Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 2

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 46 Time Traveling Lawn Gnomes

Song by two people without articles. No third-party coverage, unverifiable. Kappa 17:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per Kappa.--Isotope23 18:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Jkelly 00:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Hey guys and gals, did you notice that this song has already been performed? This might make it too late to delete but if someone travels back in time it just might be possible. Fg2 02:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Firing up the TARDIS now. (Only mentions I can find in a web search are either for other 'all users contributing' projects, and sides taking the information from Wikipedia. Unverifiable. Delete) Saberwyn 04:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 01:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A kiss could be deadly

Accordinging to policy this link is enough on its own to keep them in. AKCBD album review - also, search them in msm or alta vista - you'll get different results. Plus, they are the definitive band of the Southern California Electroclash scene. The style was originally made big in NY and they are the biggest and most active SoCal dance/punk band. The East Coast style focuses more on hipster issues while AKCBD is setting a precedent by focusing on darker topics. The west coast version incorporates more guitar and live drums and is not solely synth and drum machine driven. The policy specifically says its just a guideline and the band has been featured in a major music publication, has toured 3x and is representative of a certain style and place. It almost feels like Keepsleeping has a personal vendetta aginst the band. Leave it in

does not meet WP:MUSIC keepsleeping say what 23:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Google hits including several from the same few domains; one self-released EP; no verifiable tour history. Non-notable. --keepsleeping say what 00:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• This does meet policy as the band has toured the US (pretty big country) and has been featured in numerous Music Media Publications including Skratch Magazine, Ridgemont Press and Skinnie Zine
• Weak keep. No Allmusic.com article. However, this article in Punk News indicates that they have self-released an album see [1] and 14,700 Google results for "A Kiss Could be Deadly" band indicates that the band has been touring actively see [2] Weak Delete as it seems they don't quite meet WP:NMG yet.Capitalistroadster 00:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: take another look at those Google hits [3]. Literally thousands of them are from punknews.org – a link to a review of the EP appears on a sidebar there and so appears on every page on the site. --keepsleeping say what 00:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ifnord 03:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this stupid article. GuardDog 01:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. 64.194.44.220 15:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A&A Global Industries

spam placed here By the subject (check the history page and see who created the article). Also completely NN, and a copyright violation since most of it was cut ans pasted from their webpage. Bachrach44 14:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Bachrach44 14:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Since it's tagged as copyvio why bring it to Afd? Dlyons493 Talk 17:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet WP:CORP Dlyons493 Talk 18:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, since it is already here. After marking it as a copyright violation, I would have waited to see if anyone gives permission. If they don't, it is deleted without the need for discussion that we have on AfD. -- Kjkolb 01:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. They are pretty well-known in the bulk vending sector. 24.54.208.177 01:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete per Vegaswikian. – [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{02:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Air conditioning unit

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• NOTE This article was nominated for AfD by the same author who created it. This author appears to be a sockpuppet for StuRat. The intent of this nomination appears to be to disrupt AfD. Denni☯ 06:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Mayhap somebody with too much time on their hands, eh? — RJH
• Speedy G7, A1, and maybe G3. Vegaswikian 07:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — Disambiguation page. Actually it depends on the AfD vote on the two links on this page. So I'll abstain. — RJH 18:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the disambiguation page. 64.194.44.220 15:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Foosher 03:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Hamster. --Titoxd^(?!?) 23:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Albino hamsters

Dicdef. The species referred to is Golden hamster, but other species have albinos as well.

• Delete. Gazpacho 02:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Golden hamster or Hamster jnothman ^talk 03:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only ever likely to contain duplicate material, and there's no intuitive redirect. Albinism? Meh. Flowerparty■ 13:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to hamster. Any breed of hamster (or rodent, for that matter), can have albino genes that mask their "true" coloring. Youngamerican 17:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alessandro Bassi

Article doesn't have much information other than he's a lawyer in Italy; no particular reason given as to why this is encylopedic. Delete. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. A7: "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance." BrianSmithson 21:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy nn-bio as mentioned above. PJM 22:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  05:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Zaidlin

Previously kept as no consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Zaidlin since no one commented on it. Found this tagged afd again while running Crypticbot, and like Kjkolb, I'm completely unable to verify that he exists. —Cryptic (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. The only references that I could find were of him writing some band reviews. Nothing about his poetry. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete also per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 14:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, again. -- Kjkolb 00:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable, nn. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think the language issue really covers it; if he were genuinely notable, there would be at least one English language reference to him. Bearcat 05:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ERcheck 01:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arachnibble

Delete: unless someone can provide a source. On Google, "arachnibble" only brings up this article.Bjones 15:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism Flowerparty■ 14:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism JFW | T@lk 15:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Never heard of such a term. GuardDog 01:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as rewritten DES ^(talk) 04:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Artifakt

Delete NN band. I found no matches via allmusic.com & Google PJM 21:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It exists ([4]), but its a non-notable band. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I couldn't find any information about this band, either, so I turned it into an article about the Better Than Ezra album Artifakt. --keepsleeping say what 22:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, per discussion and official policy. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asgervalen

Probable hoax. No Google results for "Asgervalen". Delete. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Google is not an authority. It's a search engine. (previous unsigned comment by 130.15.82.217 -- Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

• Delete google may not be an authority, but Simpson episodes are even less authoritative. We can assume this is an hoax, unless references (beside the Simpsons) are given. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the Simpsons is authoritative —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.15.82.217 (talk • contribs).
• Delete as hoax, unless verified. --anetode¹ ² ³ 17:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• There are numerous references available. See for example the Annotated species list of marine planktonic copepods occuring on the shelf and upper slope of the northwest Atlantic (Gulf of Maine to Ungava Bay) report by the Canadian Department of Fisheries, 1984. Just because it's not online doesn't mean it doesn't exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.15.82.217 (talk • contribs).
• Comment: If you happen to be an expert on this species, why don't you expand the article some more and put more substantive information than what exists now? --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 18:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I would hardly call myself an expert, or at least I'm no Jasper Asgervalen on the topic. I'll expand it but I'll have to do some reading to refresh my memory as it's been a few months. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.15.82.217 (talk • contribs).

• Delete This is a hoax. When I was the new guy on the job here the old hands would say things like "Hey, go ask the foreman for the left handed screwdriver", or "Ask the foreman if you can use the asgervalen" and the guys would just laugh and laugh. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.33.237.7 (talk • contribs).
• Delete unless notability can be established through citations and/or hoax assertions can be disproven. Jessamyn 20:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment When in doubt, don't delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.15.82.217 (talk • contribs).
    • Comment That's not WP policy. WP policy is, if it isn't verifiable, do delete. You claim there are "numerous references", and you've named one; if someone can find a copy and verify it, we'll keep the article, but if they can't, we'll probably delete it. Do you have any other references to cite that might be easier to find? — Haeleth Talk 22:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment WP:DP - If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article. Conversely, if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted even if there are valid concerns about the quality of the article. (Cleanup may be appropriate.) In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete!
      • Comment: one more thing - there are probably not a lot of easily accessible references to this topic, but I'm trying to do the world a service by creating one - so much for Wikipedia's openness and love of knowledge
• Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.49.232 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-02 22:11:59 UTC.
• Keep Am I reading this right? we're going to delete the article on plankton because it might be a hoax? I think we should refrain at least until the other guy can expand on the topic or someone can get the book cited. It's not like wikipedia will be brought under by the great plankton hoax of 2005. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.107 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Comment: It's Wikipedia policy that articles have to be third-party verifiable. At this point, we have no such verification. If it can be supplied, then the article gets to stay. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 07:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment for everyone who's upset about the allegation that it's a hoax, I agree with you, Google isn't the world. In fact, the Google test is currently one of the least accurate information-finding methods I can think of. However, whoever last had their hands on that book has something like four more days to find the book and put the source in the article. So if you could relax and play the waiting game a bit, that would be cool. Thanks. Jacqui ^{★ 04:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Comment I searched for this term in Encyclopedia Britannica, Expanded Academic Index (online database, indexing thousands of periodicals [5]), and a newspaper index which indexes over 100 newspapers and did not find one reference to this word in a full keyword search dating back to the mid-80's. It's entirely possible that it's so super-specialized that it's only mentioned in professional literature outside of these more general databases, but then I wonder why it isn't mentioned in OBIS (the Ocean Biogeographic Information System) since according to the commenters, it's not a newly discovered lifeform. It also does not appear on this list of diatomic organisms where there are many other organisms from the Biddulphia genera (family?). Jasper Askervalen is supposedly notable in Norway but doesn't work in Bergen or Oslo, and has not apparently published a single thing in English. [Norwegian speakers want to check your Norwegian databases?]. I suppose we could drop these people an email to see if they've heard of it, since they seem to be the experts on Baffin Bay plankton. In short, absence of any mention at all, anyplace, and absence of a verifiable citation makes this entry questionable. Lack of Googleability in and of itself does not constitute "unverifiability" but it is often an indicator that something may be amiss. Jessamyn 04:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Babylon ltd/Temp

corporate vanity/promo page, probably a copyvio of subject's own website [6]

• DELETE, per nomFRS 19:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. BrianSmithson 21:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• 'delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 23:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. *drew 05:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Basiliaz

uncited Tom Harrison ^(talk) 02:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Tom Harrison ^(talk) 02:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Secret societies are inherently unverifiable. howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 07:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Secret societies should remain secret. Flowerparty■ 13:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{01:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Beanpole family

Belongs in a science dictionary BeteNoir 05:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - BeteNoir 05:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, likely search/link term. Kappa 08:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this term will become more popular if people keep having less and less children. Maybe rename to Verticalised Family?, if that is less slangish. -Andrew 17:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sounds encyclopaedic enough. -- Necrothesp 02:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Ral315 (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Behrooz Modirrousta

vanity — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Web and E-Publications Festival --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Creator's username indicates likely definite vanity (see User:Modirrousta). howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment . {{afd}} notice was removed by 80.227.58.11 and I restored it. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 23:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete..vanity, non notable..Dakota 01:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of MIT dormitories. —[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{04:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Bexley Hall (MIT)

Dorm at MIT. No assertion for notability. Searching Google, I can't find anything that sets this apart from any other dorm on any other campus [8]. Delete.--Isotope23 17:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep though the article should mention that Bexley was the source of most of the East Coast's LSD, back in the day. Anville 22:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with main MIT article. — Haeleth Talk 22:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Either delete or merge with MIT article. DenisMoskowitz 00:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment MIT article is already over 40 kB. Fg2 01:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment (added because the article said that it was a candidate for deletion), which would be a shame, since the article is rich with history and humor, and very well written. I suppose I don't care where it goes, as long as it is not deleted completely. My first vote would be to leave it as is, and reference it from the main MIT article.
• Keep Normally, I'd support merge with MIT, but as mentioned MIT is too long already. One thing here is that a lot of the MIT incoming student types might be the kind of person who might consult wikipedia to get an idea of what the various dorms are like before picking one. Actually, a general article on MIT dorms with a section for each would be OK, without inflating the MIT article size, but until them, keep. Gzuckier 03:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with other MIT dorms and redirect to List of MIT dormitories, as was done with the Harvard dormitories. Uppland 06:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Are there any other MIT dorm articles? DenisMoskowitz 15:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, the only one I can find in the MIT cat is Baker House, which should perhaps still be kept separate, as it is built by a notable architect. But merging this dorm with the main MIT article seems like overloading it with cruft. Uppland 06:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Bexley may be more notable than other dorms at MIT, but that doesn't make it notable. I don't recall hearing anything about it after visiting MIT or spending years living in Massachusetts. ^L_Wizard @ 22:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or Move Dorms are an important part of university life, espicially those with distinctive character. However, inclusion of such information in university main articles causes those articles to become bloated and takes away from information about the academic side of the university. As such, there is adequate reason for articles on dorms to exist.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 23:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond fate

Delete. NN band. According to their website they've been together for 1 year and are just putting out a demo. PJM 03:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nn. Ifnord 03:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn (fails WP:MUSIC) jnothman ^talk 04:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Flowerparty■ 13:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (default keep). – [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{02:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC).}

Updated to no consensus 06:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliotheca

Dicdef, apparently, containing little more than an interwiki link to a non-existent article in German. -GTBacchus 06:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete essentially empty of content jnothman ^talk 11:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Even though I wrote it I think it could be a good article I'll work to improve it if no one else will. Chooserr
• Question - Ok, what's with the link to de:Bibliotheka? There's nothing there. I still don't have the first idea what this article is supposed to be about. -GTBacchus 04:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Answer - The link is de:Bibliothek (it's been a while since I took German, sorry for the error) and has quite a bit of information although it is in german...I just wanted to show the relation ship it has with words in other languages. Chooserr

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 under criteria A6 and G4. - ulayiti (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bluelight.ru

• Delete Non-notable message board. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 21:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It was speedied (is that a word?) 3 days ago.--Bookandcoffee 21:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. Proto t c 12:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 01:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bronchial fork

Unverified "product" that has 0 hits on Google. Looks suspiciously like advertising - or more likely vanity. Ifnord 23:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks even more like nonsense. --Carnildo 00:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• I had heard about it somewhere on some blog that I had read, don't know about the mister though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.82.183.252 (talk • contribs).
• Delete hoax. No google hits (except the expected one) for "bronchial fork", and none for the two alleged inventors. Denni☯ 05:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this hoax article. Carioca 05:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this hoax. GuardDog 01:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. 64.194.44.220 14:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Insecticide. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{04:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Bug spray

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. Notable, everyday product that deserves an entry here. Youngamerican 01:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Youngamerican. Garr 03:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Should probably be merged and redirected to insecticide. Denni☯ 05:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to insecticide. Maybe add a section there labeled Application methods and use the aerosol as one method of application. Bait can be another. Vegaswikian 07:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Youngamerican. — RJH 18:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Youngamerican. 64.194.44.220 15:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Foosher 03:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chemistry student society

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chemsoc. No opinion. — Haeleth Talk 22:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This article is more about student societies in general anyway. howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Since this article is about a type of student organization rather than a particular student organization at one school, I feel like I ought to support keeping it. However, this particular article is not particularly informative; I doubt that most chemistry student societies hold an end-of-the-year ball even if one particular society does. No vote for now in hopes that someone can write a better treatment of the subject. --Metropolitan90 08:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Howcheng. —Wayward ^Talk 13:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Armas

Vanity. Not noteworthy, claims notability where there is none. Jogloran 07:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity; nn despite claims jnothman ^talk 11:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 21:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cinekinetic and Mike young

Cinekinetic was previously listed as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cinesaddle; however, the discussion there was cut short due to both articles being tagged as copyvios. This one's now back, and since it isn't directly cut-and-pasted from their web site so far as I can tell, I'm hesitant to tag it as a speedy under G4. Regardless, it's still advertising, it's still of very dubious notability, and it's still gotta go. —Cryptic (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Move to new article on Cinesaddle (which seems to have some recognition), rather than its creators jnothman ^talk 02:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. Company fails WP:CORP and founder is not notable otherwise. howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. company does have some recognition. 1800 hits on Google. 581 on yahoo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.32.176.34 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC), creator of article.

• Comment: If you Google correctly, you'll see there are only 299 hits for "cinekinetic". --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 19:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete avertising for a NN company amd an NN bio. Pete.Hurd 21:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cityside

One of a series of articles on Afd promoting a non-notable group.

• Delete Dlyons493 Talk 09:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. no Google hits on Church plus leadership = non-notable. See also related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stations of the Cross - Contemporary Icons to Reflect On at Easter --Kgf0 23:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

  Umm... try this search. Seems like a fairly wide variety of references.--SarekOfVulcan 00:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  Comment That search gives 36 Googles - not a lot really! Dlyons493 Talk 00:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  Response Ah, that's what I get for only going 2 pages down. :-) In any case, I'm not voting either way on this -- it doesn't seem as clearcut to me as their Stations of the Cross link was.

  And that's what I get for assuming a vanity page would spell the ex-pastor's name correctly. However, at 36 hits, I stand by my previous vote. Unless someone can come up with a real claim to notability. --Kgf0 17:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  I was the submitter of these three articles (Cityside, Mark Pearson, Stations of the Cross) - my intent was not promotion as such but the recognition of a person, group and phenomenon which have been influential in NZ and internationally in the alt.worship and emerging church movements, well out of proportion to the group's numbers. If the criterion is that they are already widely recognised elsewhere than Wikipedia, I accept that as a reason for deletion, with regret. MikeRM 19:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Click environments

Badly titled neologism. I've never heard any web interface being known as a "click environment", and neither has google. Delete. Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Wayward ^Talk 12:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to closet, and ignore the sock- and meatpuppets. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{05:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Coat closet

Someone has deleted this article without saying why they did it. I agree that it should be deleted, but it think that should be explained first CarDepot 20:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to closet - not different enough to have a separate article CDC (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• NOTE This article was nominated for AfD by the same author who created it. This author appears to be a sockpuppet for StuRat. The intent of this nomination appears to be to disrupt AfD. Denni☯ 06:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Closet. — RJH 18:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Garr 23:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 64.194.44.220 15:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Foosher 03:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Closet. Edwardian 06:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep TreeFrogz 11:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This user's only votes are for AfDed articles created by the author of this article. Denni☯ 03:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colin davin

Another non-notable musician bio stub BeteNoir 05:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• SpeedyDelete per nomination. - BeteNoir 05:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 07:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC--Isotope23 17:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete GuardDog 01:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copernicus' nationality

Strong delete This page is ultimately pointless in the long run considering history has established Copernicus as a Pole (by his last name origin and citizenry) whether or not he, in fact, was a German. An entire wikipedia page is not necessary for this discussion.

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, should be discussed somewhere, better in a separate page. Kappa 18:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge what information is not already redundant to Nicolaus Copernicus - if not for the redundancies, this page would be about 20% of its present size, so adding the little leftover information on the nationality dispute in a compacted form is not a significant impact to the core article, and enhances that article's WP:NPOV. --Kgf0 23:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Kgf0. -- Kjkolb 00:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Kgf0. If the Copernicus article ever gets too large, the subject matter can always be broken out into its own page again. Jacqui ^{★ 00:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Merge per Kgf0. Jkelly 00:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge -- Chris 73 Talk 09:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- The sole reason for this to exist was the wish to separate the discussion about the nationality from the Copernicus page, because it took too much place and caused to many revert wars on Copernicus. In other words, merging is just taking back issue to the point where it was some two or three years ago. Szopen 09:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- The article is a good way to address the seemingly neverending controversy. Balcer 03:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creasman

Looks to be a nonsense/vanity page that's been up for 5 months. Google gives nothing notable for the name Creasman. JJay 15:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --JJay 15:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 17:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Vanity. mdd4696 21:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Curbing

I'm fairly sure that this article is mostly made up, and that its only notable instance occured in the film "American History X" Holdek ^(talk) 06:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Holdek ^(talk) 06:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom jnothman ^talk 06:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Definitely looks like most of it is made up, but I'm not sure if the subject matter itself quite as non-notable as one might think; if nothing else, there's a persistent urban legend going around about gang executions by curbstomping, and it has been seen in fiction besides American History X, and since it's a pretty specific, graphic and nasty thing to do, it's a lot more notable than "punch" by default... If someone more knowledgeable than me were to take a hand at rewriting it, I might very well vote the other way. -- Captain Disdain 07:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Interesting. I have little doubt that the term is indeed used in this manner to describe the type of violent attack and ensuing injury described in the article (although the bits like "Curbing is a relatively modern method of 'messing people up' that is regularly used by gangs worldwide to kill their victims" are nonsense). However, it is a slang term; if accepted at all on a wikiproject, it should be in Wiktionary. As to the consequences of this type of beating, it would be best to describe them in medical articles, for example maxillofacial fractures/maxillofacial trauma, LeFort fractures, mandibular fracture, palatal fracture, orbital apex injury, etc. (As you can see from the red-links, Wikipedia has a long way to go.) Del unless adequate references are available that would satisfy Wiktionary, in which case pare down to an accurate one sentence definition and transwiki. encephalon 07:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, agreed. Obviously it'd have to be more than just a dicdef. I'm somewhat skeptical of anyone managing to write that myself, as my vote probably indicates. =) -- Captain Disdain 09:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary under curb stomping. -Andrew 17:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. --Carnildo 23:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• transwiki to wikitionary curbing. not a neologism, the term was fairly widely used among my friends 15 - 20 years ago. Pete.Hurd 21:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Both Wikipedia and Wiktionary require adequate references to reputable sources for material written in their respective mainspaces. I am less familiar with the precise requirements of Wiktionary, but am fairly sure that anecdotal references to usage among friends will not satisfy them. If there are references available that would meet Wiktionary's source requirements, I agree with you that transwiki+delete would be acceptable. As it stands however, I know only that this entry is best deleted from Wikipedia. encephalon 21:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cwelve

Admitted neologism, made up by someone from a high school. No suggestion of notability. Delete. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wouldn't matter even if it were notable, it'd still be a dicdef. --Trovatore 20:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Neologism. mdd4696 20:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Poor Michael Hansen, though. BrianSmithson 21:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is Wikipedia, not some slang (or computer, or whatever) dictionary. Nicholasink 5:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Davenport (rock band)

Non-notable, band vanity keepsleeping say what 21:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Article created by band, one Google hit for band name + (probably self-released) album title, does not meet WP:MUSIC.
• Delete nn band. Andrew pmk | Talk 21:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Garr 22:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delta notre dame

NN basketball team in Ireland who play in a community center. Might be a youth team. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 19:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Relisting ... no votes recorded the first time around. Delete --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 19:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. NN. mdd4696 21:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No assertion of notability. BrianSmithson 21:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 23:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. *drew 05:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. I remember voting on this before; maybe it disappeared in a browser botch. MCB 08:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Demetra Raven

Extremely minor actress with three guest appearances in TV series and two movie roles in which her characters had no names. See http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1496302/. Reads like vanity, to me. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 07:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless author would like to userfy AndyJones 17:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as non-notable. - ulayiti (talk) 12:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diary-X

Non-notable site 12.22.157.254 17:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. 12.22.157.254 17:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable blogging site.--Isotope23 17:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. *drew 05:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment As the creator of this site, a vote by me would be considered fancruft, so I'm not voting. However, I'd like to present some information about Diary-X that is relevant to this vote. Diary-X has a total of 117,467 users, of which approximately 7,269 are active. Only 35% of them are listed in the members directory (which is opt-in only). Diary-X has been online since August 2000, and has recieved mention (although not in an article focused on Diary-X) in Newsweek and Time magazines. The forums have approximately 4,818 members, although technically all Diary-X members are allowed to contribute to the forums. Our Alexa ranking is 29,249, and Google results are misleading because Google has only recently lifted an internal ban on the diary-x.com domain. This of course all boils down to not meeting the requirements for website notability, but only just barely. Thanks. Stephen Deken 17:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• I've rewritten the page to reflect some of the notability of the site. Obviously if a vote by me is not conisdered to be fancruft, then I vote Keep. -- Stephen Deken 22:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by JoJan. Jkelly 00:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diya NYC

Obvious hoax. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ali Empire. I see absolutely no reason, other than Haworth's insistence, not to speedy delete this and all associated pages created by the same user. --Nlu 06:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Totally unverifiable and surely a hoax. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedied as requested JoJan 09:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 04:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Embee

Non-notable and perhaps vanity Ifnord 17:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Keep this rewrite. I have also googled and when "DJ" is combined with Embee I get thousands of results. I remove my nomination though don't know if I should remove it from RFD before the debate is over. Ifnord 03:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep , they produced albums, that's notable enough for me. --Isolani 18:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Unless someone can produce evidence of compliance, I'm going to have to vote delete.--Isotope23 18:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Embee is probably the most well-known and established hip-hop producer in Sweden. This is partly due to his membership of Loop-Troop, where he is the sole writer of their music, and partly through his recent venture as a solo artist and the release of the album Tellings From Solitaria which received the Swedish Grammy for 2004 in the category Best Hip-Hop/Soul. Loop-troop's new album Fort Europa went recently straight in at no. 5 on the Album Chart and the band is currently touring Europe. (http://www.smff.se/eng.html), will this do? --Isolani 20:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand according to WP:NMG. According to this article from EMI Publishing, [9], he appeared on a top 5 album by Looptroop and his solo album Tellings from Solitaria won a Swedish Grammy. Capitalistroadster 23:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• I have expanded this album to establish notability. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per rewrite.--Isotope23 03:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to MythBusters Episodes. - ulayiti (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Episode 6 (Mythbusters)

We really don't need articles on individual episodes. We have a perfectly good and to-the-point list at MythBusters Episodes--DooMDrat 11:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination.--DooMDrat 11:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/merge seems to be a decent article, but perhaps there should be a general article on each season. - SimonP 14:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge useful info to MythBusters Episodes. I see nothing wrong with adding information to that list. Jacqui ^{★ 15:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Merge per above. -Andrew 17:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme smerge to mythbusters article. -R. fiend 17:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, which means don't lose the additional information in the process. This article explains the testing method, not just the result, and is much more useful (i.e., encylopedic) than the current chart at MythBusters Episodes. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etherpron

Hoax/neologism. Flowerparty■ 02:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom jnothman ^talk 02:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Neologisms delenda est. --DavidConrad 02:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Let's delete this for comical purpose. -- Captain Disdain 07:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Nausea (book). --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Existential nausea

Wikipedia is not a humor dictionary BeteNoir 06:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• SpeedyDelete per nomination. - BeteNoir 06:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom jnothman ^talk 06:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Nausea (book). tregoweth 07:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• I guess this is not humorous, but item still belongs more in a dictionary, or article on Nausea (book). No redirect is needed IMHO. BeteNoir 07:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this might actually have been an earnest entry rather than an attempt at humour. However, Angst has it covered. Marskell 15:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Nonsense JFW | T@lk 17:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Tregoweth, please. Xoloz 17:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to 1) Nausea (book) or 2) Jean-Paul Sartre. Edwardian 06:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free London Musical Press

No google hits. Same IP used to create article for The Spunkers which is also on afd as presumable vanity for a non-notable band at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spunkers. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. NN. mdd4696 21:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 23:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free World Dialup

Advert, and, despite being 9 years old, probably not notable. Better to list website on a list from Voice over IP article. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom, obviously. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as ad, not notable. --Foofy 20:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain, after some more reading I'm just not sure. --Foofy 17:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this service has also been in operation for nine years, and the FCC considers it notable enough to rule on its regulatory status, as a quick check of Google would have shown. [10] ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 21:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per EEquor Tedernst 22:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the default VoIP providers in my ADSL modem's settings. -- Chuq 03:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Vonage's website specifically discusses providing connectivity with Free World Dialup. --mcherm 22:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems verifiable. Trollderella 22:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this service was a pioneer in VoIP. VoIP is just coming into its own and this service is ideal for people who are getting started and want to connect to others. Frank Mabrey

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freeones

• Delete - Advert/not encyclopedic - added along with external links to it by other article solely to support the website. User contributing has no other unrelated edits. -Tεxτurε 21:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The creating user's edits for the day:
    • 16:56, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Dalene Kurtis (→External links)
    • 16:56, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Crystal Klein (→External links)
    • 16:51, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Internet pornography (→External links)
    • 16:46, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Sky Lopez
    • 16:43, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Briana Banks (→External links)
    • 16:40, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Jenna Jameson (→External links)
    • 16:31, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Image:Freeones Logo.jpg (→Summary) (top)
    • 16:28, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Freeones (Added logo)
    • 16:22, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Image:Freeones Logo.jpg (http://www.freeones.com/)
    • 16:06, 2 November 2005 (hist) (diff) Freeones (Creation)
• DELETE ad FRS 22:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. These sites are a dime a dozen and I don't see anything to suggest this one is any more notable than the others. 23skidoo 23:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Alexa rating of 561, but the site appears to be nothing more than a link repository, and tactics this user is employing to advertise his website (because there's no other word for what he's doing) are just not christmas. Delete as advertising and remove external links from all pages this user has added the website to. Saberwyn 04:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain in light of JM.Beaubourg's argument, but I still consider it supicious that the user creates an article on a website, then goes and adds the website's external link to a number of pages, resulting in the sum total of his/her contributions. Saberwyn 00:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. tregoweth 04:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Any reference to any website here on Wikipedia could be considered advertising, so it's quite a lame reason. So the question would remain whether this website warrants an entry in an encyclopedia. Since Freeones is one of the largest and also longest-living site of its kind, featuring original content and normally biographical data on its featured actresses, centerfolds, musicians, porn stars, sportswomen, supermodels and TV hosts (these are the categories by which one can sort the entries), which can (and will) be used as sources to enter/verify information on Wikipedia. For both reason I strongly support keeping this entry.

Additionally I should point out that judging someone's work by unrelated contributions is a bit useless if the registered (!) user has only started contributing. The fellow has made his first contribution on November 2nd, which was just about 5 hours before his article was marked for deletion (which is not the point here - my reasoning for keeping was argued above) and his contribution history was used as an argument against the article - thus being ad hominem (including the fact that the list at the beginning of this discussion was claimed by User:Texture to be the creating user's edits for the day which is just the half-truth; as I already mentioned, it's his first contribution to Wikipedia ever, see Special:Contributions/CWonroy). JM.Beaubourg 00:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

In judging whether a website and immediate links to it in other articles are spam and not real what do we have to use as a guide? Every day that passes where this user makes no other contributions furthers a simple belief that this was a spam attack. New users do not solely add one website to many articles and perform no other edits. - Tεxτurε 16:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

It took me 2 days and three hours to make further contributions after adding the first article, and the following edits were pretty much related to my first contributions. All I'm saying is, that this is not considered a valid argument. And if this were a spam attack, then it took the folks at Freeones an astounding four years (well I don't know the exact date when Wikipedia was set up), as Freeones was started in 1998. I feel like Wikipedia can also be used describe the functions of internet business, of which sex-related website make an important part (I mean: who owns what, what practices do they use - so it can also be used as a critical guide). JM.Beaubourg 00:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, according to Herr Schönburg's rationale. I urge CWonroy to continue contributing to WP. Olessi 06:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me begin by saying that I AM NOT AFFILIATED WITH FREEONES or their webmasters or anything; If I was, I think I probably would have been versed enough to make a more detailed entry. Second, I can see why my contributions have raised suspicions since they are the only contributions I made in that time frame and they did all relate. I guess that's fair game for debate (although unintended). But JM.Beaubourg raised a good point and it leads me to ask, would it have been better if I would have interspersed my contributions with other random contributions to make the more diversified? I don't think that's a requirement.

By the way, if you look at the Sky Lopez revision history, you will find that in addition to adding the Freeones link, I fixed a caption error at the top of the article. When Texturε reverted my edit back to the previous version, the caption error remained. Another user, Brim has since fixed the caption error.

If you look at the Crystal Klein article's revision history as well, you find another mistake by Texturε. Without comparing the article's history with my edit, he reverted back to the original article. The Freeones link was already there, and what I did was (1) Add a link to the new Freeones Article and (2) add Warning: Contains links to explicit material. to the link. It did not exist when I edited the article, and therefore it did not exist when Texturε reverted it back.

The same can be seen in the Dalene Kurtis article history where the Freeones link already existed and I just added a link to the Freeones article.

This is all just to show that we can all make mistakes and is not an attack on anybody. It also shows that even if insignificant, I did actually make other contributions.

Anyway, I strongly feel that this entry, in and of itself, is okay as encyclopedic material. As for the links I created on the other articles, delete them if you have to as that is where the real debate lies.

On a side note, consider that the website for Gibson Research Corporation is listed on Wikipedia and it's Alexa rating is currently 17867 [11]. Then that raises the question, is the Alexa website ranking the determiner for encyclopedic material?; of course not. But, considering how many websites are ranked by Alexa, 561 has to be somewhat significant. Howstuffworks is ranked 1086 [12] which surprised me. And lastly, WebMD is 622 [13].

I am sorry for the trouble I have caused, and I hope the issue resolves itself. Thanks for sharing your opinions on the matter. –CWonroy.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCD^e✉ 03:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freezer

Someone has deleted this article without explaining why. I don't agree with the deletion. A refrigerator and a freezer are not the same thing, so should have separate articles. CarDepot 20:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: someone redirected the article to refrigerator without comment. I restored the article with the AfD nomination. -- Kjkolb 22:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable household appliance. Capitalistroadster 23:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP and expand. There are upright freezers, chest freezers, commercial and scientific freezers. This is a must keep. Stu 00:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment I added in content to the article this evening. The content needs someone else to to prrof it and rewrite where needed. But I think it lifts the article up. Stu 02:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. -- Necrothesp 02:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as it is notable. Carioca 04:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but only if the facts presented are corrected to reflect reality. The article as written is at best full of errors. Vegaswikian 07:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you be more specific on the "full" errors of errors so they can be corrected? Stu 00:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — Historically notable. — RJH 18:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Notable. --Optichan 19:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Garr 22:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 64.194.44.220 15:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Foosher 03:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep TreeFrogz 11:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Garrius Carpenterus

Looks like complete nonsense (presumably insulting someone called Gary Carpenter), but not quite qualifying as patent or vanity. DJ Clayworth 18:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• This qualifies for speedy delete as db-attack (a short article serving no purpose other than to disparage its subject), surely? 18:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and yeah, I can see a speedy as attack page.--Isotope23 18:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as mentioned above. PJM 18:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy A6, A7, G1. --JJay 19:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as above.--Bookandcoffee 19:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: there is a Garry Carpenter at that school, but I didn't find anything about him being arrested or imprisoned. -- Kjkolb 01:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom jnothman ^talk 01:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted. An attack page (A6), and really this is thinly disguised vandalism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GeeseUK

Non-notable Halo gaming clan. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• ...as opposed to all the notable ones... Ahem. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 07:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete of course. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Do not delete this page. The clan has many members who love coming and seeing what's new! and it shows that halo isn't just for freaky hardcore people, but for people who can have a laugh. Plus its comically written. Template:Subts:unsigned
• If you delete this page you have serious mental problems. (preceding unsigned comment by 81.178.137.177 (talk • contribs) )
• I think this page has it's positives, and as the person above states, clan members most likely enjoy reading the entry. It could also serve as an insight into online gaming clans, particularly for Xbox games. (preceding unsigned comment by 86.130.210.33 (talk • contribs) )
• Delete per nom. Google returns a whopping 4 results for "GeeseUK". howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Kgf0 23:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, clanity. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete I am not a memeber of the clan itself but i play Halo 2 and it is interesting to see a clan presented in such a casual way (preceding unsigned comment by 195.194.86.166 (talk • contribs) )
• Delete and comment to all the anonymous voters that the admin closing this discussion will understand that your votes are not informed by Wikipedia's policies and purpose. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. *drew 04:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George Rivera III

The claims made in the article are frankly unbelievable about a 19 year old, and I get no hits on Google for "George Rivera" with "Trips Records" or "Trips Gear". "George Rivera" with "Albuquerque" in the search gets a lot of hits, but it isn't clear that any of them relate to the subject of the article. Some of them seem to be about the governor of a tribe of Pueblo indians. The article should be deleted unless substantiated by reliable sources. DavidConrad 02:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• (Note: added a message to the anonymous creator's talk page (63.230.97.11). --DavidConrad 02:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC))
• Delete as currently is. If verified, ignore my vote. Saberwyn 02:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. articles on "George Rivera" with Alberquerque relate to the mayor of Pojoaque Pueblo, older than 19... jnothman ^talk 02:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:V. No Google hits for George Rivera III Albuquerqu see [14].

No evidence presented in the article that he is the best known person in that town and Google clearly refutes the claim. Capitalistroadster 04:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 07:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rubbish. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete total load. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 22:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Georgie and the Chipmunks

Unverifiable. No Google results for "Georgie and the Chipmunks". No relevant results for "Georgie Chipmunks heavy metal Poland". Brought to you by the same anonymous user responsible for Klep dim Trep. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 00:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. —BrianSmithson 01:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:V and WP:NMG. Not known to Allmusic.com or Google see [15]. Capitalistroadster 02:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom jnothman ^talk 02:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, but "currently still gigging in local bars and pubs in their hometown" doesn't establish notability -- particularly not when it's apparently their only claim to fame. -- Captain Disdain 08:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V. Flowerparty■ 13:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable non-notable band vanity - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (A7). Physchim62 (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grant Cobb

Non-notable, probably vanity. He has written one book that "may or not be published". Ifnord 15:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete 12-year-old fanfic author. Cute and well-intentioned, but can't reasonably be kept. Since the subject is knowledgeable about Pokemon, perhaps he'd be interested in contributing to WP:PAC and WP:PCP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --anetode¹ ² ³ 18:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete gently... if someone could get him to make a user, it could always be userfied...--Isotope23 18:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom *drew 05:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Vanity. Non-notable. --Nlu 23:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HAMPSHIRE HALLOWEEN

Article about a Halloween party. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 18:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all non-notable Hallowe'en parties. Tonywalton |Talk 18:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable party... Mwa-ha-ha!--Isotope23 18:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as very NN. PJM 18:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this is a conspicuously important part of Hampshire College student life, the contributors of this article are invited to add something short and appropriate to the article on Hampshire College. HAMPSHIRE HALLOWEEN is not a useful redirect so should not be kept. The work involved in a proper merge-and-delete is too much to put on the shoulders of the closing sysop so I won't propose that. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Hampshire Haloween was notable at one point because it was written up in Playboy Magazine (I have no cite, this was what people said when I was there) as one of the parties not to miss due to various college party crazinesses. I'll look for some more definitive cites to see if I can back this up & possibly do a small rewrite if notability can be established. Jessamyn 20:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

* that said, a merge seems appropriate in any case. Jessamyn 20:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as standalone article. However, as user Jessamyn who lives in the region, says it forms a notable part of Hampshire College life, something appropriate should be included in the article. Capitalistroadster 00:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. *drew 05:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as vanity supported by sockpuppets. - ulayiti (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hans Boepple

not notable, possible vanity We99 18:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• He has apparently played with several prominent orchestras, recorded for a couple of labels and received a number of awards.[16][17] I would welcome the nominator to make his case for the non-notability of Boepple, but for now I see no reason not to keep this article. u p p l a n d 06:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Changing my vote to delete - too many words, too little substance from the Hans Boepple Fan Club. u p p l a n d 07:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If Boepple has recorded for a number of labels, where can I buy his CDs online? Where did Hans Boepple receive his PhD and where is the list of published papers? If Boepple has made important contributions to the field, there should be a list of published papers, if his contributions were original and worth putting into writing. The logic to save this page is ludicrous: "He lives in a unique city and he plays a unique set of songs." This is a vanity page and does not deserve to be in an encyclopedia. If Boepple is a noted classical performer, where is his concert or touring schedule? An occassional concert doesn't qualify as a concert pianist. Hundreds of piano competitions are held every year with hundreds of winners. Boepple is not notable. The fact that SCUMATT would call him a renowned classical pianist and hyperlink pianist to the Wikipedia pianist page does a disservice and is self-promotion. More troubling is the title of "Master Pianist" on Wikipedia. Assuming no one steps up to the plate to point to his CDs, his playing doesn't rise to the level of playing as other pianists that are on Wikipedia pianist page. The fact that there are links to his faculty web page indicate this is vanity. We99 17:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • • Note: I have reinstated We99's original post above, according to Uppland's request below. We99, I hope you don't mind, but this was necessay; please see your Talk page for explanation and information. Bishonen | talk 00:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The recordings he has made, or rather the ones I can easily find, are for an educational music publisher, Neil A. Kjos Music Company [18], see [19] and [20]. The newly registered users arguing for the retention of the article should presumably be in a position to provide details of Boepple's other recordings hinted at in his online bios, but that they seem uninterested in doing so is making me lean towards changing my vote to a delete (I'll wait a couple of days before doing so, though). The PhD issue is however completely irrelevant for a music professor - I don't think Nadia Boulanger had a doctorate - so please don't waste time on that either way unless the argument is that he has made some scholarly contributions to musicology. u p p l a n d 06:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
      • First of all, the point of the comparison was not to compare the importance of one with the other, but to point out that a professor of music, i.e. somebody who teaches music on a practical level at a conservatory or musical academy or similar institution (which is apparently what Boepple does), does not normally need to have a Ph.D., as opposed to somebody who teaches, say, music history. In this case, the music school just happens to be part of a university, which is what may confuse you. Secondly, stop revising your original comments! To substantially change a comment to which somebody else has already replied confuses the issue and makes the discussion impossible to follow. If you want to reply to a comment made by somebody else, don't change your original comment, but put your new comment, indented, below the comment you want to reply to, and sign it with a datestamp. Please go back now and restore your comment to what it originally looked like when I replied to it, and add your newer comments further down in the discussion. u p p l a n d 18:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
        • For reasons already stated above, whether this Boepple has a doctorate is not the issue. It is completely irrelevant. Neither is the issue whether he is the equal of Arthur Rubinstein as a pianist or of Nadia Boulanger as an instructor. The issue is just whether he is notable enough for to fulfill the requirements of WP:MUSIC, which lets in a lot of obscure death metal bands only notable in their own subculture. So far I haven't seen any sensible discussion of that either from you or from the other recently created users commenting below. And BTW, I have already stated that I will change my vote to delete unless Boepple's defenders present more evidence of his recordings. You don't need to convince me on that point, but stop obsessing over the issue of his doctorate. u p p l a n d 22:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
          • • I have repaired the links to the interviews, which I thought would be beneficial additions to provide personal insight concerning Boepple that print encyclopedias don't have the opportunity to demonstrate. As far as recordings, the two that seem to be listed most often are the Kjos Music recordings shown above and the complete Bagatelles by Beethoven for the Orion Master Recordings series. See [21]. I haven't been able to track down any pre-web era recordings that he may have made. It is true that Boepple has settled into teaching and has not currently toured as a performer within the last decade or so. To me, his past performances and competitions, recordings, and demand as a teacher should be enough to warrant an article. Particularly, the inclusion on the Steinway list suggests that he is a highly respected classical musician. Once again, no one is trying to compare him with the great pianists of the past. Also: do see my new comments below. As they suggest, I am not at all opposed to changing the wording of the article such that it does not include terms like "renowned" or "master pianist" if a consensus is reached that these words, by definition, should only be used for household names. To me, they are usual enough in the classical music lexicon to be used with any well respected performer.SCUMATT 4:35, 5 November 2005 (PST) (I'm not sure if there is a way to edit the page so that this comes up automatically. Again, I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia)
          • SCUMATT, please provide a link where we can buy his complete bagatelle recordings. If you have reviews, that would be great, too. It seems fishy that you are only referencing a page that talks about it. We99 06:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• I know in my heart that this article is worth keeping on the basis that Hans Boepple has won one international piano competition in the last millenium when back when piano competitions were geniunely competitive because the idea had not caught on as much as it has today. These days I counted 100 competitions at http://www.piano-net.com/links.htm so people take it for granted. Just because any international piano competition may seem meaningless today, it meant a lot than he won one a long time ago when there were fewer piano competitions and you could keep track of the names more easily. I am mostly impressed that all these notable symphony venues openly rented their facilities to him because every musician needs to play at important places and ask others for help promoting the concert with articles. We need to keep this article solely on the basis of the Steinway International list and the unique list of cities that he has played in. Getting real experience as a musician is far better than squandering time and cash on a Ph.D. in music or one of those DMA degrees. It would be completely unfair to compare him to to Jonathan Berger because he is a chairman of a rival university that grants its own doctorates in music and attended a univesrity that granted those degrees a long time ago. We only need to be listening to opinions that are neutral not from rival music scholars or rival musicians. We should definitely not compare him with chairwoman Ingrid Monsoon because she is an African jazz and she receives sponsorship monies from her sock puppet committee that was more interested in African jazz diversity instead sticking to the piano classics. Only undiplomatic doctorate divas who know nothing about how a university degree factory works would dare ask about his Ph.D. No music chair would ever ask about that of another because the chairman of the department can always print a diploma using university's special paper on it and ask his professional peers to sign it as a professional courtesy. There is nothing vain about being the chair of department and setting policy. Policy is not vain. It is one of the responsibilities and privileges of a department chairman to sign diplomas and make policy. I think music chairs also participate in admissions decisions too. I see every reason to keep this article. He is of a unique age and lives in a unique city and plays a unique set of songs. Those are the reasons to keep this article. Campbrat 03:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• As I entered the article into Wikipedia, I won't offer a vote in the matter; I will, however, offer some insights. First, in response to We99, noted classical performers don't always get PhD's and usually do not publish papers. Their artistic achievements generally speak for themselves. Secondly, I think that Boepple is sufficiently notable in classical circles, in which he is a widely recognized teacher and adjudicator as well as performer. Classical artists, unless we're talking about the very top handful, tend to receive media attention in specialized outlets that are not as widely read by people whose interests are not in classical music. Boepple is not the Michael Jordan of pianists; however, he has made important contributions to his field and is quite well regarded throughout the US. To extend the basketball metaphor, we welcome articles about proven stars in the NBA even if they are not Jordan or Bryant. Should we not extend the same welcome to pianists? SCUMATT 05:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• My apologies User_talk:NSLE, I mustn't have been signed in under my username when I edited my suggestion. Secondly, there were complaints about the wording... "master pianist" I believe. If the article is not deleted, please feel free to change the words. Often pianists are described in such a way when they have had as much education and performance experience as Mr. Boepple, even if they don't compare to whichever piano "greats" that you choose to cite. Thirdly, I am not interested in creating a vanity article concerning Mr. Boepple. As a student at SCU and someone realatively new to Wikipedia, I have simply tried to provide the information with which I am exposed at the present and that I think is helpful and acceptable by Wikipedia; I believe that I have been fair in this regard. Obviously, there is some disagreement and ambiguity in terms of the place of biography especially among musicians. Fourthly, there was some insinuation that Mr. Boepple was in some way interested in comparing himself with the said "paino greats" which is untrue. He has no knowledge of or association with this article, nor am I one of his students or a major or minor in his department. I am simply someone who has been told of his excellence, heard him play, and know that students from across the US come to Santa Clara to study with him and have turned down major scholarships to USC, Oberlin, and other noted conservatories to do so. My research about him suggested that he was enough of a noted classical pianist to warant a small article on Wikipedia. Obviously others disagree. I appreciate and understand criticism of articles I write and certainly understand if an article I write is deleted through this process; however, please do not jump to conclusions as to my reasoning for authoring this or any other article. SCUMATT 4:35, 5 November 2005 (PST) (I'm not sure if there is a way to edit the page so that this comes up automatically. Again, I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia).

• Comment - Take a look at the page history; all the red links on the page history. Their user contribs are all less than 50, and most have been to this page. Someone below signed as User:SCUMATT, who has NOT edited this page. This smacks of major sockpuppetry to me. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 08:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  
  • I moved this comment down here. Please don't insert your comments before the nomination. u p p l a n d 08:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete has four external links three of which are dead and one which is just an interview. Many red links...Dakota ^{t e} 22:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• I have repaired the links. Most are interviews; although I'm sure other information can supplant these articles. SCUMATT

• A living healthy person like Boepple that hasn't toured in the last decade means he isn't a notable performer. If his recordings are notable, where are the reviews of those recordings? If these recordings were worthwhile, they would have been reviewed. I'm sorry, but an advertisement for Hans Boepple on Wikipedia just doesn't belong. Nadia Boulanger had people like Aaron Copland and Leonard Bernstein as her students. Has Boepple produced anyone close to an Aaron Copland? We99 02:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • First, "a living healthy person like Boepple that hasn't toured in the last decade" may simply indicate that his attention has turned to teaching. Secondly, if Nadia Boulanger and Aaron Copland are the standards that Wikipedia is going to use to indicate which articles deserve to be on Wikipedia, then there are many articles in need of deleting. The decision of whether or not to include Boepple will depend entirely on this issue: whether this online encyclopedia tends to inclusivity or exclusivity. I don't think that I have the answer to that question. Do see the "classical music" section of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines SCUMATT 2:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC). (Note: Scumatt, were you asking about inserting your signature? If you sign your posts by typing four tildes, like this ~~~~, they will convert automagically to your individual sig plus timestamp when you save./Bishonen | talk)

• • • If his attention has turned to teaching, what is the evidence to show he is a teacher worth putting into Wikipedia? What are the names of his greatest students? The issue is really whether SCUMATT should be allowed to legitimize mediocrity under the rhetoric of "inclusiveness." I think not. We99 03:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Provisional Delete. Delete. I'm sorry, but I've been watching the development of this debate, expecting the keep voters to come up with better arguments, and I don't see it happening. The "unique age, unique city and unique set of songs" argument, or that "the chairman of the department can always print a diploma using university's special paper on it and ask his professional peers to sign it as a professional courtesy" don't really do the cause any favors, so I'll just disregard them. (I'm inside the "university degree factory" myself, and, um, no.) If the enthusiasts of B who have posted here don't come up with something more concrete, I'm going to vote "Delete" myself. SCUMATT, the decision doesn't so much depend on "whether this online encyclopedia tends to inclusivity or exclusivity", or how ably you can argue in the abstract, but more on what specific references you can supply. The reviews of recordings and names of notable students that We99 asks for would help, for instance. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

KEEP! I agreed with some earlier comments that Mr. Boepple does not need a Ph.D. to receive the international commercial recognition that he has receievd. There is a complete justification for keeping Hans Boepple is that he has made many contemporary developments classical music. Even if Hans Boepple is humble enough to refer to them as extraordinary secrets, those contributions deserve to be kept because his work is unique within the music profession. There are so few Bach purists, so few tenured music teachers, old school international competitors of international renown, Western European music experts, purists who respect the international developments of the last century, who have composed works with the unique key sequences that Mr. Boepple brings to the keyboard. It would reflect poorly on this encyclopedia if those who delete him do so without trying to find his songs and listen to them. I am not sure who is qualified to delete Mr. Boepple without listening to his compact discs, reading more about him, or seeing him perform in concert. I vote that we trust the neutrality and honesty of SCUMATT that Mr. Boepple has no knowledge of these articles or of SCUMATT's attempts to independently document his story (that more than satisfies my definition of history). Mr. Boepple's accomplishments are independently and adequately documented in Santa Clara University's website and the SCU alumni association magazine and written by people of color and people of gender who speak highly of him. Every reporter knows it is necessary to interview the source directly in order to have an accurate story. I feel the stories about Mr. Boepple are either accurate because he is quoted as a direct source or they are developed independently and are therefore neutral. These salaried university employees do not have any publicist commission interests in overstating or understating the accomplishments of Mr. Boepple so we can safely assume that they are stated at the correct level because it is a university publication that has passed editorial or some peer review muster. We also need to discount any comments from anyone who has a classical music CD that competes with Mr. Boepple. Mr. Boepple's music star rivals have every incentive to give him a poor review so those reviews need to be disconted. We need to filter out any biased comments from jealous individuals who have not earned the tenure that Mr. Boepple has. He has a masters degree in music with an emphasis on piano so does that not make him a master pianist if not a master musician. Many other music chairs lack the specialization in piano performance that Mr. Boepple has. I think if we document all the money that Mr. Boepple has received for any of his music expertise, we can conclude that he is a music professional and therefore deserves privilege of an article solely for the payments he has received for his music which seems far more relevant than answering questions about a degree he could have earned before any of his students were born. Golf players are accorded respect for the size of their money purse or their professional status. Why can't Mr. Boepple be accorded some respect for the size of his professional purse? He is more than a dallying amateur who could not hack it in the competitive world of classical piano and then needed to earn a living from one of those ultra-high paying low-class televised professions that lack the artistic respect that Mr. Boepple obtains freely. Mr. Boepple has earned the role of a tenured classical professional who consistently speaks the truth and should be respected for his position instead of constantly flip-flopping between professions because he does not know what his profession is. His sphere of influence is not restricted to a monolithic organization's monolithic website. If knowledge of Mr. Boepple is ubiquitous common knowledge, then I vote that this article should be allowed to document HIS story about what his job as a music chair is. Musicpro 02:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Musicpro 02:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Er...is the above new user writing in response to my request for references? "We can safely assume that the SCU alumni association magazine has ... some peer review muster"? We need to discount any comments from anyone who has a classical music CD that competes with Mr. Boepple...? And he has a masters degree in music with an emphasis on piano so does that not make him a master pianist...? Thank you, I quite understand, I'm now fully ready to vote delete. Bishonen | talk 03:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Head-Royce School. —Cleared as filed. 04:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Head Royce School

• This page is a duplicate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.133.4.36 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC).
• Then merge or redirect it. (Can anyone figure out what it's a duplicate of? I can't, or I'd just do it.) —Cryptic (talk) 12:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Head-Royce School CalJW 15:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per CalJW (be sure to merge any useful info first). And to the nom: for future refenece, we have a page that handles duplicate entries. No need to bring it to AfD. Jacqui ^{★ 16:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)}
• redirect this too please there is no reason to erase this Yuckfoo 20:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, needless redirect.Gateman1997 02:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• redirect to Head-Royce School. --rob 05:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• R, N. —RaD Man (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hierarchy of the Zucchini People

Non notable website/student paper. Was published between autumn 94 to spring 95? Then moved online? A Google search for the term, gives 30 links. - Hahnchen 23:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• delete Much less known than Bad Boys of Computer Science; no alexa ranking; site down jnothman ^talk 02:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not just a student paper, a high school student paper. Not notable. BrianSmithson 12:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Unfortunate delete given how amusing the article title. Marskell 15:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead ^Dialogue? 21:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dragonfiend 02:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Imagolantern

non-notable, bordering nonsensical.

• Delete. Gazpacho 21:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No Google hits, newly coined term for some sort of school project. BrianSmithson 21:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I found nothing as well. NN. PJM 23:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete according to the deletion policy. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Baller

An essay and original research. Thue | talk 22:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Tedernst 22:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It should be re-written to conform to the stylistic conventions of an encyclopedia article, but the fact that it is likely original research is not sufficient reason to delete, policy to the contrary notwithstanding. Policy is wrong in this instance (as it is a lot, I've noticed) and therefore must be ignored. Kurt Weber 00:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete googled with no result...Dakota 00:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Admins should use their perogative to ignore keep votes that explicitly state they are ignoring policy. Quale 06:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Quale. --TM ^(talk) 09:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Nonsense posted by repeat poster of nonsense --Bucephalus talk to me 23:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. MCB 08:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Foosher 03:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inside air conditioning unit

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• delete no need for redirect to air conditioning. Youngamerican 01:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• NOTE This article was nominated for AfD by the same author who created it. This author appears to be a sockpuppet for StuRat. The intent of this nomination appears to be to disrupt AfD. Denni☯ 06:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm not even sure how accurate that information is given that most of the inside units I know about are not in a garage or basement. Vegaswikian 07:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The author could add the information (if it is valid information) to air conditioning. —Wayward ^Talk 13:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Air conditioning; redirects are cheap. — RJH 18:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Add Image. Garr 00:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 64.194.44.220 15:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Foosher 03:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep TreeFrogz 11:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This user's only votes are for AfDed articles created by the author of this article. Denni☯ 03:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ral315 (talk) 02:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International Web and E-Publications Festival, International Web Festival

Non-notable event. Google search INTWEBFEST gets 67 results. Festival run by Behrooz Modirrousta, also up for deletion. Delete. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete , vanity events. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 00:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, also delete International Web Festival. Ral315 (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Israel vs. Iran and Russia War

Original research abakharev 06:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Agreed, this is personal speculation rather than knowledge. Remy B 06:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom jnothman ^talk 06:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. mikka (t) 06:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly an OR, to put it mildly. --Irpen 06:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speculation per referrer. --Ghirlandajo 14:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Speculation not suitable for encyclopedia JFW | T@lk 15:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Not original research -- this is well-known Christiancruft and a plot point in the Left Behind novels. Haikupoet 19:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Funny - I don't remember Iran or Russia appearing anywhere in the Tanakh. --Bachrach44 17:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep To Bachrach, it comes from "Persia" and "Magog"

• comment - there is no theological proof that Magog is Russia - it's simply speculation that was common during the cold war era. --Bachrach44 16:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• You underestimate the tenacity of fundies. A great many of them are convinced of the connection, and fundamentalism in general tends to be somewhat... how can I put this diplomatically?... resistant to outside arguments. Haikupoet 02:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus default to keep (3 keeps, 3 deletes discounting the last vote which is incorrectly signed by an anon IP). - ulayiti (talk) 12:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] J-Walk Blog

Page about a minor blog. It appears to fall under WP:NOT: "self-promotion" and "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I vote to delete. RJH 17:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep alexa ranking is 39,330; fairly notable for a blog. --anetode¹ ² ³ 17:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Blog; not notable.--Isotope23 17:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Isotope23. *drew 05:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep >>sparkit|TALK<< 01:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Noteworthy blog. Franc28 00:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Fairly notable blog. User:Ajithat 01:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Considine

Vanity. Suspect non-notability, but not 100% certain, so using AFD instead of Speedy. Definitely totally non-encyclopedic. TexasAndroid 19:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE vanity, nn FRS 21:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• speedy delete nn vanity Tedernst 22:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 54 hits many of which aren't even him = non-notable. --Kgf0 23:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jiang QiLi

Most likely a hoax; user also contributed to these edits at [22] and [23] --Confuzion 12:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless strongly supported with good references. The only Jiang QiLi on Google is a male farmer who commented in a news story that he hadn't seen any condom ads? link Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless referenced Dlyons493 Talk 15:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] John Manos

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

• Delete unless strongly supported by credible references. We can't take chances on hoax articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: If this is deleted, then please delete the redirect John manos too. — JIP | Talk 16:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax - doesn't appear at [24]. JPD (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Private Butcher 19:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - never heard of him. -- Longhair | Talk 20:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- pfctdayelise 23:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per JPD. pfctdayelise 23:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete according to WP:V. Supposedly a player with the Essendon Football Club, a very popular club in the Australian Football League. However, a Google search for "John Manos" Essendon came up empty see [25] and JPD couldn't find any record of him on the club web page. Capitalistroadster 23:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete apparent hoax. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax, no references -- Ian ≡ talk 12:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Snottygobble | Talk 22:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, certainly a hoax. --Roisterer 01:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Uncle G 00:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kathy Hills

This article is currently a duplicate of Kathy Mitchell (EastEnders) article. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what the editor has done. The original page I created was simply named Kathy Mitchell (EastEnders), the user then went on to move this page to Kathy Beale (this being the previous marital name of the character), and then, instead of using the automatic move page, simply created Kathy Hills - Hills being the maiden name.

However, though the character of Kathy is divorced, she still posses the Mitchell name as can be seen on the BBC character profile.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/eastenders/eastenders/characters/character_content/character_kathy_m.shtml

Whatever way, a duplicate is not required.

EastEnders the great 18:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• This is Articles for deletion. Wikipedia:duplicate articles is along the corridor, three doors down. Uncle G 19:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ok thanks, I'm just going to re-direct from the page, no point in going through a duplicate process when the content is the same. EastEnders the great 23:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Party. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keg party

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• keep. Common term for a party where someone rents a keg filled with beer. Deserves more than a wiktionary entry. Youngamerican 01:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • also expand and cleanup Youngamerican 01:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is really no more than a dictionary definition. It’s difficult to see what else could be added to this beyond the definition that is given here. A party is a party and many kinds of beverages could be, and are served. Other than the beverages served, what is the difference between a beer party, a margarita party, a wine party, etc? It’s the people that make a party, not the beverage that is served. I’ll be glad to change my vote if someone can expand on this article enough to make a real article and explain the differences between a keg party and other types of parties. ♠DanMS 02:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment I am going to work on this article over the next couple of days on my broadband connectin and non-crappy computer at work to try to make it a worthwhile article. I will research its social meaning, especially with American youths, its association with binge drinking, the rejection of the events by many frats, and references in pop culture. Please check my edits this weekend and see if the article has been made worthwhile. If it still stinks, then lets trash it or restore the redirect. Youngamerican 03:03,
    • another comment I worked on this a good bit, but a power outage deleted all of my work (I was too dumb to hit save). I still plan to work on this, but its been a hectic time at work, so it might be a while. But making this article-worthy is still tops on my wiki-to do list. In the mean time, I still urge everyone to vote keep or at least redirect to party in order to give me a chance to do a proper article without going through undeletion. Cheers. Youngamerican 14:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Keg parties are very notable. Garr 03:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Keg parties are an important staple of coming of age (even adulthood) in America. --Howrealisreal 00:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 64.194.44.220 15:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Youngamerican. Foosher 03:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keith hartzell

Probably vanity. Notability assertion is not credible: Google has heard of neither any entomologist by this name nor the award he supposedly received. The attempted image link goes to a staff picture at a fireplace and cookstove import and sales company. --Tabor 21:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity, bordering on nonsense FRS 22:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 07:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kiarein

vanity page, NN, is probably spam. Google has zero hits. Bachrach44 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Bachrach44 15:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. This brings neologisms to a new front. Ifnord 15:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Doesn't seem to be a speedy candidate, but definitely needs to be deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Original work, vanity, non-notable, incoherent - no reason to let this live another day. DenisMoskowitz 16:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • On sober reflection it's not really speedy - but definitely delete. DenisMoskowitz 21:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• I have removed {{nonsense}}. This article does not qualify as patent nonsense, a phrase which has a narrow meaning in Wikipedia policy. Please see WP:PN for more information. Please delete the page for contravention of WP:NOR. encephalon
• Delete per nom. Oyvind 10:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, A7. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Klaus Lebkuchen

A hoax. This "Nicolas Gingerbread" was supposedly the first husband of Magda Goebbels. Uppland 07:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As noted, this is just vandalism. Looking at the author's other contributions, Asgervalen also seems to be disinformation. - Nunh-huh 07:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7. Have tagged as such. howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all of them. - ulayiti (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Klep dim Trep and related articles

NN band/group. Not found on google, allmusic, and is therefore unverifiable as well as not passing WP:MUSIC 158.36.225.169 18:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW: I'm the anon user that afd'ed this article, just had some problems with wp/sessiondata. Bjelleklang - talk 18:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: Combining AFDs for articles related to this band (by same author) for efficiency. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 00:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Klep dim Trep
• Hyrnia Records
• Gary Prys
• Dafydd Owain
• Joni Rhydderch
• Cledwyn Rhydderch
• Trefor Hapus
• Dai Jones
• Rhydderch a'i Fab

NOTE: Relisted on Nov 2 AFD log, as there were other related articles added to the nomination. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 00:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Mostly probably a hoax. Doesn't it sound a bit unlikely that almost all the members from a certain band die from drugs, and two in a car accident..leaving only a few members alive? Also, no references whatsoever on Google, delete. -- SoothingR 18:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and apparently not WP:V.--Isotope23 21:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• It meets the "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in a large or medium-sized country* " rule!!!
• Delete the lot of them for being unverifiable. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 00:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE Bird flu has nothing on the recent spat of articles that all involve the spread of Rhydderch. This article doesn't tell anything that is verifable, noteworthy or otherwise source the information. Stu 22:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Vote transferred from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhydderch a'i Fab
• Delete as non-notable. Carioca 00:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Still delete as per original nom. Also; Comment: Doesn't matter if they've been on a tour, if the information can't be verified. Bjelleklang - talk 00:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete em all as per WP:V and WP:NMG. No record exists of this band on Allmusic.com nor on Google see [26]. Capitalistroadster 02:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a very nicely done hoax, but no evidence jnothman ^talk 02:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ALL -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all of them: unverifiable vanity. In fact, shoot them and burn the bodies. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete..No hits on google or UK/Ireland engine. Hoax or complete unknown vanity...Dakota 23:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all as nn... this is tied in with that butcher shop thing from a couple of days ago, innit? MCB 00:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• This is injustice! I believe you are all against the Welsh lanugage and its undeniable popularity on the internet. It's unbelivable how you can dismiss the lives and deaths of these people as a hoax. You are an insult to the country of Wales. CYMRU AM BYTH!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.155.35 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC).

Comment: It's not about being against the Welsh language, it's about removing an article about a band that can't be verified. Bjelleklang - talk 14:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. You're embarrassing my country, tupsin. Cae dy geg, os gwelwch yn dda. Proto t c 12:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Whatever that means, please do not engage in personal attacks -- SoothingR^(pour) 13:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with SoothingR. A geniune Welsh person would know how to spell TWPSYN. Also, you contradict your own grammar by using the word "dy" in the same sentence and to the same refrence as the more respectable "chi". Furthermore, the spelling "cae" means "field", not "shut". Believe me, I certainly would field my mouth if I could. So, before insulting me, I would recommend you to learn proper Welsh, and please, cau dy geg os gweli di'n dda, y twpsyn ffwc.
  • For the love of God, please cut the fights..my comment was directed at you too. -- SoothingR^(pour) 21:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't panic, SoothingR. It just meant 'close your mouth, please' We even said please! And my Welsh spelling is awful ... I admit it :) Proto t c 10:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I can vouch for this band. They are not on Google, or much of anywhere else but I remember going to a gig once and they were the top billing. I admit it's bread and butter stuff, but it does exist and to delete it is to delete the existence, on the net, of a little known germano-welsh gem.

Comment: It doesn't matter if you say you can vouch for it, as long as the information can't be verified. Bjelleklang - talk 21:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• delete NN band Pete.Hurd 21:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dydy hi ddim yn dda. Grutness...wha? 23:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. I'm new to Wikipedia and I found this page, and saw the comments against the band. They DO exist, and, believe it or not, are quite good! They played a university gig (Aberystwyth probably, though it might have been Cardiff) back when I was a student and they really have a solid fanbase, most of which were good guys. So I plead, for them, keep them on!!

• Nice effort, Grutness(at least better than Proto), but the correct Welsh way to say it is "Dydi o ddim yn dda". It's not quite Maori!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, oddly enough, I'm from the area, and it definitely is notable. --Titoxd^(?!?) 01:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KTAR

Non-notable radio station, advertising. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Yes, it reads like an advertisement. That means it should get revised. It most certainly does NOT mean that it should get deleted. Kurt Weber 00:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Removed all of the advertising crap. Now delete as non-notable. Denni☯ 05:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Unless you consider a station started in 1922, one of the first NBC affiliates, and probably the most listened to station in Phoenix as not notable. Vegaswikian 07:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Vegaswikian--nicely cleaned up now, and, while student radio stations are often deleted, others are generally kept; certainly plenty with less to say about them. Niteowlneils 07:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as stated. zellin t / c 04:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep..lived in Phoenix 2 years never knew about it but if its been on air 83 years and a network affiliate it is certainly notable...Dakota ? e 06:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as vanity. Could maybe have been speedied as well, since there is no real assertion of notability. - ulayiti (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laura-Jane Foley

Student vanity.

lots of issues | leave me a message 07:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nonnotable vanity. Gazpacho 07:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Gazpacho Marcus22 11:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• ...or merge or redirect to Faking It. Definitely doesn't need its own article. AndyJones 18:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Faking It. —Wayward ^Talk 12:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Faking It, no merge. I have been contacted by a user claiming to be Ms Foley on my talk page asking how she gets the content of this article removed. -- Francs2000 21:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

DO NOT remove or alter peoples' comments on this page. If anybody removes or alters other peoples' comments, they can expect to be blocked immediately. · Katefan0^(scribble) 00:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I do know Laura-Jane, and she is rather distressed by the appearance here of "Student vanity" as a result of a google search on her name. Perhaps I can clear up a few things: Laura-Jane didn't actually write this article (someone else did, perhaps as a link from the ISIS_magazine page); she is no longer a student, and is not a "The Honourable". However, the worst confusion arises over the meaning of vanity: to a Wikipedian, it just means irrelevant, whereas to a layperson, it is interpreted as this person is vain. Hope that helps - RichardNeill

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

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

The result of the debate was moved to Lemon Laws, kept there. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lemon law

This article is anything but encyclopedic Isolani 15:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete for CSD A8 - copyvio of www.carlemon.com -Satori ^(talk) 16:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've rewritten the article. It's a stub, but there is room for expansion. probably needs to be monitored so copyvio doesn't get introduced back into it.--Isotope23 16:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Isotope23's rewritten version. Capitalistroadster 17:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment this was deleted by Uncle G after the rewrite, due to the copyvio in history. I have since redirected it to Lemon Laws which is a more substantial article than the rewrite was. The text of the rewrite was "Lemon law is a term used to refer to a series of laws dealing with ownership of defective automobiles. These laws vary from state to state, but generally allow for the owner of a defective vehicle to receive compensation either monentarily or in the form of a replacement vehicle from either the seller or the manufacturer." in case Isotope23 wishes to merge the two, but it's mostly just a restatement of the same. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes Lemon Laws is a better written version than my stub. I wikified it; nothing to merge except one link to a list of laws by state. At the end of the day, I think this AfD can be closed.--Isotope23 17:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The servers are quite slow today. I was actually waiting for the 2 revisions of Isotope23's rewrite to be restored, which took several minutes, at the time that you created the redirect. ☺ Uncle G 17:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• I rescind my delete vote, the redirect was a good idea. --Isolani 17:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• With Uncle G's removal of the copyrighted material there's no need to delete the redirect, so I'm striking out my delete vote. -Satori ^(talk) 21:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete from Wikipedia with a strong recommendation that it be offered to Comixpedia. Not being a sister project under WikiMedia, we can not perform a straight transwiki.

I see that Comixpedia is also licensed under GFDL so a transfer is allowable. However, not being a member of their site and being completely unfamiliar with their codes, formats, styles, etc., I am unwilling to attempt to add the article there myself. If anyone wants to carry out the transfer, please contact me (or any admin) and we can recover the article in order to submit it to Comixpedia. Please remember to also have the Talk page transferred at the same time because it documents the author's release of certain content to GFDL. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LeveL (webcomic)

Non notable obscure webcomic, found here, it's 40 member forum can be found here. Looking through one of their sparse forum threads, I know plenty of effort has been put into this, but I just don't think that the website is notable enough for wikipedia. Can I introduce you guys to comixPedia? Where every webcomic under the sun can get their article there? - Hahnchen 23:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:COMIC. Saberwyn 00:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Withdraw delete vote. This is NOT the webcomic I thought it was. Saberwyn 04:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Nifboy 02:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Comixpedia, the place for most of these unknown webcomics jnothman ^talk 02:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the archive appears reasonably extensive [27] and I see no evidence presented above by the delete votes. When you say an article fails such and such a guideline, please explain how to verify this assertion. Bryan 04:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Alexa rank of 2 million (very bad), and longevity criteria are being left out of the new guidelines being drafted. The best I could find on Google was the artists' LJ and a link on Ponju. Nifboy 05:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep - Alexa rank really isn't the best measure of notability. Consider:
      • Pete Ashdown's US Senate campaign site has an Alexa rank of 2,530,023. Steve Urquhart's rank is 2,910,251. Nobody's suggesting deleting them -- especially if one of them actually manages to beat Orrin Hatch in next year's election (please, please, please). Orrin's site, BTW, ranks 1,490,351.
        • Those people are known for their political activity outside the internet. webcomics only have their internet presence to show. If that can't be verified through Google, Alexa or any other means, that means it doesn't have that presence. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
        • And I would add that Pete Ashdown and Orrin Hatch's websites don't have their own wikipedia article...--Isotope23 21:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • On a more webcomic-related note, it appears that all Keenspace comics get a single ranking of 5,395. That means that a comic like [Saturnalia], that never had a very large reader base and that hasn't updated in a year and a half, ranks more than twice as high as Megatokyo (13,920) or User Friendly (12,251). (Nothing against Saturnalia, BTW: Space Coyote is a great artist and the story was good, too. After this long, though, it's pretty well dead.)
      • Also on webcomics, even Penny Arcade, one of the originals, only ranks 404,199.
      • Alexa does list a few other sites that link to leveL. The best I found there was Megatokyo.--12.160.33.128 15:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
        • No, only four pages link there. MegaTokyo was in the list of sites visitors of LeveL also visit. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply - The forum has 40 members. Longevity does not equal notability. There has been no press reviews/commentary. - Hahnchen 14:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (Well, can also be transwikied; I have no objection to that at all, but my primary thought is that I'd like to remove this from Wikipedia.) Doesn't appear to be notable; frankly, any webcomic where a Google search for "<webcomic's name> <creator's name>" returns ~50 hits is non-notable in the grand scale of things, and possibly also in the webcomics scale of things. That said, I'm sure they'd find a very comfy home at Comixpedia. -- Captain Disdain 07:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Comixpedia per Jnothman and Captain Disdain. WP:NOT a place to list every Web comic ever created. FCYTravis 22:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. Dragonfiend 02:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. See aforementioned arguments for dubiousness of Alexa. Site has roughly 600 visitors a day [28]. Notability aside from immediate popularity should also be considered. -Flare- 18:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Flare made a post on this webcomic's official forums asking the forum members to create a Wikipedia article about it. [29] Ashibaka (tock) 02:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Bryan and Flare. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Bryan and Flare. ♠PMC♠ 20:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This nominationt was closed here. It was then discussed here and here.

To date, there are three clean deletes + nominator + one withdrawn, two transwikis, three clean keep + two with very low contributions (-Flare- (talk • contribs), 12.160.33.128 (talk • contribs)). As this is far from a clear consensus, and not even a clear "no consesus", per discussions with the closer it is being re-listed extended for another five days to draw wider community input. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain, but counsel editors to consult discussions at proposed guideline WP:WEB. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki as suggested. This fails WP:WEB proposed guidelines for a webcomic as far as I can tell. 600 visits a day really isn't much.. and about consistant with the Alexa rank. Millions of sites get 600 visits a day. 40 posters to the forum... I just don't see what makes this webcomic notable. --W.marsh 23:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki I like to keep webcomic articles, I really do, but this is far from notable. Ashibaka (tock) 00:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd like to correct the earlier assertion that the Penny Arcade webcomic has an Alexa ranking of 404,199; it's ranking is in fact 4,520[30]. Further comparing the Alexa ranking of webcomics (which are by definition read primarily on the web) to those of Senators (who relay their information through mainstream news media coverage, talk shows, etc.) is a bit of apples to oranges. My vote (above) remains delete because there is no evidence that this comic is even notable inside the webcomics community, let alone outside of it. Dragonfiend 00:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dragonfiend's persuasive comment. Ifnord 04:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Pintele Yid 06:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is intended to be a discussion, so it's helpful if you provide some reasoning. For instance, are you contending that notability is not an issue, or that this webcomic is notable? Thanks. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Uhm, three points: 1. Don't bite the newbies. 2. No one has to give an reason on why they vote. 3. In fact, Wikipedia is inherently inclusionist, so you should be more likely to ask for a reason for DELETING an article rather than keeping it. -- Grev -- Talk 07:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

1. If that came across as a bite, I apologise, that wasn't my intent.
2. It says at Wikipedia:Guide_to_Articles_for_deletion#Discussion "Always explain your reasoning," because it's not a vote.
3. I dont see how WP:AGF applys. Don't you assume good faith when someone wants to delete?
   

brenneman^(t)(c) 07:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Captain Disdain's arguments. - Andre Engels 08:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia:Web comics lists several possible criteria for webcomic notablility. This doesn't meet any of them. I'd also point out that User:12.160.33.128's understanding of the Alexa ranking system is limited. For example, Penny arcade ranks in at 4500, not 400,000. This comic ranks at 2 million, which even taking into account Alexa's margin for error, is pretty bad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.34.168 (talk • contribs).
• Neutral, long-running and extensive archive, I just can't find its audience. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. - Dalbury (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As per Bryan and Flare in the first run of this. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I don't understand this "Bryan and Flare" thing. What point did Bryan make that you agree with? Was it (1) that the article was extensive and all long articles are notable or (2) that you don't understand why people are voting Delete? What argument of Flare are you agreeing with? Do you agree that (3) any website with 600 visitors/day is notable or (4) notability may be asserted in ways that do not need to be described? I await your comments. Ashibaka (tock) 02:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment The point of me mentioning the visits a day was to show that it is obviously known aside from the 40 people in the forum, since some of the voters for deletion used 'forum has 40 members, noone reads this thing' as an argument. It's not like this site DOESN'T generate tens of thousands of visitors a month. I was also referencing the guy that brought up points against Alexa rating, but he didn't have a user name, so it was probably easier to refer back to me. As for the ways that need not be described, it's obvious I'm a reader of the comic and thus have a bias, which is why mentioning any points about the actual quality of the comic over the quantity of activity around it would be putting myself on display to be torn apart. When I looked at WP:WEB before suggesting the article, it still had the alternate proposal that included longevity, a certain number of existant strips/pages and some other things that I can't remember right now but that were all met. Now that it's pretty much popularity only, any such argument has become void- I can't argue against the fact that it doesn't have an audience of millions. -Flare- 13:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I am probably going to hate myself for saying this, but I'm all for frankness: This is still only a proposed guideline. It's referred to as a pointer for what the current suggested direction for this guideline is according to those who have taken part, but that is it. Don't let it deter you from making a pitch for its inclusion based upon longevity or something else. And anyone who's wavering in ther recomendation, don't be swayed by the pseudo-official nature of WP:WEB which I've had lots to do with shaping. Feel free to make your own decision, but please be ready to state your reasoning clearly. Thanks.
        brenneman^(t)(c) 13:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails every guideline we've ever had for "notability," and the fervor of its fans in voting is not any argument against that. For those who wish a "reason why" it shouldn't be here, even though there is no reason why it should be here, I'll simply say that encyclopedias cover that which is referred to in alien context and which needs explanation and contextualizing. This forum/comic/game is known by its fans and referred to by none else. Those who wish to know, know. Those who do not know, will not hear of it and need to know. Since Wikipedia is not a place to satisfy the fan's obsession nor a place for people to advertise, the article should be deleted. Geogre 13:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Geogre. It's old, but unremarkably so. People read it, but not very many. It is, in short, an utterly and completely average webcomic, and Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for the utterly and completely average. (Of course, if Comixpedia wants it, they can have it) Lord Bob 16:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre--Isotope23 17:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. nn, webcomic. Dottore So 17:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above; try advertising the comic more in places that accept advertising, and then come back to WP when you have the readers you deserve. — Haeleth Talk 17:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, can we be a little more [[WP:CIV}civil]], please? I know that sometimes it's easy to let our frustrations out, but we should assume thatthis article wasn't made for that reason. - brenneman^(t)(c) 18:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I was the original nominator, so please don't count my vote twice. I wasn't too happy with the no-consensus of the first vote. I did not have a chance to reply to the erronomous and misleading comments above. Dragonfiend has already established that a popular webcomic like Penny Arcade has a respectable Alexa rank. The comparisons to Orrin Hatch and Pete Ashdown are totally irrelevent, these are people who have had major press attention, something which this comic lacks, even in the webcomic community. I would however, either redirect an article on Orrin Hatch's website to Orrin Hatch, or even move to delete. Just because a site links to it, does not mean it is notable. Heck, some blogs even link to my wikipedia page. This comic has no assertion of notability, a low readership and almost empty forums. Other arguments above, saying that "keep - long archive", I just don't agree with. One of my main points against the no defunct original WP:COMIC was the, longevity = notability" clause. Would you keep an article for a person who's only claim to notability was living up to retirement age? - Hahnchen 18:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --JJay 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, just in case previous votes aren't being re-counted (I voted before). Why is this being re-listed? If the result wasn't a consensus, then it was "no consensus". Bryan 00:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that it's not actually been "re-listed", I mispoke before and have corrected it. It has been extended as is common for AfD discussions that do not reach a clear consensus. For example, a 50/50 split with strong arguments presented by each side is a "no consensus" and thus no action is taken. In this example, neither the numbers nor the arguments clearly indicated the "will of the people", and extendind the discussion appears to have made things clear. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as this is a comic with no evidence of popularity, significance, or impact beyond its small fanbase. (Of course, this should be transwiked over to Comixpedia, but you can do that with anything that meets their goals.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Based on the discussion, I am reinstating my delete vote. Even though it is not the webcomic I originally thought it was, this webcomic appears to miserably fail the proposed guidelines at WP:WEB and WP:COMIC. Also, to those who try to justify keeping articles based on the argument "Article X is on Wikipedia. This article is in this way better to Article X, so therefore it should be on Wikipedia too", please don't. Each article should be kept or deleted on it's own merits, and it's own merits alone (as the various article policies allow). I will support a transwiki to Comixpedia, but will shed no tears of this does not happen. Saberwyn 02:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per A Man in Black. Xoloz 16:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Can't think of a good reason to delete this article. Moreover it was subject to a perfectly valid no consensus close, an re-opened as part of an evident campaign of deletion. --Tony Sidaway^t 09:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Three deletes, two transwiki, and one non-sock close is a clear delete close. (A transwiki ends with a delete.) The decision made to extend this AFD erred (rightly) on the side of inclusion. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki as per jnothman and others. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 14:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Comixpedia. *drew 22:23, 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 redirect to closet. Sockpuppets, will you please quiet down for a little? -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{05:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}

[edit] Linen closet

Someone keeps deleting this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 20:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to closet - I don't think there's much more to say about linen closets specifically beyond a dictionary definition, and it's better covered in context. CDC (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. - Article contains a picture of a linen closet and more description, such as the layout of a walk-in linen closet, than the closet article. I also plan to add a pic of an open linen closet, showing typical contents. StuRat 01:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. As per StuRat. Garr 03:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy G7, A1, and maybe G3. I should add the the definition provided is likely not correct. Vegaswikian 07:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What's incorrect about it ? StuRat 19:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Closet. — RJH 18:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 64.194.44.220 15:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Foosher 03:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Closet. Edwardian 07:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep TreeFrogz 11:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of foods that cause unpleasant urine odors

Unencyclopedic list. The fairly well-known asparagus urine effect is discussed in the asparagus article. The rest is, in my opinion, not worth it to merge anywhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (preceding unsigned comment by 130.15.82.217 (talk • contribs) )
• Delete. Hopeless. JFW | T@lk 14:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (preceding unsigned comment by 24.209.220.98 (talk • contribs) )
• Delete this article. However, maybe a section in the article on urine may be appropriate at some point? (A sourced, verified section, of course... not this) Jacqui ^{★ 16:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete — Since when does urine not smell unpleasant? POV list. — RJH 16:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per RJH.--Isotope23 16:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly list. There is no indication that these foods create odor in the same chemical way, and "unpleasant" is ultimately a subjective measure anyway. flowersofnight (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hopelessly POV — I like the asparagus pee smell! -- Plutor 17:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Del. unencyclopedic. encephalon 20:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I happen to find those urine odours quite pleasant. --Optichan 21:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Optichan. I love the smell of Asparagus-urine in the morning. Smells like...NONSENSE. Ral315 (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this doo-doo. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 05:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- A similiar list has been speedied twice, by the way.--Sean|Black 23:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish Members of the French Academy of Sciences

Strong delete Another addition to the listmania craze. All of the people presented in the first section of this list are accounted for in the list on the main page (under scientists and social scientists), and the second section are just repeats from other lists. Finally, there isn't even a list for Members of the French Academy of Sciences <-----even that would be pointless though. 72.144.114.22 10:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary list Dlyons493 Talk 14:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Stong delete. Useless list that falls into the "who really cares?" category. 23skidoo 15:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• strong keep the fact that there is no list of members of the French Academy of Sciences is a fallacious argument because it has no relation to the merit of this specific list. I happen to like this list --Isolani 15:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Very weak keep — Not a list I find all that interesting, but may be a point of pride to some. I'm pretty close to neutral on this one. — RJH 16:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless list - being Jewish is totally irrelevant to membership in the French Academy of Sciences. Also I'm uncomfortable with all the "Jew watching" lists out there. It just rubs me the wrong way. flowersofnight (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I can a point in List of Members of the French Academy of Sciences, but I'm generally uneasy about breaking down lists by ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality ... Some may feel proud but others may feel threatened. Also I doubt if they are used much! Dlyons493 Talk 17:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. Has about as much worth as Members of the French Academy of Sciences whose second toe is bigger than their so-called "Big" toe.--Isotope23 17:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We had a similar discussion a little while ago about the List of Jewish Members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which got deleted. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What has the fact they're Jewish got to do with anything? -- Necrothesp 02:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Flowersofnight. --Metropolitan90 08:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In last time there were deletions in Lists of Jews of engineers, scientists,women and so on. An attempt has be done to delete List of Fellows of Royal Society and historians. There are plenty of similiar lists in Lists of all other people. Why the Users, that don't like Jews are so active in Lists of Jews? I recommend them to Delete similiar Lists in Lists of their own nationality. Of course, Gentles who want to contribute (not to hinder!) to development of Lists of Jews are welcomed.
• LazarKr 10:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So, what, you're implying that anyone who votes against this list is anti-semitic are you? I've got news for you - Jewish is not a nationality. These people's ethnic/religious origin is irrelevant to both their nationality and their contribution to life in their country. Implying that there is any similarity between this list and lists of people of a particular nationality is ridiculous. Why should people be singled out for a separate list because of their ethnicity and/or religion? Should we have List of Protestant Members of the French Academy of Sciences too? It's irrelevant. -- Necrothesp 11:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that anyone who votes against lists of engineers, scientists, historians of some nationalty, ethnic group or both don't do that occationally. What would you say, if I and group of Jews from varios countries would try to delete List of engineers or scientists of Scottish people on grounds that they are only one of nationalities in the Great Britain ? Do you think that ethic group is not intiled to do what is permitted to nationality (scottish people) ?
• LazarKr 17:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Scotland is a component country of the United Kingdom. A different case entirely. Most people from Scotland identify themselves as Scots first and foremost. I don't believe this is the case with Jewish people (most Jewish people from Scotland, for instance, probably also identify themselves as Scots first and foremost) and I don't think you have any grounds for believing otherwise. But as a closer analogy, I would certainly vote for deletion of a List of Scottish Fellows of the Royal Society as being a pointless ethnic breakdown of an all-Britain institution. A List of Fellows of the Royal Society, if one existed, would be perfectly sufficient, and this is also the case with any other organisation. -- Necrothesp 19:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • We have differences of opinions.I think that if Scottish people want a List of Scotish Fellows of the Royal Society, it is not of other national/ethnic groups business to dictate them what they have to do. By the way, do you want to initiate deletion of alredy existig Lists of Scotttish engineers and scientists ? If you don't, what is your position to deletion of Lists of engineers scientists and historians in the Lists of Jews ?
• LazarKr 15:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not dictated by what individual ethnic groups wish to do. We all have a say here and we can all edit. And you are not representative of a particular group just because you happen to be a member of it - others may have different opinions and it is somewhat arrogant of you to assume that yours should prevail - please cite your support from other editors (you don't seem to have a great deal here). I have already said I do not support deletion lists of Scottish whatever and also given my reasons (it is all but a nationality), as I have given my reasons for my support of deletion of lists by ethnicity/religion, which simply serve to encourage divisiveness. -- Necrothesp 17:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of kanji by group

Wiktionary material that isn't even as complete as what's already there Caerwine 21:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The principles on which the list is supposed to be constructed are impossibly vague, and do not represent any accepted system of classification, so it's OR; see the page creator's comments on the article talk page. The purpose of the list is also totally unclear: who is supposed to use this, and for what? — Haeleth Talk 23:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Whoever started this seems to have insufficient knowledge of Chinese characters. We could use a list of Kanji by radical / list of Kanji by stroke count / list of Kanji by phonetic element / List of Kanji by SKIP pattern / List of Kanji by Jōyō grade / List of Kanji by on reading ... There are many ways of classifying characters. For example, NTC's dictionary has 7 indices for finding characters. Delete this page and start from scratch with a concept. -- 19:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is not a useful article as it stands and the criteria for the list are difficult to understand. Please note that there are some other kanji lists such as the above unsigned user suggested: see category:Kanji. --DannyWilde 11:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Marskell 17:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Live in Chicago (Jeff Buckley)

Appears to be about a concert, seems to be vanity, or at least NN. Rogerd 23:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the original article was of such poor quality, it was hard to tell what it was about, and who Jeff Buckley was. It is now clear that it meets WP:MUSIC --Rogerd 00:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a concert DVD, and I've cleaned it up substantially. --keepsleeping say what 00:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if this concert did actually occur. The mere fact of an event's occurrence makes it notable enough for inclusion. Kurt Weber 00:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep seems to be unanimous (afd should be closed) jnothman ^talk 01:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand the rewrite. Jacqui ^{★ 04:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Speedy keep GuardDog 01:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LoveSac

• Delete This page may be salvageable, but the article as it currently stands is just an advertisement. I propose that we delete it, and if somebody wants to create a real encyclopedia article about LoveSac down the line, they can start a new article. - Lovelac7 15:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--FRS 18:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, informative, afd is not cleanup. Kappa 18:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• deleting inadvertent second vote FRS 18:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable advertising. —Cleared as filed. 23:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lucky 7 Studios

Non-notable website. NatusRoma 10:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete most "lucky 7 studios" refer to an adult web site... this lucky 7 students is entirely nn. jnothman ^talk 11:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. —Wayward ^Talk 12:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity NN. *drew 04:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 02:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lucy English

Hoax/joke. There is an author by the name of Lucy English, but this is not her. I was unable to find any book titled "Going Nower fast", or assuming a misspelling, "Going Nowhere Fast" by this author. Nor was I able to find any such award as the Apple Prize for literature (although there's a Golden Apple Prize for children's literature). --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Relisting ... no votes recorded first time around.. Delete. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 19:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• comment: Looks like a hoax. "organist and composer Malcolm Archer" does appear to exist (he is the organist of St Paul's Cathedral in London). However everything else seems unverifiable, and unlikely (e.g. no google hits on publications for a UK professor?). Prof. of what, and where? frankh 21:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Almost certainly a hoax. If her characters are "much beloved", then searching their names plus hers in Google should yield some results. It doesn't. BrianSmithson 21:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 23:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 01:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Madden Planet

Non-notable Madden video game fansite. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. PJM 22:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

RE: Madden Planet We are a very notable and longest standing Madden site out there. We have been reconized by EA for quite some time and have exclusive early info on Madden and other EA games on a regular basis. I am new to this site so I hope that I did not post this in the wrong place.

Damon

• Delete. I was going to ramble on and on on about fixable problems with the article, like unencyclopedic tone and lack of wikification, but then I noted they, umm, have Alexa rank of 216,691 and thus fail WP:WEB. By the way, surprisingly few game-specific sites are notable for inclusion by this criteria. But I guess if you add an external link to the Madden article, few people would dare to remove it. --Wwwwolf 22:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• I looked into your WP:WEB and it mentions forums in which we have over 20,000 unique members.

Damon

• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 05:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Foosher 03:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - ulayiti (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mapletip

NN website ad. Destroy all ads --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ad jnothman ^talk 02:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - WP is not a web directory. --DavidConrad 02:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per DavidConrad squell 03:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 10:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. BrainyBroad 23:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, five days are up. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maserati Rick Carter

Delete per nom. Copyvio http://www.geocities.com/jiggs2000_us/Maseratirick.html LichYoshi 07:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: See also Young Boys Inc, Best Friends, Milton "Butch" Jones. Gazpacho 07:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the whole lot of them... they are not even notable in Detroit.--Isotope23 17:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 21:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mason Smillie

Non notable. A google search for "Mason Smillie" yields six hits, none of which (except a sentence in the Wikipedia article for Tyson Beckford, which the author of this article added to that one) have anything to do with the subject of this article. FuriousFreddy 23:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep provided that the individual in question does actually exist. The mere fact of an individual's existence makes him notable enough for inclusion. Kurt Weber 00:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We certainly don't need an entry for every person on the planet. -- Necrothesp 02:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, we do. Kurt Weber 23:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Existence is not criteria for inclusion. That's why we have phone books. Ifnord 03:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it is. Kurt Weber 23:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. --TM ^(talk) 09:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Garr 00:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)\
• Delete Foosher 03:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Bathroom. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Master bathroom

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 21:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: this article, and probably all the articles nominated by CarDepot, were not deleted, but redirected and should not be on AfD. -- Kjkolb 22:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: He may be a sock puppet (his edits are suspicious), but he was identified as such by O^O, the user he's been in an edit war with over these articles being redirected without comment (CarDepot has been reverting without comment as well). It may have been an attempt to disrupt AfD, but he doesn't seem to understand how deleting works. At first, I thought the nominations should be closed as a waste of time. Now, I suggest we leave them on AfD to decide what to do with them, since they're already here and these users refuse to communicate. It's questionable that either will abide by the decisions, however, as the edit war has continued while they are listed here. -- Kjkolb 09:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful article. Science3456 23:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to bathroom, of course - can better describe what this is in context... CDC (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Garr 03:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• NOTE This article was nominated for AfD by the same author who created it. This author appears to be a sockpuppet for StuRat. The intent of this nomination appears to be to disrupt AfD. Denni☯ 06:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to bathroom. — RJH 18:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Science3456. 64.194.44.220 15:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Foosher 03:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to bathroom. Edwardian 07:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. TreeFrogz 11:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This user's only votes are for AfDed articles created by the author of this article. Denni☯ 03:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Bedroom. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Master bedroom

Someone deleted this article without explanation as to why. Perhaps it should be deleted or merged somewhere. Should it? CarDepot 20:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy G7, A1, and maybe G3. Vegaswikian 07:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bedroom. — RJH 17:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 64.194.44.220 15:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Foosher 03:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bedroom. Edwardian 07:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep TreeFrogz 11:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matsuricon

Pure advertising of a non-encyclopedic future event. Caerwine 21:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Tedernst 22:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom jnothman ^talk 01:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per nom Goodmorningcolumbus Stub was changed to simple facts and non-advertisement wording. Recommend expanding the stub with factual research rather than deleting it. 08:43, 7 November 2005
• Delete I still recommend deleting it as it is still decidedly non-encyclopedic. If the actual research is done and it can be shown that this is something more than a small otaku-con, it can be recreated, but there is nothing here at present to even base an article on. Caerwine 20:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 20:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Appalachian Mountain Club. - ulayiti (talk) 12:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mizpah Spring Hut

Most of the text is duplicated here, and as of right now I don't see a reason to keep it a seperate page. Basically, this article is already merged with the AMC article, and i see little reason not to delete and redirect. jfg284 22:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and Redirect per nom.jfg284 22:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect can be done without this afd - I just did it, in fact, but left the afd notice because that's the way it's done. Can't we just end this and call it a day? Tedernst 22:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

you know, i figured it was that easy...but i wasnt sure. so i went ahead and did this. but this is also kind of a test, as there are 7 other similar articles to be merged (the other huts) and i want to see what the consensus is.jfg284 22:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Don't delete ... I didn't think the redirect would work, but it does. But leave this page as a redirect for those who go hunting for it. - DavidWBrooks 22:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Change vote to Redirect w/o delete. its just not necessary and i thought it was. my bad.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Reservoir Dogs. - ulayiti (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Freddie Orange

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Reservoir Dogs (the article only names a part in that film and the actor who played it). BrianSmithson 14:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because this is a neoligistic combination of "Mr. Orange" (the name Joe Cabot gave him) and his apparent first name in the film, "Freddie" (with no given last name). At no time was the character ever referred to in the film as "Freddie Orange".--Isotope23 18:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Reservoir Dogs. mdd4696 21:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Isotope23. -- Captain Disdain 03:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Resevoir Dogs to deter recreation by anyone else, if for no other reason. It's quite likely that some searched using this "neologistic" term, couldn't find what s/he was looking for, and started an article. It doesn't matter to the user if it the term was never exactly used in the movie. And redirects are cheap. Jacqui ^{★ 04:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Redirect to Resevoir Dogs agree with Jacqui. --kernunrex 20:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Let me further point out that the article is named Mr. Freddie Orange. Even if someone were to use that as a search term, which I find rather unlikely, if we keep this, we might as well create new articles for every person already listed in Wikipedia with "Mr." added in front of them and slap in redirects. Say, Mr. Tom Cruise, Mr. George W. Bush, Mr. Britney Spears... Well, okay, you got me on that last one. Guess we wouldn't do that. But you get the point. It just gets to be way too obscure. It's true that redirects are cheap, but there's cheap and there's silly. -- Captain Disdain 09:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Munib

Nonencyclopedic, borderline nonsense, possible attack page. Speedy tag has been stripped twice, at least once by author (other was an IP). --Trovatore 17:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Ifnord 18:00, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Nonsense. mdd4696 21:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity. Delete the awful image too. *drew 05:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to muscle. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muscles

About the nickname of a fellow of unknown identity who tried to get this nickname copyrighted. Notability not indicated, no proof provided and likely to be unverifiable sufficiently for inclusion. JFW | T@lk 14:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to muscle. 23skidoo 15:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and then redirect as above. An article about some guy's nickname? And not exactly an uncommon nickname either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per above. Flowerparty■ 16:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Heh. Delete and redirect. --Optichan 21:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to muscle. It is what most people searching for the term would expect to find. The only notable guy with the nickname "Muscles" was Ken Rosewall, the Australian tennis player and he has an article. Capitalistroadster 23:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of muscles of the human body. This reasoning is based on the use I've seen in the various articles that link to muscles and considering the comments above; my thinking is that if someone takes the effort in a search string to type "muscles" rather than "muscle" then they might not be looking for information on the tissue per se but for an access point to find out about different muscles, a list, an index of them. Along with this redirect, I'd suggest creating a Muscle (disambiguation) page that would provide a pivot point between muscle, muscles, and the (rare but notable) few instances of using "muscles" as a nickname or stagename. Courtland 23:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • previous inserted comment' I'll indicate my opinion on keep or delete after finishing a run through the "what links here" list ... it is sometimes the case that previously "hidden" uses or notability emerge after such a combing (based on experience from clearing what-links-here lists from disambiguation pages). It was due to this potential that I did not initially just revert the edit to Muscle that introduced this *sigh* poor addition to that article. Courtland 15:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC) removal of unhelpful words
• Redirect to muscle. I have looked at many of the "what links here" links in question, and even began correcting some, before Wikipedia got slow on me. Jacqui ^{★ 04:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Speedy Revert to the version of 18:32, 8 May 2003. Vegaswikian 06:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  you must mean [31], the first version. Courtland 06:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  • So that's basically a vote for a redirect with no deletion, right? --Optichan 18:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, no deletion required, as usual. Trollderella 18:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to muscle. Edwardian 06:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 00:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mystii

Doubtful information (Google), fancruft, POV, opinion, speculation &c Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Tagishsimon (talk)
• Delete and move what is useful to the trivia section of Myst. Carioca 00:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom jnothman ^talk 02:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism --Aquillion 04:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Flowerparty■ 12:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as spam supported by sockpuppets. - ulayiti (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Net Fusion

This is extremely short and without detail. Also, this is just an advertisement for Net Fusion. So, this is short, uninformative, an advertisement, unencyclopedic, and many other things. Oh yeah, I vote to delete. Note: When I posted this, there was one sentence there. Sprited Spheniscidae 22:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as advertisement. Anville 22:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The page's author just removed the link to the AFD page. I had to put it back up. Sprited Spheniscidae 00:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep All this article needs is a little work, there's no need to totally destroy it. Armenizorean 01:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This was Armenizorean's second edit. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment ^But is this a notable comic? It's really not in my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sprited Spheniscidae (talk • contribs) 01:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC).
• Comment That is not the topic under discussion. Armenizorean 02:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I would have to agree--how can you shoot down a stub? --Xpxzampop 03:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is room for improvement, but I think we should give it a chance (Preceding unsigned comment also by Xpxzampop; user's first edit to Wikipedia.)
• Not the topic under discussion? I'd say that it is; a Google search for "Net Fusion" EarthGuardian gets a total of six hits. The counter on the page itself says that it's had 3,974 visitors... since December 21, 2004. Delete as a non-notable webcomic. (Or transwiki to Comixpedia, perhaps.) -- Captain Disdain 03:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement. *drew 05:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as either a test page (G2) or vandalism (G3). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)