere above 100,000 on Alexa to its current position? Did you pay any attention to my statement that the bulk of our views are offsite and are not recorded at the site to which you refer?

As I have noted, and as even the casual reader would note, our comic is political satire, the variety one finds on the EDITORIAL pages, not the comic pages. It is not a comic about superheroes or funky kids.

You say you refer to the guidelines, but you don't cite them. Instead, you vaguely refer to those guidelines, and conclude they are (1) applicable to this circumstance, and (2) you are properly interpreting them. That process begins with you citing the actual language and authority, and then our talking about it. When I ask you to cite authority, you do not.


(Neil Lisst 03:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC))

  • Delete- Suppose voters are badgered by candidates at the polls. Davidrowe 04:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment

In other words, you feel badgered, in spite of the fact that this is the process set by Wikipedia, and you feel offended, therefore you vote Delete.

I've decided to ask that my submission be removed. I've always considered Wikipedia to be a joke, and my experiences with the amateurs of this board confirm that. It's being run by people who are not qualified to edit. There is an obvious error on one of the forms here, where a period is placed outside the quotation mark. Those kind of errors are not made by those of us who actually possess writing and editorial skills.

I've concluded that Wikipedia is not good enough to have a Neil Lisst entry, so let's do that.


(Neil Lisst 05:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep so the author won't think we're amateurish jokers, please please please. Seriously though, delete as nn and, of course, WP not being good enough lol. Dottore So 16:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete via WP:CSD G8; we're not worthy. --Stephen Deken 16:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's already non-notable in the first place. *drew 02:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NeoAmericanist

Advert. Non-notable (as of yet). 38 hits on Google. First issue released 3 days ago. Was also previously up for deletion --mdd4696 00:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I think that it should be cleaned up, rather than deleted. --Unsigned vote by 71.96.165.158 2005-11-12 01:34:05
    • Comment: I feel that the article is very well written, and would be quite a good entry on Wikipedia, if the subject ever becomes notable. However, it seems to me that the publication is still in its infancy, and that we should really wait and see whether or not it grows before we give it an encyclopedic article. --mdd4696 01:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: The network it mentions is 3 days old. That makes this article an advertisement or news account or press release. All three are grounds for deletion. Voice of the Shuttle will be interested and should be sought, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information. Geogre 03:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN, ad. - Dalbury (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete well written spam, which is better than badly written spam, but not much. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It is a fine advertisement, to be sure. --Anna nym 23:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's written well enough and has been edited to focus on being informative rather than an advertisement. bbbilson 23:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • User's first edit. His second was to the article in question. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Informative" is not a priori grounds for a keep vote. Bearcat 06:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable spam. Aaron 01:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 12:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nettwerked

NN website advertisement. no incoming wikilinks. Alexa rating of 757,306. Google search for "link:www.nettwerked.net" produces only DMOZ mirrors. -- Perfecto Canada 00:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. -- Perfecto Canada 00:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Merge to K1ine, a hacking ezine of some significance. -- Perfecto Canada 14:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as NN. Turnstep 02:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:WEB guidelines. — Haeleth Talk 13:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:WEB. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the advert. --Frekja 11:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisement. HGB 11:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisement, as per nom. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 13:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ads. *drew 12:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NEWEUROPE

Self Promotion press release. Interactii 01:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - N (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. ERcheck 02:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Nauseating c&p from a corporate press release: advertising. (The floor of Hell is paved with mission statements.) Geogre 03:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, not to mention, poorly written. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 04:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and copyvio-tagged as well. Jasmol 04:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a press release. encephalon 09:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and burn all spam. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Preaky 03:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom . very much nn doktorb 11:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Press release. *drew 13:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as platform for external link spam and for containing little or no context (CSD A1). - Mgm|(talk) 15:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One network

Non notable company--Shanel 02:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: It could be a speedy delete as empty. At any rate, there is no information present, except that it's a company -- no indication of where the company is. The article is also mistitled. Geogre 03:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad. Gazpacho 03:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 03:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ophidiocephalus

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Bronzeback Snake-lizard is a real threated species. Dlyons493 Talk 13:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Real species. Comment: the article is about the same length and relevance as other stubs in the same categories. If this one gets deleted for some reason, you should look at the others too. - Bobet 14:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep What was the deletion rationale? Turnstep 16:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • "No content" possibly. Kappa 17:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. In fact, I can't see why this was listed in the first place. Reyk 21:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real animal species. *drew 18:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oplexicon

Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Most of the article is in fact a biography of one of the band's members. Hitchhiker89 16:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

OPLEXiCON is really a solo Project anyway, with collaboration from the said musician(s).

  • Delete the most blatant collection of linkspam from a non-commercial provider I've seen yet. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Getting ready to 'release' a demo. Most of the Google hits have to do with ex-'Family', which has nothing to do with his music 'career'. - Dalbury (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:Music. HGB 11:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. *drew 19:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OUh TV

Fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank 36,470, no evidence of media attention. Forums claim to have 29337 registered members, but there are only 930 posts, and most ever online was 27. —Cryptic (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Close to gibberish. There are no valid sentences in the "article." Other than the link, there is no way to even discern what this is about. A very clear case of a delete and a cloudy case for a speedy delete. Geogre 03:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe someone could make a clear case for having an article on this Web site, but I don't how. - Dalbury (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete clear case PTSE 14:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete garbage. --Anna nym 23:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even by the standards of spam, it's pathetic. Aaron 01:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ouch, it's not notable. *drew 12:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 17:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul V. Johnson

Looks like a not notable person to me. All other members of the Quorums of the Seventy have no separate articles. feydey 23:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. 530 Google hits for "Paul V. Johnson", but only a small fraction are for this Paul V. Johnson. - Dalbury (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. This seems like this might be a notable role within the religion, but I'm not familiar enough with Mormons to say for sure. The fact that none of the other members of the Quorum have articles could just as easily mean that this is a topic in need of additional focused attention, rather than deletion. -Colin Kimbrell 18:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul White

Looks like vanity to me. Non-notable lead of a number of non-notable bands. Verification would be great though dr.alf 00:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

umm...sounds about right. However, he is very much a background player in the industry.

  • Delete per nom. I've actually heard of hellogoodbye, though I don't think it or any of these meet WP:MUSIC. Maybe that's just too bad. Indium 01:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Fire Star 03:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Two Paul Whites listed in Allmusic Guide but he does not match the details of either. Problems with verifiabilty and WP:NMG. While Jack White and Meg White are notable musicians, this guy appears not to be at this stage. Capitalistroadster 04:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. Jasmol 04:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and per the other linked NN vanities also submitted recently Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Though I respect the kid's tenacity, this is a wide scale vanity project. --Anna nym 23:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, delete, fails WP:Bio. HGB 11:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 12:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Penis webcomic

Non-notable webcomic. Written in first-person. Very un-encyclopedic Cynicism addict 02:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No evidence of notability presented. A Google search for pages that link to it turns up zero hits, though presumably there will be one once Google indexes the Wikipedia article. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Advertising. Wikipedia is not a place to get your page rank boost. Geogre 03:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete On the verge of nonsense. Jasmol 04:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Good grief. encephalon 08:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC) PS. It's also a copyvio. If this is not deleted via AFD it should be listed. encephalon 08:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator or speedy delete as a copyvio. — JIP | Talk 11:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Does this qualify as a commercial site (ie., one that someone's making money off)? encephalon 13:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Petar Rakas

6 Google hits for this name. Probably vanity. JW1805 04:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If he is famous, it should be possible to document his fame in some way; without that, this article is not worth much. —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete db-bio criteria. Jasmol 07:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but not speedy: There are claims of notability. They're just completely unverifiable. Geogre 13:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as not quite famous enough to make a second page of Google hits. Or any mention on the usual sites for checking out authors. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Preaky 03:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of evidence for claims. Carina22 15:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I do not know who he is, but here is the translation from Serbian from one of the google search results for "Petar Rakas" ([25]). Quote: "The poetry night. Outbreak of the greatest poets of modern Serbian poetry: Milan Cunkovic, Aleksandar Todorovic-Bekan, Petar Rakas, Sterije Tolic, Bozica Stankovic and others". So, there is a poet named Petar Rakas. However, the article about him claim that he is a writer of drama for theatre. I do not know is this a same person, but if it is a same person, this person could be both: a poet and a writer. PANONIAN (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. *drew 14:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwikified to Wikibooks and deleted. - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC) [26]

[edit] Photography "Perfectly Exposed" exposure, f stops, shutter speed and depth of field

Article appears to be a personal essay as well as a guide, two things that WP is definitely WP:NOT. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks, I guess. There are guides there, so, provided that this is released properly and not copyvio, Wikibooks is the place. Geogre 03:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki seconded. --Tabor 04:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. It's an intelligent treatment of a useful subject, somewhat in need of formatting and minor editing, but fundamentally good and thorough content. Durova 06:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikibooks already has a Photography wikibook. Uncle G 11:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki per Geogre. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. There's probably still material that can be merged into the wikibook. - Mgm|(talk) 15:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Needs to be checked for copyvio and Transwikied, else deleted. Zunaid 07:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 00:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pinkie-Pinkie

I couldn't find anything about this on Google, but for now I'm going to remain neutral and let everyone else try and determine if this is a hoax or if it's real. --Locke Cole 11:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as a joke, google has no relevant hits for this term or any variation(pinkie pinkie, pinky-pinky, etc), and the article itself attempts to explain away the lack of information on it by saying most youth have lost touch with this 'urban legend'. Nezu Chiza 16:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; it is the title of a book [27] [28] in French. However, the French Wikipedia does not have an entry on it. [29],. I do not speak French, but it seems that the article is not about the book. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very dificult to find info on, but not a hoax. The tokoloshe is definitely a real SA myth, and pinki-pinki appears to be a related creature, or an alternate name for it. Can't vouch for the substance of the article, but seems real enough to keep it and ask for expansion and references. Turnstep 17:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thank you for pointing out this necessary piece of information. Since this is not an hoax, the article cannot be deleted on this ground. Wikipedia has an article on tokoloshe, but this pinkie-pinkie seems slightly different. As far as things are now, the problem is non-verifiability. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. There is a French book (I think) Le pinkie-pinkie[30], which involves South Africe, but it doesn't seem to be the same thing this article covers. Someone who understands French better than I do might help us here. - Dalbury (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The first bit, describing the pinkie-pinkie, mentions traits out of the tokoloshe article, such as being very short (about a meter tall), turning invisible and having relations with women. The description really bears nothing in common with the article being debated here. The rest of the article describes the plot of the book, which includes a woman from South Africa who is frightened of the tokoloshe. --Le Scoopertemp | [tk] 11:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plutonium (comics)

Pointless and unnecessary article. Also, none of the superheros mentioned gained their powers by "plutonium poisioning". JW1805 02:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Jkelly 02:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Substub that is self-evident. Instead of being about Plutonium or even Plutonium in the comics, it is a statement that many superheroes had a run-in with Plutonium. (A better discussion might well be "The atomic age exemplified in the fears encoded in comic books of the 1960's," but I think such things are already done in the J. of Popular Culture.) Geogre 03:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless and irrelevant. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Hulk was a result of Gamma radiation, Captain Atom gained the power to rematerialize when he spaceship exploded, neither of which seem to involve plutonium. If they did, a separate article for just this fact seems superfluous anyway. Mention anything relevant on the page of the superhero in question. - Mgm|(talk) 15:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Irrelevant. *drew 13:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Read Read Red

Self-made CD released by group that is no longer around, sounds like vanity to me. Couldn't find anything on the All Music Guide. would appreciate verification of that though :) dr.alf 00:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. I'll vote on Paul White and The last man of the 9th michigan infantry too. Indium 01:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. mdd4696 01:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Fire Star 03:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete an unknown cd by an unknown band. Jasmol 04:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per the band. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Anna nym 23:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pn. feydey 23:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:Music. HGB 11:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:Music. Aaron 00:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 12:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Renals

NN has plenty of google hits but none seem to relate to this article. Delete KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 21:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, the most notable result after googling was [31], which shows some of the data and lists Renals as a spelling variation of Renolds, but it's still not notable as such. - Bobet 22:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. And "Renals" is highly unlikely to be an old Saxon name if the Renals family came over from Normandy with William I. - Dalbury (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. All editors other than the article's creator were reverting page blanking, and that creator was the one doing the blanking. As such, and in light of the lack of evidence, I don't see any real reason for this to be here. -Colin Kimbrell 17:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. *drew 02:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, as long as it's not delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Packham

Claim to notability for his work with ex-Moromons - see Talk:Richard Packham. I think he deserves an AfD debate but count me as neutral. -- RHaworth 02:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Uneasy keep: What's there isn't exactly POV, but what's not there is certainly noticeable. How prominent has he been? Has he been the target of litigation? Has he been active in legislation? What are the effects and what is the context of the facts given in the article? I can't say "cleanup," because that will do no good, but I have to say that it's a very unhappy keep vote. Geogre 03:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • In doubt, thus weak keep by default. The main problem I have is that everything I find is essentially autobiographical. It would really help if some secondary source had something—anything—to say about him. As it is, it's hard to establish WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS when the only source of information is the subject himself. --Tabor 04:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If in doubt, chuck it out. Reyk 04:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or merge He does seem to be well-known in this particular area...maybe merge it with Mormonism? (just as anti-Scientology sites are mentioned in the Scientology article. Jasmol 04:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't presume notability when the article doesn't prove it and very little turns up on a search. If this foundation were a significant presence then they should have been able to get at least local Oregon press coverage. Anti-Scientology has a significant presence that the Scientologists have to contend with. Unless this ex-Mormon movement proves itself as an actual movement it seems disrespectful to move it onto the article about a known religion. Durova 06:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess I can't vote since I am the one submitting the article. But about the previous user's message -- are we discussing whether or not a significant ex-Mormon movement exists or are we discussing whether or not Richard Packham is noteworthy enough to merit a wikipedia entry? I thought it was the latter, not the former -- especially since a wikipedia entry already exists for Ex-Mormon. If we can agree that the Ex-Mormon movement is legitimate, then Richard Packham would have to be one of the more prominent members of that movement. I'm not sure what search terms the previous user was looking for or seearching on but finding information about the ex-Mormon movement is as easy as Googling "ex mormon" (the 1st link is to www.exmormon.org, the "Recovery From Mormonism" list which currently has a link to the Exmormon Foundation prominently posted on their front page. The 7th link is a link to a Richard Packham webpage). Of course, googling "ex mormon foundation", being more specific, will produce even better results. It is not surprising to me that not a lot shows up associated with Oregon and the Ex-Mormon foundation because the majority of the Foundation's activities, including annual conferences, typically happen in Salt Lake City. Jarom Smith 07:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Nope, you can still vote; it's just important to disclose that you are the article's author so people can take it into account. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Well in that case I'm probably still too much of a newbie to be able to talk intelligently about this. It seems that the consensus is to Merge into Ex-Mormonism and perhaps with an edit to make it more NPOV, which is fine by me. I did the best I could but I appreciate the help from the community. Just for grins, though, would the community like to take a look at Jeff Lindsay's page and perhaps do the same thing? Jeff and Richard are more or less peers on opposite sides of the ideological fence. Within their respective communities, I would say they have roughly the same stature/standing (and therefore, would merit more or less the same level of mention in Wikipedia). That's my opinion, of course... and when it comes to this stuff I am definitely not neutral. Jarom Smith 02:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge a summary into Ex-Mormon per Jarom. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Ex-Mormon. Marginal, but I lean to saying not notable enough. Less than 1,000 hits on Google. I get more than 5,000 hits on my name, and I only share it with three other people that I know of. - Dalbury (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Ex-Mormon but with no prejudice against re-expansion if it's later merited. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Marginal, but harmless. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with Ex-Mormon. Note, subject has achieved enough notability that his work has been criticised on the web, e.g., http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/pehrsonpap.html; article should be NPOV'd a bit w/ links to criticism FRS 19:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Found the time to follow my own advise and edited out PoVish material and personal info, added link to criticism--FRS 19:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with Ex-Mormon. I personally know Richard and agree with Jerom, Richard is one of the original gray beards of the ex-mormon movement. He is not only a true skeptic, but relies on the scientic inquiry method that focuses on fact and reason to peel back the layers of an argument to try and arrive at the truth. Richard has spent the last decade using the Internet to share researched data and information that has been largely unavailable or repressed by The Mormon Church in order to highlight thousands of inaccurate details and errors regarding the Mormon Church, its origins and doctrine. Many have thanked Richard for helping them to have access to this data. By the way, Ex-mormonism is a bonafide movement. Also, the Mormon church was considered a cult, not an established church, until just 50 years ago. Until recently, its claim to be the fastest growing church in the world had been patently accepted. Today, we know that claim is plain just false and wishful PR. This is Rshiveley (talk • contribs)'s second edit.
  • Comment for Antaeus Feldspar. I do believe you are mistaken about Rshively's second vote, as this shows as his first edit since August. - Dalbury (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply: I'm not sure but I think you misread my note. I did not say it was his second vote but rather his second edit. Arguments from editors with low edit counts are still considered, but they have to be weighed carefully because often editors without enough experience misunderstand the AfD process and argue the wrong criteria for why an article should be kept/deleted. For instance, it may be true that Richard Packham "is not only a true skeptic, but relies on the scientic inquiry method that focuses on fact and reason to peel back the layers of an argument to try and arrive at the truth" -- but what does that have to do with whether an article separate from Ex-Mormon is merited? Mistaking "X is good" for "X should have an article" is a classic mistake made by those who don't yet understand just what the goals of Wikipedia's deletion policies are. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. My apologies, I misread it. - Dalbury (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with Ex-Mormon. If Jeff_Lindsay can have his own page then so should Richard. Both have websites filled with information about the LDS faith. Richard not only provides information for those seeking it, but also assistance to former members and non-members who need help. -- WilsonZone 10:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    User's only contribution so far is to this AfD page. - Haukur Þorgeirsson
    • Comment: If I google on "'Jeff Lindsay'" I get 67,600 hits. Even if I narrow it to "'Jeff Lindsay' Mormon" I still get 22,200 hits. On "'Richard Packham'" I get 577 hits. To say that both of their views should be represented, that if one view is represented then so should the other be, is NPOV. To say that one holder of a view should receive his own article, because a holder of an opposing view received his own article is to confuse NPOV with false balance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Simpson's. - Mailer Diablo 11:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Simpson's Department Stores

There already is an article on the Simpson's department store (and one on Robert Simpson as well). Moreover, the article is mostly inaccurate. Simpson's was never merged with Sears Canada (they had a joint venture in the suburbs, which did not affect any Simpson's stores), Maison Simons did not purchase the Simpson's stores in Quebec (Simons moved into part of the former Simpson's store on Ste. Catherine in Montreal, years after Simpson's had left), and Simpson's was founded in 1872, not 1860. Given these errors, there isn't anything left to merge with the Simpson's article. Skeezix1000 13:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete inaccurate, duplicate article. Mindmatrix 15:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Simpson's - SimonP 16:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Simpson's, no need to delete - Luigizanasi 16:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. 23skidoo 15:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Turnstep 16:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Merge isn't necessary, but considering who did this, redirecting the title at least reduces the likelihood of recreation. Bearcat 20:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, of course. Jacqui ★ 01:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Ground Zero | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 16:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. *drew 18:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Rod Cook

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RyanVG

Vanity bio page for a Nintendo ROM hacker. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

See also: Back to the Future 4, Dalton McGuinty's Kids' Computer Game, Big Kids Pro-Wrestling, World Heroes 3, Sex Pot Racing, Religious Blackjack
See also: Womanbusters II - Katie's Revenge (added later, but can we still include this one in the combined AFD nomination? It's another game by the same guy and should fall under the same criteria.) --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and delete all the pages relating to his game, his is non-notable and so are his hacks dr.alf 00:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all of those. Indium 01:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity ColumbusCrew29 23:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. mdd4696 01:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Olorin28 02:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all of them. I don't think that almost anyone who is only identified by a 1337 handle is notable. — JIP | Talk 11:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the lot. He's not even notable within the field of rom hacking, and that's leaving aside the question of whether anyone in the field is encyclopedia material. — Haeleth Talk 13:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Preaky 03:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleteper nom. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 06:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:Bio. HGB 11:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. --Frekja 11:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 13:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete one must decide as a gatekeeper of an unbounding flow into the constraints of our virtual resource what shall be left through the sifters abd what shall be detained. This article is not worthy of publishing and seems rather juvenile in motive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boston2austin (talk • contribs) 02:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all as nn. *drew 12:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Ryu Tatsujin

While this is a romanization and literal translation of 竜達人, it is not important as a term or concept, and gets a whopping 9 google hits in Japanese[32]. --Tabor 07:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete for low content. Jasmol 07:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: When we have more dragon masters, we're going to need to describe them. When we need to describe them, we're going to need words for it. At present, this is merely a small fact without context or operational room. Geogre 14:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It does somewhat better when you search for the alternative kanji 龍達人 (19 hits!), but it's not even a common term in RPGs or anything. Compare over 13,000 hits for ドラゴンマスター doragon masutaa... — Haeleth Talk 14:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Kappa 18:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 14:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete - copyvio, and also, replace with a redirect to siping per the talk page Talk:Safety siping --HappyCamper 01:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Safety siping

A blatant ad. Delete. Owen× ☎ 21:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Clean up and move to Siping, with Chinese city already there moved to Siping (city). A discussion of the siping process would be encyclopedic and relevant, although I agree with the nom that the page as it is now is a blatant advertisement. Speedy delete as copyvio. I've created a proper article at siping.--chris.lawson 23:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the article unless rewritten. Also a copyvio. Thue | talk 21:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't check for copyvio, but if it is—please Speedy it under CSD:A8. Owen× ☎ 21:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete if possible, delete otherwise. Deltabeignet 21:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, i removed the content of the page as it is listed as a copyvio dr.alf 00:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] September 15, 1821

Incorrectly named article. Contents are already part of the September 15 date article and 1821 year article. --Allen3 talk 22:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'd speedy this, as 5 words is not an article, and can fall into the "little content" criterion. But this gives me an opportunity to state that articles for individual days such as this are a very bad idea. Thank you. -R. fiend 00:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as article with little or no content. This is already noted in the Guatemala article anyway.Capitalistroadster 00:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Very little content. *drew 02:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as an article that served no purpose but to disparage its subject. Jkelly 04:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sherry Fitzgerald

Delete Poorly written POV rant PhilipO 02:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I tagged it as db-attack for a speedy delete. Jkelly 02:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Simon Gipson

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

  • NOTE I have updated much of this article, including adding biographical info as you requested Harro5. Although you may have seen it as unlikely, it has dramatically improved. Please take note of this when voting for/against deletion. Beyondcapricorn 01:33, 13 November 2005 (AEST)
    • Response: as jfg284 suggests below, this is all an attempt to make Gipson out as more important than he is. He is no more notable than any other independent school principal in Australia (eg. see debate before a redirect at J.T. Vallance and merge at Robert Knight) and these conference studies aren't very important in education. Mentioning that he writes for the school's ""The Michaelean" basically says he writes for the school newsletter and people in the school read it - not at all important. Also, claiming he has national media profile is ridiculous! A Current Affair is widely regarded as the most rubbishy news program in Australia (this can't be denied by any Australian), and the homework issue hardly received coverage beyond the program. The issue with the Salvation Cross doesn't need an article on the principal, but rather a mention in the St Michaels article, as the issue isn't about him but rather his school. Essentially, Beyondcapricorn is presenting anything and everything that could be seen as sort-of-notable by even just one person in an attempt to keep this puff piece alive. I see no reason to keep this article, and at the very most would say Gipson could have a short paragraph in the St Michaels article to talk about him, but still see this as making him out as more than he is. I strongly consider all voters to consider these arguments. Thanks. Harro5 22:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Response: Gipson IS in fact more notable than other independent school principals in Australia, as detailed by mass-media exposure, the numerous publishings of his studies in regards to education around the world, & as detailed by current positions he holds OUTSIDE of his position at his school, eg. Chairman of the Association of Coeducational Schools, and Board Member of the Association of Independent Schools Victoria. Also on a side note, the guidelines speak nothing of personal opinion in regards to which outlets one speaks on, and as such, your opinions on A Current Affair are not relevant. Please remember to stay on topic and within the guidelines. I strongly consider all voters to consider how valid Harro5's arugments actually are. Beyondcapricorn 12:44, 13 November 2005 (AEST)
  • Delete though I confess that I laughed out loud at the picture caption. Jasmol 07:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as he doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 07:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 08:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 08:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Wish to point out that by Wikipedia's own biography guidelines, this page has an absolute right to be included. Quoted from guidelines which can be found here:
    • Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers. Simon Gipson is the most quoted Headmaster, across all media mediums in Victoria, and one of the most quoted in Australia. This is not only because of his school's reforms, but often that he is one of only a handful of headmasters willing to give an opinion or make a statement. You only have to see from the long list of articles below, on his school's website, or a simple google search of his name to realise that he is one of the most respected opinion makers on his area of expertise in Australia, Education.
    • Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more. Simon Gipson has authored numerous studies, essays, and thesis in regards to Education. His works have been published on their own, and in many widely read periodicals such as EdTech and Educare. A quick google search for his name will again confirm this. Also prior to his position at his school, he was CEO of The Endeavour Group in Australasia, a group that reforms schools. He has given many lectures and been the guest speaker at innumerous conferences around the world about education. Also wish to point out that Simon writes for the school's periodical 'The Michaelian News' which is available via the school's website, which has a circulation in excess of 5,000 old students & community members.
    • Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. Simon Gipson has become quite well known around Melbourne, Australia for many media storms regarding the school, including but not limited to the Salvation Army scandal that recently rocked the school, and the interview he gave to the nationally broadcasted 'A Current Affair' where he was mis-represented to sound like he had removed homework from the classroom at his school. This interview sparked a national debate, in newspapers and on national radio (See Triple J's 'THe Hack'), where Simon was contstantly referenced to.Beyondcapricorn 21:46, 12 November 2005 (AEST)
  • Keep: As above! dankeschön Beyondcapricorn for collating this data Comradeash 11:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Maybe, if the case for keeping him is his works as an educational theorist (I made that title up, but you know what I mean), that is what should be stressed in the article instead of his position of the head of school of an Australian secondary school. For example, the intro lists him as "a teacher, administrator and consultant" first, followed by a paragraph elaborating on his position as a teacher, followed by a paragraph mentioning his published works, followed finally by a paragraph about him becoming well known. With the new addition of the Published Works section, the focus of the page is more on that. However, it seems a relatively last-dtich effort to provide the article some legitimacy now that it's listed on AfD (and I've a sneaking suspicion that's what it is). The introduction and Infobox still focus mainly on his position as a run-of-the-mill administrator rather than one known for his unique views on education. Change the intro a little, take out the info box and make it a simple picture, you may be in business. No delete vote here, but I'm kind of leaning that way until the page is cleaned up a bit.jfg284 14:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I have to agree with jfg284 that the article could use some work; for example, the "quotes" section needs to be a bit more discriminating in its selection (many of the quotes there are useful as verification that the guy is cited in newspapers, but not interesting in their own right). — Haeleth Talk 14:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Clearly meets the standards of policy.--Nicodemus75 15:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I agree with Haeleth--FRS 20:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable enough for me. Reyk 21:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this please he seems notable enough to me too Yuckfoo 23:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Agreed - meets the Wikipedia standards Macbandit 02:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Simon Gipson is not only a courageous reformer in the vein of Tony Hill, Paul Keating and Harro5, but a highly visible media personality and the Head of St Michael's Grammar School. He is God. Egocentre1 07:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep User:Beyondcapricorn's righteous edits. By the way, that picture is priceless! Jacqui ★ 01:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep needs to be a bit more encyclopaedic and less like a marketing blurb, but it's a start -- Ian ≡ talk 04:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable not as a principal, but as a friend of Kermit activist. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Update: I see that this article may have some worth, and might even set a good precedent for what school principal articles need to attain. I'm working with the authors to cut down on the extracts from article and turn it into a short and sweet bio. Remember that this case will be cited by people who write future articles on principals, and may open the floodgates, but I see a purpose for it being here. Harro5 04:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This appears to be an exceptionally well researched article with plenty of external references. The authors are to be commended. --Tony Sidawayt 08:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - This delete tag is the work of one malicious user whos account is up for review right now. This article has a high quality standard and is more than long enough not to be arbitrarilly deleted. --Ewok Slayer 22:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SLUG

local Linux user group; no indication of notability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom dr.alf 00:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic Game Abbreviations

Even if cleaned up, and renamed to List of..the hedgehog..., this would likely be gamecruft, although it is not really clear what the criteria for inclusion in the list is from the combination of samples and title David Woolley 00:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete This really isn't expandable to much of a useful article or list. People probably wouldn't want to learn new acronyms for such, but if they encounter elsewhere and them and look them up (ie SA2), they'll find they go to the right place or disambiguation. I think that's good enough. Indium 00:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if this were better developed it would belong on a fan site. Don't mean to sound cruel. It's probably easier for fans to find there anyway. Durova 07:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (Assumed Keep) But that doesn't seem to be very nice to make people look for them. --anon
    • Comment IP addreess matches that of article creator, so I assume he meant this to say Keep. - David Woolley 15:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either the abbreviations themselves should lead to the appropriate content (as with SA2) or to a disambiguation page ... or the content should be merged to Sonic the Hedgehog series. --Metropolitan90 08:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete worthless as is and with no obvious potential to be otherwise. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect the abbreviations mentioned to the correct articles and delete this. Redirecting to full articles provides much more context and information. - Mgm|(talk) 14:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. When I nominated this, it was orphaned. - David Woolley 15:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do agree it's not all that useful, but I mainly wrote it so people won't get mixed-up with abbreviations.
    • A better way to incorporate it into existing material would be to mention the abbreviations at the lead of the articles with the full name and create redirects from the abbreviations to the full title. This way it is not only included but also useful. See Wikipedia:Redirect if you want to learn about redirection. Don't be discouraged, it takes time to get used to how Wikipedia works. Keep contributing and ask if you are not sure on how to handle something. - Mgm|(talk) 14:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks!
  • Delete. Doesn't merit its own article. *drew 12:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You don't have to attack me, drew! I know I'm saying good-bye to my article, but there's no need to attack me. I know it's true I don't really merit this article, but I was kind of new to writing articles. I thought this would be useful for people not knowing abbreviations, but now I know (thanks to Mgm). Besides, I have another article and I merit that one. --anon
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] South Jersey Confederation of Wargamers

nn club more of a vanity page for the club Delete --JAranda | watz sup 21:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. GregorB 21:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 22:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'd consider it if it had an unusually long history, spawned noteworthy game designers, or collaboratively created a noteworthy game. This doesn't claim to meet that standard. Durova 00:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Special agent grobolski

Article asserts notabilty (to say the least!) but none of it is verifiable. - squibix 14:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. - squibix 14:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. mdd4696 15:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant hoax. It's not good enough for BJAODN. — Haeleth Talk 15:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete either nonsense (probable) or fiction fancruft, in which case it fails there, too, as it scores the coveted zero Google hits. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. It can be the most well known secret Wikipedia article. --W.marsh 19:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note reverted blanking by 86.130.72.230 (talk • contribs) at this point. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Nobody was sentenced to the Alcatraz prison in 2001. --Metropolitan90 02:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. *drew 18:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spot On Public Relations

It's an add copied from the company's press release. - squibix 12:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - squibix 12:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The entry is not copied from anywhere. However, does this mean I can't make any entries about companies? There are already entries for other PR firms cmalin 12 November 2005
    • Entries for companies should take into account the guidelines at WP:CORP, to determine whether the company is suitable for an article at all; if the company is suitable, then furthermore the article should be written with a neutral point of view, which means that language which sounds like it comes from a press release is not appropriate. Read over the article again: you can probably see why squibix assumed it was copied from a press release! (No vote.) — Haeleth Talk 15:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • And in fact, it is copied from a press release, except for minor changes: compare the paragraph at the bottom of this page. - squibix 15:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Haeleth --> point taken. I run the company so I can ask someone not connected with the company to write something, if it makes a difference. I don't want it to sound like an advert either and have given it another edit. In global terms the firm is not big, in the Middle East it was one of the first on the ground. Squibix --> I wrote the paragraph in that press release and I didn't copy from it, its just stuff I know. Both --> Top marks for due diligence BTW cmalin 12 November 2005
        • Wikipedia is not the place for autobiography, be it personal or corporate. Writing about one's own organization is top of the Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas. It can be done, but it requires that one be extremely scrupulous. The way to write about your own company is to base the article entirely upon multiple, cited, sources that are independent of the company itself (and of you), such as third-party corporate biographies and reports. Do not write from your own firsthand knowledge. If there are not multiple independent sources available, then the company simply does not satisfy the WP:CORP criteria. Editors wanting to write Yellow Pages entries for their companies should use Yellowikis, not Wikipedia. Uncle G 19:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I'll wait a day on this one. Confirmed noteworthiness. You're in the communications business: write something appropriate for this medium and audience. I could change my mind. Durova 18:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I waited the day and saw no improvement. Promotional text is inappropriate. Durova 17:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert --Rogerd 03:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert and non-notable Zunaid 07:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ads. *drew 16:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Srdjan Rajsic

Resume of student actor. This is a translation of sr:Срђан Pајшић. Author removed CSD tag without comment. Chick Bowen 17:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Nice resume, but NN per WP:BIO. PJM 17:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as vanity. Turnstep 18:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Wikipedia is not a resume posting service. - Dalbury (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. *drew 19:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Svarttjern

No indication provided by the article's anonymous author that this band meets WP:MUSIC. Using my very limited knowledge of the Norwegian language to parse through websites leads me to believe that this band plays various venues in Oslo, but has not yet recorded an album. Delete unless some indication that this band meets commonly accepted guidelines for inclusion of musical groups. --Allen3 talk 19:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. They haven't even recorded a demo. Punkmorten 22:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The band has in fact recorded a demo, http://www11.nrk.no/urort/user/?id=26495 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.217.117.25 (talk • contribs) 23:51, November 12, 2005 (UTC).

Have they recorded any albums? Have they signed a contract to record any albums? If so, with which label? Has the group conducted a tour outside of its hometown? Is there any plan to create an article for the group on the Norwegian language Wikipedia? Any type of solid information you can provide to distinguish this band from the multitude of other anonymous bands will greatly enhance the article's chance to survive this AfD. --Allen3 talk 01:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless and until someone can establish that they meet WP:MUSIC. - Dalbury (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:Music. HGB 12:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 11:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tarrazu

Please see this version. This article is a copy from another website and is currently tagged as copyvio. However, someone claims permission on the talk page. Rather than soliciting permission only for it to later be deleted, we are now posting questionable pages here before soliciting permission. (See our discussion.) This article in its current state appears to be an ad for a coffee farm which doesn't seem notable. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. As it is the owner of tarrazu.com who wrote the original text and is now giving permission to use it, this seems to be advertising, not encyclopedic. - Dalbury (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. *drew 03:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The figurative coconut

FAQ; uncited; inane. Tom Harrison (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete no google hits Niz 22:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Dalbury (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 02:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The last man of the 9th michigan infantry

Could not find anything on the band on the All Music Guide, looks like vanity to me but would someone please check again. Also listing Hellogoodbye and Read Read Red dr.alf 00:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Indium 01:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Indium. --Fire Star 02:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete An author with more imagination than regard for either our standards or, apparently, the truth has been at work, and now we have to spend time getting rid of the results. Geogre 03:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 04:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per the usual criteria. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. This reeks of a vanity project. --Anna nym 23:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

But the band is broken up why go through all the troubble just for vanity.

  • Delete, fails WP:Music. HGB 11:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. What a strange name for a band. *drew 12:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Million Dollar Screenshot

Non-notable imitator of The Million Dollar Homepage. Alexa rank 1,379,204 (despite the claims on the site to be around 80k, which still wouldn't meet WP:WEB). —Cryptic (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. mdd4696 15:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. Turnstep 16:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete knockoff million pixel site. And unless anyone objects, I intend to remove the red Wikilinks on all the other knockoff sites on The Million Dollar Homepage before they all end up here as well. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "This is a new form of advertising." just what we needed... --W.marsh 19:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete another spinoff "million pixel" advertising site. -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 13:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and note in The Million Dollar Homepage that this has spawned several copycat websites. No not mention any specifics. Saberwyn 01:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. *drew 18:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Unkempt Murder

Appears to be unverifiable. Can anyone provide a source? --Tabor 04:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC -GTBacchus(talk) 04:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete probably could be speedy (no attempt is made to explain significance). Jasmol 07:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: unforunately, it doesn't apply to band vanity. -- Kjkolb 08:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as empty. A predicate nominative is a fact, and a fact is not an article. Geogre 13:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete anbd lament once again the lack of a speedy criterion for band vanity. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Yet another NN band. Turnstep 18:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:Music. HGB 11:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN band. *drew 14:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 03:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The world´s most northern

Trivia. --Daniel Lawrence 23:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • keep, readers should be able to look up the world's most northern botanical garden, coral reef etc. Kappa 01:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. Worthwhile, outside-the-box reference tool. Needs a new title though. Any ideas? Youngamerican 04:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, though I'm a little leery of the accuracy. Seems to me Canada ought to be in line for some of these. Denni☯ 00:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and verify the information. Unfortunately, though, the article name is badly formed. Could we call this thing something else? Jacqui ★ 01:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and verify. Also create ditto for southernmost. -- SGBailey 10:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and verify. Useful information. *drew 02:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 02:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TKZee

Not notable group. Tours, releases? feydey 23:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Article has undergone significant editing since nom. They have released 3 LPs, see [33] and that is more than enough for anyone else. pfctdayelise 01:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per pfctdayelise - Bobet 02:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I added this[34] as an ext. link to the article. Certainly notable in South Affrica, and Shibobo, at least, is available from the German Amazon site. - Dalbury (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but definitely needs de-gushing. Denni☯ 00:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep very notable South African group. Article does require cleanup though, will attend to it. Zunaid 09:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • (Update) Rewrote article to (hopefully) higher standard, removed gushing as per Denni☯'s request. Still needs more content. Zunaid 10:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was very close. Vote count is 9 delete, 4 keeps from registered users, 1 keep from an anon with no reason. I am closing this as a no consensus keep because the article has been somewhat rewritten during the course of the debate to make it look more like an encyclopedia article and less like an obituary which might address some of the "Wikipedia is not a memorial" concerns. I realize that this one is shaky, but I am in doubt here. A renomination of this article might be in order. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tran Quoc Binh

It is a Vietnamese American soldier obituary. The article doesn't establish why he is notable besides serving in the recent Iraq war and the first Vietnamese American solider died. Also, the article has some POV issues in the "Biography" section which is not my reason for deletion. The reason for the nomination: Wikipedia is not a memorial. J. Nguyen 05:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for the same reasons as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor R. Lu. Very sad, but Wikipedia is not a memorial, and other memorials are out there for him. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with compassion and respect. Oh how I hate to make this vote! Condolences to his family. Durova 06:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a memorial site. We do have a 9/11 memorial, and it would be conceivable that other memorials could be created, but not in article space. Geogre 13:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep "On November 12, 2004, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued a state decree that the California Capitol flags were to be flown at half-staff in honor of Sergeant Tran Quoc Binh." notable enough for me, plus its well sourced and verifiable FRS 19:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The problem with that is...the source for the information regarding the flag only came from a weblog entry in the External links section. I tried to search it for with "Tran Quoc Binh" + Schwarzenegger and it is not getting good results on the flag just that weblog and Wikipedia mirror sites that refer to it. --J. Nguyen 22:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: One more note on the weblog that mentioned the half-staff information, I browsed through it and the recent weblog entries regarding a service person's [35] untimely death. Most of the entries regarding someone's death entry includes these lines in the end: "In honor of <Insert Name>, Capitol flags will be flown at half-staff." As you already know, there are a couple of thousand American soliders have died in the Iraq war. It seems Governor Schwarzenegger would announce anytime a Californian service person that has died in Iraq. He will issued a statement and announced the Capitol flags were to be flown at half-staff. Then Wikipedia should include articles about these Californian soliders: Sgt. 1st Class James F. Hayes, Capt. Raymond D. Hill II, Sgt. Shaker T. Guy, and so on... --J. Nguyen 22:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • hmmmmmmmm, well you're right that the flag-at-half-staff seems to be S.O.P. Nevertheless, I will maintain my vote to keep. The information is verifiable and notable enough to me. --FRS 15:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable for much more than the irony. I consider he would have been worthy of article even if he had survived. -WCFrancis 20:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- Normally I'm against articles on non-notable people that have had notable events happen to them; the article should be on the event. And Tran Buoc Binh seems not to be notable for anything other than being the first Vietnamese-American to die in the Iraq conflict. However I don't see how you can avoid it in this case. Reyk 21:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, about as notable as any soldier who was killed in any war in human history. GregorB 21:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per GregorB Zunaid 07:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 15:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 65.35.197.181 15:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. He is neither more nor less notable than thousands of other veterans around the world. Note: If kept, this article must be completely rewritten. It's current tone is that of an obituary, not an encyclopedia article. Rossami (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment I made some changes to suppress PoV a bit. --FRS 19:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial. *drew 14:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- wish article had more biographical info DVD+ R/W 09:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trevo

NN, apparent vanity page. Boxclocke"!" 02:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Some dude's screen name. Apparently the person is a coder, but the screen name isn't. No person there to describe, and screen names are not people. Geogre 03:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination PTSE 14:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Bobet 14:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity pages. — Haeleth Talk 14:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, one coder of a massive game is hardly ever notable enough for an article. BTW the links section in Habbo Hotel appears to be going rampant. It's larger than the article itself and seems to list every single fansite. Can someone do some pruning and leave only the most relevant and informative sites there? - Mgm|(talk) 15:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Preaky 03:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. *drew 13:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turkeybolis

A made-up word. GregorB 21:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No google hits. vanity.--Dakota t e 21:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Speedy Delete if deemed applicable. - Bobet 21:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Adolescent neologism. - Dalbury (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as an admitted neologism, with no potential to be more than a dictdef. -Colin Kimbrell 17:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. *drew 01:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 02:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Universidad Cayetano Heredia

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep This is indeed a real university and the best in the medical fields in Peru. I agree that it deserves expansion. I suggest to convert it into a stub. I can contribute to expand it substantially within the next few weeks.
  • Keep Real university. Badly needs expansion though. Dlyons493 Talk 13:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but Move to Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia as listed in the article's opening paragraph (27200 google hits vs 200). Bobet 14:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC) -> It's moved now, so I see nothing wrong with either the new page or the redirect. Keep
  • Keep and move per Bobet. Universities are inherently notable. — Haeleth Talk 15:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep CalJW 22:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as part of the fight [personal attack removed]. The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of an article. Kurt Weber 23:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this university's article. It's actually not too small as stubs go, either. Jacqui ★ 01:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Dlyons. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but I have a serious question to ask: if there is no stated reason for deletion, which is required according to the policy located at WP:DEL#Commenting_on_a_listing_for_deletion, then why are we even bothering to discuss this? I do not know if Crypticbot is a robot or not, but this nomination is still incomplete, and I do not understand why it is listed. Yamaguchi先生 08:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Crypticbot is a bot (see its user page). I let it go ahead and list this since the nomination was clearly in good faith, as the article was a speedy candidate when it was tagged. —Cryptic (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you Cryptic for the clarification. Can you please reprogram your robot so that it provides a valid explanation, as required by WP:DEL, next time? This nomination was never properly completed by Crypticbot. Yamaguchi先生 07:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as per Yamaguchi; no contest. Silensor 23:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please professor yamaguchi is right erasing this does not make sense Yuckfoo 00:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as this is now a full fledged article about a Peruvian medical university. Yamaguchi先生 07:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Move however is not a relevant university on Peru i think this medical university deserves an article.HappyApple 00:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Not sure what you meant there HappyApple, can you rephrase what you were saying? —RaD Man (talk) 10:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
What i was trying to say is just Cayetano Heredia University it was founded after Saint Mark's of Lima schism in 1960s and many former professors (most of them retired or with older methods for education such as scholasticism) (from UNMSM) give their lectures there, hence lacks of prestige and prominence on scientific investigation.HappyApple 01:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite the bot to delete orphaned AFD noms, not list them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, why is this bot listing AFDs nominated and abandoned by anons? Anons can't even bring things to AFD. Any anon brought AFD should be summarily kept even if it's an article that would otherwise be deleted.Gateman1997 20:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] University of Openness and University of Openess

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance of Conflict of Interest?

There appears to be some good information ( for example: http://twenteenthcentury.com/uo/index.php/HotTipsForEmailers ) and easy peer supported forking and linking redundant components of the campus to allow for rapid expansion as demand grows.

I am concerned that this request for deletion, although probably motivated by the stubbiness of the article or concern that this was a promotion entry, may be viewed by others as fear of competition and undue influence by the Wikimedia Foundation. Since this project appears to peer based (perhaps based upon mnet, gnunet, groksters et. al. and other emerging peer technologies) and encourages participants to set up and manage their own servers it has the potential to scale up rapidly once it hits critical mass.

Considering the methods whereby Wikipedia and Wikimedia starts as attempts to bolster a failing dot com and then work organized by the cabal off the mailing without participation at the meta site (which was being used to stall energetic newcomers with busy work .... or perhaps as a site to harvest others notes, homework or entrepreneurial efforts) I think we (Wikipedia) would be well advised to bend over backwards to avoid the appearance that we hampering or discouraging other volunteer/participatory sites prototyping other organizational and business models. We do not wish to present the misimpression that we view the planet as big enough for only one wiki and we intend to own/control that wiki/modern grid.

I vote NO. Do not delete competitions article. Rather I intend to embrace and expand the stub while I keep an eye on the site and explore its material, processes, licenses, etc. user:lazyquasar

  • Request for information. lazyquasar, I wouldn't read too much into the nomination for deletion. I very much doubt the nominator was trying to suppress any competition - he probably thought the article was a hoax. So did I at first. However, I'm not sure now, and I seem to be going round in circles trying to establish whether it's a joke or not. Can anyone help on this? --A bit iffy 12:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Not me. I do get the impression that this is real, but then there is this page[36] that is part of the Uo library[37]. - Dalbury (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus, so I'm relisting this. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. It's mostly a list of departments. Expand it into something more encyclopedic and I may change my vote. Durova 00:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Possibly hoax. Cannot find university address. --Vsion 10:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. After thinking about this, I've decided it is either an elaborate hoax, or fancy dress on some study and discussion groups, in either which case NN. - Dalbury (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unrelative

Reads like nonsense, but not speedyable nonsense. Hardly any even possibly related mentions. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, seems to be original research. --Idont Havaname 05:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity cruft. I traced Peter Schoen to a couple of message boards where he posted simple mathematical equations as if they were new meaningful discoveries. Durova 06:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. per Durova encephalon 07:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 14:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vilamoura International School

They do not say why they are any more mportant than your average bus stop. 68.148.196.162 02:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as a not particularly noteworthy school. Anville 12:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Few bus stops teach 600 pupils of 30 nationalities. Dlyons493 Talk 14:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Please add such information to the article. The number of students in a school is vital for a school article and for an international school it's very useful to also determine the number of nationalities they teach. - Mgm|(talk) 15:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep to counter systemic bias. People have succeeded in spamming Wikipedia with thousands of substubs about non-notable US schools, so since it's impossible to clean that mess up thanks to block-voting inclusionist extremists, the only alternative is to add articles on global schools, thus giving equal space to equally important topics. — Haeleth Talk 14:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, and the deletionists don't organise and block vote without considering content then? They certainly make lots of extremist comments, like comparing schools to bus stops. CalJW 21:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Speaking for myself, no. I judge each article on its individual merits, exactly as the inclusionists don't. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • What's 'extremist' about comparing one delivery point for a public service or business to another? --Last Malthusian 17:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for cleanup, needs more information. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Change ot abstain following more reading up. I'd vote delete or merge but that is against some people's religion. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all schools. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if you remove the POV fluff there's nothing useful left to keep. But I'd be happy to see articles on schools outside the US if they contain some information, preferably information which sets it apart from other schools in the country. Post an article request at the WikiProject Schools so a proper article can be created. Articles aren't placeholders. - Mgm|(talk) 15:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all established schools per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 18:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Non-NN. :) Turnstep 18:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Comparing schools with bus stops is absurd. It is also poor tactics as it makes people more determined to vote against school deletionism. CalJW 21:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. While basic education is laudable, it isn't inherently noteworthy. Any other Portugese institution of similar size and importance (club, business, church) would be deleted. I don't see why some people make special exceptions for schools. Durova 22:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per Durova. Pete.Hurd 22:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. School. --Centauri 00:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: On the basis of which information in the 'article' do you want to keep this? I'm sure most of you read the article before entering your vote, but saying why you want to keep the article on this particular school is far more productive than just keeping any school on AFD. Please be helpful in ending the debate and share your reasoning for this particular article not school articles at large. -- Mgm|(talk) 14:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. a) This article teaches me about the school in question. b) It also helps me understand schools in Portugal, too, which is a good step towards WP:CSB. c) Just from a policy standpoint, I think schools are way more important than highways. And we keep highways. Jacqui ★ 01:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Zunaid 07:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep being insufficient grounds for retention. Dottore So 14:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Durova. --Last Malthusian 17:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.  Grue  19:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please this is a good school article not a bus stop Yuckfoo 00:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with appropriate city and redirect.Gateman1997 03:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 07:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no sources --redstucco 09:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It exists, doesn't it? Kurt Weber 14:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Uhhh....2 reigstered votes would be a merge. - Mailer Diablo 01:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vonbluvens

Started out as a vanity article by "Vonbluvens" himself, but has since been turned into a mug slinging match between his friends and foes on blogs and forums. Definately not notable enough for an encyclopedia. He made local media ONCE, but that hardly makes one noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia entry.

  • Merge with National Socialist Movement (United States). Not noteworthy enough for a separate article. Durova 18:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Vonbluvens is a well-known figure in the field, hosting a long-time internet radio show. Given the fluid nature of fringe politics (he's now feuding with the VNN, with whom he formerly worked) Vonbluvens may not stay attached to the NSM which makes merging with that article is problematic. The story made more than the local media, and he is considered important by websites that watch neo-Nazis. -Willmcw 01:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you for informing me. Given that I'm privately no fan of the white supremacist movement I'm rather pleased to learn about its fractiousness. However my standards as an editor remain unbiased: he is part of the larger organization. His greatest claim to outside media attention happened years ago when his wife hung a swastika flag inside their family home day care center. In no context would that merit a separate biographic article. Durova 01:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I really see this as marginal. He may not be notable enough, but I'm bothered by what looks like a nomination to delete being based on the controversy over the article. I'd like to see more discussion before I vote. - Dalbury (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You may not have noticed that the controversy is centered around the inclusion of non-encyclopediac information, which is what this request for deletion is based upon. Almost none of the information presented as "fact" is verifiable by any trusted source. Willmcw even goes so far as to rely on blogs and forums as authorative encylopediac sources. Being subject to "controversy" should not prevent this Afd from equal consideration. 196.207.45.254 06:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      • FYIBlogs and forums are listed in the external links section, but have not been used as sources, to the best of my knowledge, except as sources for themselves (i.e. that Vonbluvens posts to those sites). -Willmcw 07:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I apply uniform standards for noteworthiness regardless of whether I agree with the subject. I have voted for the deletion of individual veteran memorials, which pains me because I am a war veteran myself. Here I see evidence that the organization is notable but the individual insufficiently so. Durova 18:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with National Socialist Movement (United States). Durova has convinced me. [Note to closing admin - if you don't want to do the work of merging give me a holler.] -Willmcw 10:59, 15 November 2005
  • Keep Actually VonBluvens has made the news on more than one occassion including being kicked out of a neighbourhood watch organization for his nazi beliefs. His hosting a numbe of media shows as well as frequent clashes with fellow white supremicists has made him a well known and notateble figure in the neo nazi arena. 14211022732 15 Nov 2005 (142.110.227.32 (talk • contribs))
  • Keep VonBluvens has been a noteworthy player in the neo nazi movement for about 8 years. I think he warrents an entry. And as willmcw states he may not stay with the NSM. VonBluvens has a history of making enemies and burning bridges (NIM, VNN, Hal Turner) so it is a real posibility he may split with the NSM. Thus the article should not be merged. 15 Nov 2005 (198.53.150.56 (talk • contribs))
    • Comment. This vote originally was supposedly signed by 142.110.227.32 (talk • contribs), although the history shows that the editor was 198.53.150.56 (talk • contribs). The anon user 198.53.150.56 (talk • contribs) then added to the vote reasons and replace "142.110.227.32" with "198.53.150.56". 198.53.150.56 (talk • contribs) has edited only the article Template:Vonbluvons and this discussion. - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 10:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with National Socialist Movement (United States). Not notable enough for seperate entry but can be mentioned on the NSM page. 196.207.45.254 16:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep seems interesting enough. (131.137.245.197 (talk • contribs))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WalllyOS

Vague, NN, no Google results. Boxclocke"!" 00:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. mdd4696 01:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleteas NN and perhaps a joke. Just coming up with a name qualifies something as "pre-alpha": we need things to be a little further along than that. :) Turnstep 02:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, also non-verifiable. — Haeleth Talk 13:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and LOL! Development stage "pre alpha", eh? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Preaky 03:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverified. *drew 12:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White dragon

article is unencyclopedic porn

  • Delete not exactly pornographic, but it is a dicdef. Anville 12:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing notable about this sexual action mdd4696 15:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pretty unencylopedic. PTSE 18:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete w/redirect to unrelated legit article [38] Monicasdude 19:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment "Angry dragon" was on AfD recently. This might be a re-creation. AndyJones 20:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Send to Wiki-Hell!!!. BD2412 T 03:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef, does anyone actually do this stuff? -=# Amos E Wolfe talk #=- 13:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef. Being pornographic is not a reason for deletion, though. Jacqui ★ 01:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. *drew 16:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whoremoans

It's "Insufficiently important, famous or relevant", It is unverifiable, and is probably patent nonsense. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Blightsoot 14:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nomination. Bobet 14:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article makes no attempt to establish notability or even verfiability. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Haukurth. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PTSE 18:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't even verify they exist... --W.marsh 19:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN, unverified. *drew 18:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was VfDinity, i.e. delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedianity

Neologism, at best a dictionary definition.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 23:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of anyone caring about this "joke religion". Kappa 01:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is original research, no doubt inspired by the Uncyclopedia Wikipedianity article. Delete. Uncle G 03:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete only a handful of google hits, about half of which come from other wiki-projects, and half of which use the term differently.
  • Delete per nom.--Alhutch 07:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 03:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom, and the fact that THERE'S ALREADY A CHURCH OF WIKIPEDIA, YOU BLASPHEMERS!! --Merovingian 03:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wotmaniad

Meta-fancruft not based on Wheel of Time fantasy series, but instead based on people who visit online forums related to the book. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete "A print version of the Wotmaniad is scheduled for release in 2006." perhaps if that happens and it seels somewhat well or wins an award... until then it's just fan-fanfiction. --W.marsh 01:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fanfic, anonymously made and therefore without authors. Unprinted and therefore without sales. Undistributed and therefore without effect on the world. Geogre 03:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-famous fanfics. — Haeleth Talk 13:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Geogre's cogent argument above. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all fanfiction except in exceptional circumstances, which I can't see here. - Mgm|(talk) 14:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Delete it, and this article will be back in its due time once the Wotmaniad is in print, if that's what it takes to have an "effect on the world." Seeing as I have read it in its entirety (unreleased portions, included) I would submit that it indeed affects a real community of people among whom it is quite famous, and grossly transcends fanfiction in its scope. Nevertheless, this article was perhaps ill-timed and had not been fully fleshed out to present the exceptional quality of the story, and will return in a more appropriate season, I'm sure.MistressSazha 01:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Zunaid 07:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 12:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 02:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zand tribe

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Needs more information and references, but appears to be a valid entry. mdd4696 15:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep added two links from Google; cleanup and valid tag still needed. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like a reasonable stub, after Paolo's additions. -Colin Kimbrell 17:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2005_November_12_d19d.html"