Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 17	October 19 >

Purge server cache

1 October 18

[edit] October 18

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Rob e rt 00:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 6th density

Delete. Vanity cruft. Author's similar handiwork may be found at Cassiopean (now deleted), Laura Knight-Jadczyk, and Cassiopaeans. - Sensor 23:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A cut and paste from this site. -- Foofy 02:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. As per above. freshgavin ^TALK 05:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. A waste of energy that could be more creatively used elsewhere in Wikipedia. But then again, looking at the user's history, possibly not. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy as copyvio per above User:Purplefeltangel/sig 20:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable crackpottery (if not copyvio). MCB 21:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 01:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acuvue

This page seems to be just an advertisement. Srleffler 06:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. - Srleffler 06:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I think a good case has been made for keeping the page.--Srleffler 17:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup if advert/POV; it is a very notable mass-market product. MCB 06:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. -- Popular brand name. Ben D. 06:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand as notable brand of contact lenses. Capitalistroadster 07:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
If someone can expand the article and remove the advertisment-ness, keep it. If not, delete. Saberwyn 08:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment This issue has surfaced many times before. When does a brand become notable enough for its own entry as opposed to a redirect to the comapny that makes or sells it? In this case, the article is simply a list of associated brandnames. I can't see how that is notable in-and-of itself? If there was a controversy, a history or some other dissociated aspect of the brand attached to it, then it would be clear. But as it stands, this is essentially empty so why not redirect to Vistakon or J&J? Dottore So 10:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- The issue has surfaced enough times that WP:CORP was created to deal with the very question of product notability. Uncle G 11:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Thanks. By the iterated standards, shouldn't this be deleted then? Dottore So 16:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    - According to WP:CORP it meets this standard: The product or service has been the subject of published works whose source is independent of the company itself.. "Acuvue" gets 96 hits on PubMed. Edwardian 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      - Thanks for this information. This certainly alters my opinion, although it would be nice if the page actually contained some content other than who makes them, and a list of their sub-brands.--Srleffler 21:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        I agree. I added a couple of items to get the ball rolling. Edwardian 21:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable brand of contact lenses with large, wide-scale advertising. Mmmbeer 15:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per WP:CORP (specifically Criteria for products and services), although the suggestion to redirect to Vistakon is a good one to reduce potential linkspam from on-line contact lens distributors. Edwardian 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, granted this page has been subject to spamming (hence it is on my watchlist), notability is easy to establish. If you recognize a brand immediately, it is notable, published works are not necessary. - 24.141.72.95 06:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep per WP:CORP. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 02:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adoration (band)

Article doesn't establish notability, Allmusic hasn't heard of them, can't get any worthwhile Google hits for them. -- Captain Disdain 01:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 01:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete not only does the article utterly fail to establish notability, the fact that the author removed the AfD notice just screams that this thing needs to go. CanadianCaesar 01:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Removed it twice, in fact. And I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen again, as the second time around he replaced the AfD notice with "FUCK YOU DONT DELETE MY SHIT WHILE IM WORKIN ON MAKING IT GOOD." Hey, buddy, if you're reading this -- the AfD notice won't affect your work on it; if you turn it into a good article about a notable band, it will not get deleted, and I (and, I presume, Caesar over there) will be glad to change our votes. If, on the other hand, it's a non-notable band (see WP:Music for guidelines about that), you're probably wasting your time. In any case, if you keep deleting the AfD notice, you'll only hurt your chances and end up being banned in the process. There's no point in that. -- Captain Disdain 01:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  - And, to top it off, he just edited this page to change our votes. Guess he really doesn't want to edit Wikipedia. -- Captain Disdain 01:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Good luck with the vandal. --Anetode 04:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- As per nomination. Ben D. 06:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We need a policy for bands, this is not myspace. --JJay 11:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There is a policy/criteria: WP:MUSIC, which Adoration does not meet.--Isotope23 13:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 14:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Stormie 04:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Affect heuristic

Delete as post modern jibberjabber of the worst stripe. The term is not defined, the article's sources are not quoted (eg: which 'Zajonc' is the author referring to and what was the title of his 1980 paper?), there is no context to the article and it is poorly written. Eddie.willers 20:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 02:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aircraft weapon

Is notable, but in the form it is written in, I suggest that it be deleted or started over again. Plus, Wikipedia probably already has an article that would cover information about this. Molotov (talk)
14:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. As far as existing articles go, the nearest I can find is List of aircraft weapons - I can't find any overviews of the history of airborne armaments, so we do apparently need something along those lines... but this isn't it. - Haeleth 18:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
We have a wide range of current weapons in our Missile article including an article on Air-to-air missile and Air-to-surface missile. We have categories on Guided Missiles and Bombs as well as a Bomb article. This isn't worth merging and it is of dubious benefit as a redirect so Delete. Capitalistroadster 23:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 02:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Paurine

Previous edits from this user suggest a vandal at work, and I cannot verify the existence of the person in this article Stephenb (Talk) 15:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hoax or non notable. Delete either way. --Ashenai (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. MCB 20:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as a non-notable person. -- SoothingR 11:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 02:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alkhemi

del nonnotable, nonverifiable (i.e., promo). A whooping 8 google hits excluding wikipedia & mirrors. mikka (t) 01:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Maybe redirect to Alchemy. Jkelly 01:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The list of hyperlinks on Talk:Alkhemi appeared to be a promising start for checking to see whether this company satisfied the WP:CORP criteria ... until I looked at the linked pages and found that not only did they give no information whatsoever about this company, over half of them didn't even mention the company at all. Further research turns up nothing about this company that isn't directly from the company web site or from its pseudonymous purported founder and CEO. Not only are the WP:CORP notability criteria not satisfied, the company is barely even verifiable. Indeed, the article says this outright ("alkhemi [...] is [...] relatively unknown outside it's [sic] network of clients"). There's no evidence that this company isn't simply a fiction created by one man, published on his web site, and mentioned wherever his autobiography is quoted; let alone evidence that this company is considered notable by other people. Delete. Uncle G 02:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thomas1917's modifications to the article mentioned below have not addressed any of the above points, and have provided none of the evidence that is required. The hyperlinks supplied below purportedly for verification are the very ones from the talk page, that provide no information about the company or that even don't mention it at all, that I mention above. Uncle G 17:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G --Anetode 04:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertising, non-notable. Alex.tan 09:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 14:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
From the article text: "alkhemi does not publicise it’s work and is therefore relatively unknown outside it’s network of clients"; "alkhemi does not generally disclose or discuss in public its historical or current portfolio of assignments". Please give me a reason to believe that I would want to read an article about alkhemi -- otherwise, I can't help but vote Speedy Delete. -- llywrch 23:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep I believe the work to be very notable; from Copenhagen and Arhus (I am Danish myself) I know of the work to be ‘real’ so I am personally shocked to be in such a discussion. I have decided to follow my instinct and have completely rewritten the page, which will partly meet the objections lodged here but makes clearer why the page should be ‘in’ Wikipedia – others may revert my edits so please click on history! I made some comments in the discussion page previously. 'I strongly urge a re-read and invite ‘confreres’ in a constructive spirit for suggestions for WHERE this can now be placed'. In its professional circles alkhemi is considered a pioneer as it prepared the first ever integrated cultural plan for a capital city; also, cultural policy, planning and strategy nowadays is a blossoming field and it should not be only civil servants or technocrats who should know what work/actions are taking place. YOU may not wish to read about the work – but for others it is significant. I was able to have an enlightening and inspiring time reading Wikipedia guidelines. I can see that the subject matter is trapped between two stools (is this the right expression?) and that by the criteria of WP:CORP this article likely slips into the cracks. I recognise that the article could be in another category and maybe merged/moved – to what? Regards, Thomas Thomas1917 00:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- The two mjor criteria for wikipedia inclusion are wikipedia:Verifiability and wikipedia:No original research (and of course, notability, i.e., why would people want to read the article). However well you rewrite the article, there will be no reason to believe what you say. No reputable third-party references - no artcile. mikka (t) 00:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete after re-reading the article: subject matter not notable, sounds like advertising. It's not only about verifiability and no-original-research, it's also just the plain question whether the subject matters, and this does not - it sounds really like advertising. Peter S. 15:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Attempting to pass off a single company as a "business practice." Just slick self-promotion. Marskell 10:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep It is a fair point by Peter and Mika about why people would want to read the article! I disagree because there are many people who have been impacted by the work and information like this would be consulted if those interested could find it. At this point it is a shame that maybe people with expertise or interest in cultural management are not going to contribute to the discussion as I am not sure it would be ‘right’ to eliminate the page. I realise colleagues have not been able to see links for verifiability from reputable third-parties, so here are they. www.minority-report.dk www.exart.dk www.lld.dk, molodiez.org, www.nkdale.no. alkhemi/aladin’s work in creating the cultural strategy for London can be verified here; these links are from the government. www.london.gov.uk www.london.gov.uk www.london.gov.uk www.london.gov.uk www.london.gov.uk I also realise it is definitely in the ‘wrong’ section as many comments question whether alkhemi conforms to Wiki business criteria for inclusion. Thomas Thomas1917 10:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Interested parties may also wish to look at aladin, an article concerning the founder of this company. (No comment is implied about the relevancy of this page, but the aladin article has been extensively (and very competently) rewritten and still sounds like a puff peice.) It may throw light upon this page. Eaglizard 14:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- After reading aladin, I'm puzzled: are you implying that this article is a hoax, or that alkhemi was aladin's business before he decided to become an entertainer? -- llywrch 17:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, sorry I wasn't clear. From this article (alkhemi): "Its standing in these particular fields is related to the successes its current leading light aladin had as a prime mover in London government between 2000-2004...". It's the same guy / company. Eaglizard 03:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- Very good point. I looks like Aladin is not notable neither: His credits are: Rarely performs, had some job for the city of London, is in a book that titled "the book of cool". The article, like Alkhemi, has probably been set up to gain exposure through wikipedia. I would definitely support a delete vote on that one as well. By the way: is there a way to prevent vote-stuffing by a determined individual who just creates a big mass of accounts? Because in those discussions I had, it felt like the author of those two articles is just crazy enough to even do that. Just a feeling. Peter S. 23:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  - No, the only way to 'prevent' it is to pay attention to who votes, and what their edit history has been. The Admins apparently do a pretty fair job of it, too. Eaglizard 03:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I can see that it was best for no page by this title; these discussions are problematic. It is of parochial interest (to Wikipedia enthusiasts) whether ‘alkhemi’ is listed. Of wider concern is the nature of comments, which border on the defamatory or libellous. But I am sure ‘alkhemi’ will persist for longer than the exchanges here! The knowledge of its work may not impinge this, online context but resonates in the ‘real’ world and last year in 2004 I was fortunate, even privileged, to view some of it in Arhus. I join with Thomas in wishing that the page is ‘kept’ while not endorsing some of the views expressed hereDelarouism 12:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
On reviewing the various discussions I greatly regret having contributed. This page should be deleted immediately. It’s existence is giving rise to ‘ad hominem’ and uncalled for comments and is serving to give unwarranted importance to those making these. Delarouism 15:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the spirit of your concerns, but if we deleted every page that gave rise to ad hominem attacks we wouldn't have very many left! Hell, would we have any? lol Eaglizard 19:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  - If the interested person instead of being paranoid addressed the major concerns expressed here, the article would live happily ever after. Acting offended means there is nothing more to do to defend the article. mikka (t) 19:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. per nom & agree with Uncle G review of links asserting notability. If such a notable corporation, why no mention in business press, etc. Maybe a startup company that will get an article eventually, but looks nn. at this point.—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Just some quick points. It seems there is a need for a new page about cultural strategy or cultural planning and then these additional organisations can be noted: Charles Landry and http://www.comedia.org.uk/ , Mik Flood and Strategies for Art and Space and also Richard Crossland at http://www.ablconsulting.com . alkhemi is known very well to all of these and its principal of course ‘inaugurated’ the first ever integrated capital city cultural plan/strategy so it would easily be ‘fitted in’ in this context. Worldwide British experts are the leaders in this field as the arts and culture portfolio has been at cabinet level for a long time in their country. Although akhemi does not have the apparent corporate infrastructure of its colleagues it is unique and highly reputable in the field. Which is why the Nordic governments constantly invite its intervention and why in Denmark we know of it Delarouism 12:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, be bold - go ahead and write a small article. Account for all sides, don't dwell on the players or make it sound like an ad, but focus on the concept and why cultural strategy / cultural planning has done a difference to a lot of people. If it's an important subject, it might very well become a good article. If not, the wikipedians will give some small hints :-) Keep your head up, if you have some information to share that is truly interesting to lots of people, please go ahead and try it out. Cheers! Peter S. 22:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete under criteria G7. Article blanked by its author and the only other edit was to add the AfD. --Allen3 ^talk 23:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American Nero

A short-lived pejorative "nickname" for George Bush that never made it outside of a few blogs. CDC (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Note:Speedied. Molotov (talk)
23:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andakataham

It seems to be a non-notable newsletter. --Mysidia (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- is as it seems. Cleduc 04:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete usual vanity/nn. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 06:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The newsletter that it links to is a pathetic excuse for humour. Only one edition (from 2003) seems to be around. Tintin 22:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anders dahl monsen

It seems like this artist is not very notable... --Mysidia (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete I'd tend to agree with you. At least we're not wasting capital letters on him. Cleduc 04:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - zero Google hits for his "most famous" work suggests a sorry lack of notability CLW 14:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per 7 hits on a Norwegian search engine. Punkmorten 21:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 06:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. However, between delete and merge, I see it best to merge and add Arachibutyrophobia to the Phobia list.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 02:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arachibutyrophobia

del. Silly coinage "arachis+butter+phobia". mikka (t) 19:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep Appears to exist [1]. If there is a relevant merge target, that would be preferable, though. Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- It appear to exist among happy bloggers and snake oil peddlers:
  
  Take Action Now
  
  We have never met a case of Arachibutyrophobia that could not be overcome using these methods. So please, whether or not you decide to work with us, make a decision to get over Arachibutyrophobia now. If you trust us to help you, we offer two ways:
  
  Our premium 'VIP' One-on-One service,
  
  Working one-on-one with one of our team, with guaranteed lifetime elimination of Arachibutyrophobia. From $1,497 and up.
- Oh, yeah, baby! I aint afraid peanut butter no more! mikka (t) 21:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Also I suggest you to master google a bit more. Take a look at this: not 17,000 hits but 400, and each and every of them is a laughable source for an encyclopedia. mikka (t)
'Weak Transwiki' to Wiktionary. Whether the word is an "acceptable" name for a phobia or not (and I note Triskaidekaphobia has a perfectly respectable article) this is no more than a dicdef with a picture of some peanut butter. It's not by any stretch of the imagination an encyclopædic article. Tonywalton | Talk 22:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Or better, Speedy Merge and Redirect to -phobia which already has a list. Pognophobia (fear of beards) is a good precedent, and -phobia already contains the wise words:

In many cases people have coined these words as neologisms, and only a few of them occur in the medical literature. In many cases, the naming of phobias has become a word game.' Tonywalton | Talk 22:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Why better? neologisms are out; it is a well-established rule of wikipedia. No reason to collect nonnotable stuff. Notability is a must for everything in wikipedia. Also wikipedia is not a dictionary. These phobias even do not grade for a technical slang, which would warrant a glossary, like Glossary of ballet terms. mikka (t) 01:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless someone can verify a single diagnosed case of this. -- Corvus 04:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems to exist.[2] But the article is really just list material.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 12:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Argoth

Bandcruft, vanity non-notable CambridgeBayWeather 09:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I see... well, feel free to delete everything I've made here.

I'm sorry, congratulations for your work but I just can't avoid feeling dissappointed and offended, maybe I'm not an icon of the media, possibly because in my country people don't actually pay attention to these art manifestations (Venezuela), instead of other countries in Europe, where every musician will get their right attention. But my intention was precisely to make my works available to the international public, willing people to listen to me, to know who I am, that was all, I'm not even willing to make money with my music, maybe a little bunch of bucks to buy good software, but not to make a pool full of green, useless paper.

So, the more you have the more you will get, the less you have the less you will get. Whenever you want, please take a listen to my music, maybe it isn't the best thing in the world, but just let me know if you like it and reconsider the idea. I understand your point but I guess you know how I feel.

Best regards, anyway.

Fredrik (preceding comment added by Gorepriest, moved here from this AfD's talk page) --Ashenai (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable and vanity. Sandstein 14:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. I've added an explanation of this on the article talk page so hopefully the author can see the criteria his band is being compared to.--Isotope23 15:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 21:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Army of Freshmen

Vanity. Ifnord 22:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Molotov (talk)
23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nothing of substance to be found here. Twthmoses 23:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete does not seem to fulfill WP:MUSIC or even come close. DES ^(talk) 16:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 12:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Army of One

The article appears to be a non-notable entry. --Mysidia (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well we Deleted this wrestlers alter-ego, Richard David Martell, on August 24 (VfD link), albiet with no actual votes. --CastAStone 05:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to United States Army (do they still use this recruitment slogan?) —Wahoofive (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Wahoofive. If anyone can find an article on US military recruiting, specifically, that's a better destination yet. CDC (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arthriga

This article is about a made up drug. -- Kjkolb 07:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. *sigh*. Alex.tan 09:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Kjkolb is probably wrong about this drug being "made up", but most of the links from this article do not lead to anything related to Arthiga. And the text reads as if a copyright violation, but I can't the website this text was stolen from. This is enough of a mess that I insist that someone either verify that there is salvagable material here, or it gets a Speedy delete. -- llywrch 00:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asheri

This is an advertisement for a amateur writing Blogspot site. -- Kjkolb 07:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, advertising. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. *drew 07:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ad. utcursch | talk 05:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -Greg Asche (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assyrian Future in Iraq

WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Mysidia (talk) 05:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Hopelessly POV for such a short article. If this were to be kept, there would be nothing informative to be added. -Nameneko 06:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete — This page could become a worthy article. The role of Assyrians in Iraq's future is certainly an encyclopaedic article, and not neccessarily crystal-ball gazing. However, given that almost all other articles about Assyrians have been defaced with POV rantings, this article isn't going to become a shining beacon for Wikipedia anytime soon. If it were to be improved, what is already there would have to be thrown out first anyway. Therefore, it is better to delete anyway, than let this stuff lie around waiting to be rewritten. --Gareth Hughes 10:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If anything Iraqi Assyrians#Future. Mmmbeer 15:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - per nom and Nameneko. --Cactus.man ✍ 05:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 21:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B-net

Not one Google hit on this apparently world-dominating organisation, or on the associated Strahil Christov. Unverifiable and with a strong smell of self-promoting hoaxiness about it Tonywalton | Talk 22:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Molotov (talk)
22:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - heheheh. Twthmoses 23:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 21:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] B-NET

Delete articles like these are around here like rabbits today. Molotov (talk)
23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Might serve well as a redirect to B.net or Battle.net. freshgavin ^TALK 05:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Ral315 (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Balwyn High School

Substantially no information. Conscious 15:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There is not even enough information to identify what/where it is. It might very well be notable, assuming all schools are notable, but not currently. Mmmbeer 15:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, valid stub, and per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Incidentally this school seems to attract a lot of people to live in Balwyn [3]. Kappa 15:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Kappa. -- DS1953 16:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand as high school in Victoria. Reasonable little school stub. Capitalistroadster 18:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Another nn school. Dottore So 19:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn school stub --JAranda | watz sup 20:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Notable to the community which it serves. Silensor 20:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep an important school, as schools tend to be. --rob 20:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Please do not nominate any more schools as it achieves nothing but the generation of ill-will between users. CalJW 21:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 23:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Article fails to establish notability.--Nicodemus75 05:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep Joaquin Murietta 00:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Another fine start to a good school article. Un focused 00:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep schools. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, stub with no potental to be expanded. --Aquillion 07:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Article has been expanded significantly, so my nomination applies no more. Thank you Kappa. Conscious 12:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep At first it basically had no info, but now it's expanded. Alensha 13:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep: Also as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep -newkai | talk | contribs 16:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete Denni ☯ 00:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neutrality^talk 02:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
keep and please do not confuse popularity with notability Yuckfoo 17:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep See my argument at this page. Xoloz 03:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 13:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barron's-Auxier, Inc

Unwikified advertisment. No notability established. --S.K. 09:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom CambridgeBayWeather 13:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benjmin Dodd

Not sure if this is a hoax, but in any case the heading for the article is misspelled. The contributor (203.208.66.99) was vandalizing other pages just after submitting this. Its close to midnight here in Oregon and I decided to let you all sort this one out. —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. -- Hoax, can't find anything on Google or through The Ballarat courier. I do commend him on his reference to the nyckelharpa. Ben D. 07:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination and Ben D.. I confirm that Google finds nothing. If it isn't a hoax, it is non-notable, and may be deleted either way. Walter Siegmund 08:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Google knows nothing of this person. --Ashenai (talk) 08:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as a likely hoax by a known vandal. Hall Monitor 22:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete mispelt name isn't mispelt, at the Jazz club Benjmin was introduced as Benj-min, could be an alias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.208.69.48 (talk • contribs) 05:46, October 19, 2005 (UTC).
Don't Delete read the article in the Courier about the nyckelharba, but it being very small I only found the article in the Courier because I was sure it exsisted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.208.69.48 (talk • contribs) 06:00, October 19, 2005 (UTC).
Don't Delete although Benjmin seems non-notable to people who aren't from the Ballarat district it shouldn't condem the Wikipedia article to deletion, the late Radio Dave was another Ballarat personality that it would seem not to exsist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.208.69.48 (talk • contribs) 06:00, October 19, 2005 (UTC).
Don't Delete Benjmin Dodd is well known amongst the minorities, this article informs people of Benjmin Dodd has done, although it needs to be edited as he is now also teaching music at a local school --Benjmin Dodd 15:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 13:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Stott

43 results when I searched for his name paired with the one series he created. Entirely wiki mirrors. delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 04:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable, non-verifiable, autobiographical vanity. Hall Monitor 16:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Haham hanuka 16:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 13:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blackholepit

Not notable. Ashenai (talk) 10:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. — JIP | Talk 10:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand why is it being considered for deletion, or why isn't it notable. Please let me know what can I do to make it notable under your considerations, I believe this is unfair, I was only trying to share my work of art through this excellent source of knowledge such as wikipedia, but there is no major thing to talk about, I believe everything is in the music. Please reconsider the idea. Thanks. (preceding comment by Gorepriest, copied here from this AfD's talk page.) --Ashenai (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hello Gorepriest, thanks for commenting. We're not trying to attack you or your music; we're just trying to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic, which means that stuff that isn't well-known doesn't really belong here. Please see WP:MUSIC for our music inclusion guidelines. I quite agree with you that a lot of popular music is terrible, and there's a lot of barely-known, but great, music out there. However, Wikipedia just isn't the place to share your art (unless it's already well known). I'm truly sorry, because you seem like a polite and considerate person. Do keep editing Wikipedia, and please don't take this AfD discussion as a personal attack. --Ashenai (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Ashenai hits the nail right on the head, Gorepriest. Wikipedia is all about what people know. It is not an advertising billboard for stuff that nobody but its creator knows about. What you can do to make your music notable does not involve Wikipedia at all. You can persuade other people to listen to, to buy, and to write about your music. Wikipedia is not a shortcut around this process. Uncle G 11:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Gorepriest, do you have a myspace.com account? That is the perfect vehicle for promoting your music.--Isotope23 15:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blue tit's

NN band, Alexa ranking 1,364,432, 252 hits for band's new name, 16 for old one. Likely vanity. -- ReyBrujo 04:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, they haven't released any singles or albums, have no All Music entry, don't seem to have gone on a national concert tour, and none of the first 30 Google results are about the band, besides Wikipedia. A more specific search didn't turn up any relevant results, either. -- Kjkolb 06:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per WP:music. Have recorded a demo and played a concert in front of 100 people, but are short of meeting our notability requirements. Capitalistroadster 07:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fails notability as per WP:MUSIC. Alex.tan 09:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Dottore So 10:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 15:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Molotov (talk)
23:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Not even worth trying to clean this utter mess up! - Bwfc 13:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Haham hanuka 16:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Possible Sockpuppets, IPs not counted. Over 60% are in favor of delete(8-5). This article is unencyclopedic, violates WP:NOR, violates WP:NOT, and has little verifiability. These policies take precedence over the lack of a 2/3s majority, which is generaly preferable. Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza}13:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

See Also: The first AfD.[4]

[edit] Body parts slang

Nominated for deletion a few months ago with no consensus. Recent talk page disscussion leads me to belieev another afd is not out of order. WP:NOT a dictionary or slang guide. This article also functions as an original research magnet: people are using it to invent and promote their own neologisms. For these reasons, I think a deletion is called for. Friday (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete this is BS. Molotov (talk)
19:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete Official policy: WP:ISNOT a...slang and idiom guide, WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Original Research. And that's not to mention the verifiability issues with all of these unsourced neologisms. --Kgf0 20:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Edit: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slang --Kgf0 23:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
'Delete' I agree; there is nothing of value here.--Mpeisenbr 22:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. --Carnildo 23:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia doesn't see its role as a dictionary or a slang guide, but I assure you, no dictionary I know of on the net has these terms organized this way, and most slang dictionaries I've see are pathetic. For one thing, no one organizes terms by topic. I stumbled across this looking for a way to translate a pun in a piece of literature. By the way, I'm particularly impressed that the list included the Lithuanian word for a penis. Maybe Wikipedia needs to start up another portal on language? ---- brunhilda

Um, yeah, I think it's called Wiktionary, and if you ask me, that's where "terms" belong, perhaps categorized to duplicate the function being served here in apparent violation of policy. (See also my previous argument on the matter. --Kgf0 03:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep but Cleanup This list references a valid, if vulgar, part of lifeworld culture and helps make the internet "not suck" (ok, pun intended). But if kept, would need some heavy cleanup and neologism vigilance, for which I would volunteer. Youngamerican 02:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. freshgavin ^TALK 05:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep but cleanup, this seems to be the most extensive list of its kind anywhere on the internet. -Andrew 05:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep but cleanup. Seems a valid enough article and not one to be found elsewhere. Whilst it might break WP:NOT's rules, the 'pedia would be poorer without it. Redvers · Hello 16:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. An article on vulgarities, slang and idioms with examples is perfectly acceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.10.68.195 (talk • contribs) 10:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC).
Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary or slang guide. This stuff is unencyclopedic and unmanageable. -- Francs 2000 01:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Positively useful. -Alexander 007 02:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC) (and if Wikipedia is not a dictionary, can we please, pretty please, delete List of English words of French origin? Much thanks.)
Keep. Excellent point above. This topic invites abuse perhaps more than others. It must be reviewed often. Something that "is" has value in truth if that is our overall objective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.24.211.195 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 20 October 2005.
Keep. No other reasonable source for this informmation. I have referred to this several times n recent months. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.109.1.73 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 21 October 2005.
Keep - "An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia/encyclopædia) is a written compendium of knowledge. The term comes from the Greek ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία (engkuklios paideia), literally "a rounded education". (Some encyclopedias are titled cyclopaedia, a now somewhat archaic form of the word, and the terms are interchangeable.)" - Wikipedia. Why edit when correction is more appropriate? ... Nigel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.144.13 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 21 October 2005.
keep this please yes it has vulgarities but people still need to research vulgarities too Yuckfoo 20:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete BS just like that and sock infected also --JAranda | watz sup 04:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Stormie 04:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brazillion

Unverifiable. A possible hoax. --202.156.6.61 16:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to zillion. Uncle G 16:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Brazil as it seems a bit more likely to be a typo for "Brazilian" than someone looking for info about zillions. flowersofnight 17:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Read the examples in zillion, in particular the "Presidential Briefing" example. Uncle G 18:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Brazil per Flowersofnight. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, probably to zillion per Uncle G; of the first page of Google results, the first one is a typo for "Brazilian", but the other 9 are references to the joke. Haeleth 19:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
It's probably from this joke:

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing.
He concludes by saying: “Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed.”
“OH NO!” the President exclaims. “That’s terrible!”
His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in his hands.
Finally, the President looks up and asks, “How many is a brazillion?”

Delete as unverifiable unless evidence to the contrary is presented before expiration of AfD. Do not create a redirect, this is not a plausible misspelling of "Brazilian." This is just a dumb prank (it does not rise to the level of "hoax.") Dpbsmith (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC) P. S. I think the point of the above joke is that bazillion, unlike brazillion, is a real (if unlexicographic) word, meaning a humongous, astronomically large number, and that the President has misinterpreted "Brazilian" because of it's similarity to "bazillion." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as joke which will be forgotten shortly. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Well I laughed. freshgavin ^TALK 04:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to zillion. Grue 16:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Brazilian - Bwfc 18:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete it is complete non-sense.
Delete. Non-encyclopedic. -- Corvus 04:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not even a good joke. BAHLEETE IT! --OorWullie 08:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No redirect. (I wanted to close this but even with delete and redirect I couldn't tell which was correct :( gren グレン 09:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 01:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buck Broadway

Member of Deuce Gang (see above). Plans to release a debut "mixtape" but is just not notable JJay 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --JJay 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 10:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BZPower

I suggest that this article seems to be a rather large advertisement, and also an insignificant article. Seeing as it was written by the members of this site, it is biased and it does seem that they are trying to attract members. I do not see any criticisms, just advertisements here. -84.66.132.133 (08:42, 16 October 2005 UTC)

I agree. The article does seem more of an advertisement than anything. -Anonymous (14:29, 16 October 2005 68.238.199.245 UTC)
I do not agree. The article explains the truth of a website that is constantly flamed and spammed on other forums that they're dictators. Besides, who made the article? Did the owners? No, they did not. Keep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.58.69.245 (talk • contribs) 19:33 16 October 2005 (UTC).

In response, At least there should be some criticisms. Nothing is perfect. Also, I took a look around that site, and one of their Members originally made the article. -84.66.132.133 (19:01, 17 October 2005 UTC)

Speedy keep, no new argument has been made that was not addressed in the original VFD. -DDerby-(talk) 05:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable forumcruft.--Isotope23 15:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per DDerby, and clean up the article. --Mairi 22:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete It is popular allready. It shouldn't need an article to help it.--AgentA

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 13:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos gaitan

Problem: Sp. "student interested and opensource...etc." is not notable. Not even in Spanish. Molotov (talk)
23:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete per CSD A7: I don't see any assertion of notability in there. Not even in Spanish. Haeleth 17:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Rob e rt 00:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cassiopaeans

Delete as sheer vanity and unverifiable cruft. See author's similar flights of fancy at Laura Knight-Jadczyk, Cassiopean (already deleted), and 6th_density. - Sensor 23:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- Foofy 02:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment It gets a lot of google hits [5] --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 05:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

And the website (cassiopaea.org) has Alexa rank under 200,000 [6], which isn't bad for a crank site. Haeleth

Delete non-encyclopaedic (might be a place for it in a discussion of channelling, bt certainly not as a main article of this length and subjectivity) - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - as Kzollman points out, it's possible that this topic could be described as "notable", but I'm sure not volunteering to find out. And even if there was a worthy article to be written on the subject, I really don't see it evolving from this start. Haeleth 17:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete insufficiently notable crackpottery. MCB 21:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ciara of Emerald Isle

Delete Aside from having a website and being the subject of a bit of confusion with Ciara Harris which is covered briefly on that person's page, (s)he doesn't have any notability of her own and indeed chooses to not publicize hir own last name. Not only that, but it appears that the name Ciara of Emerald Isle only shows up in Wikipedia, its mirrors and references to this article. Caerwine 19:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Molotov (talk)
19:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Dlyons493 Talk 19:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn bio. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 10:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of C Sharp to Java

Where do I start? (WP:NOT)... Original thought/research.... Wikipedia is not a manual. I think there are more possible reasons for deletion but that'll do for now chowells 19:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. One of the main critisisms of C# has been that it's too similar to Java. A page like this is useful to point out differences. It also does not seem much different than other articles within Category:Programming language comparison --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment similar pages is not justification for keeping this one -- maybe they should be up on AfD too. chowells 23:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

But those pages aren't on AfD, and that fact does set a certain type of precident. My feeling is that those pages are not flukes or outliers, but instead represent the state of technical comparisons on Wikipedia, and could be used as informal standards. Tbjablin 00:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Could you please clarify your (Chowells's) criticism? This article is not a manual. It does not explain how to accomplish any given task. Similarly, the article is free of original research or thought, there is not disagreement on most of the criticism of the C# and Java, and even those criticisms which are not accepted universally are at least in the public domain of ideas and not the personal grievances of a particular wiki editor. Although formatted differently the article's content is not different from Comparison of Java to C Plus Plus or Comparison of generics to templates, and is certainly more encyclopedic in tone and format than Comparison of operating systems. Tbjablin 22:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment it is inherently non-WP:NPOV. Many of the items under "Advantages of C#" I would consider to be a disadvantage. IMHO it's verging on the definition of propaganda and advocacy in WP:NOT. Other "comparison" pages simply contain tables listing facts, having a page listing "advantages" and "disadvantages" is I think going too far chowells 23:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I have reorganized the information in line with Haeleth's suggestion. Any thoughts? Tbjablin 00:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that's orders of magnitudes better. I therefore withdraw the nomination and suggest Keep chowells 00:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep... but rewrite to address the POV issues chowells correctly identifies. Replacing subjective "advantages"/"disadvantages" with objective differences would be a good start. (Other problems include unverifiable generalisations like "better performance in OS-specific tasks".) Haeleth 23:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is a valid article topic, as per precedent. If you don't like something else about the article, remedy it. (Good on Haeleth for taking the first step.) --Jacquelyn Marie 01:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment what precedent? My nomination was partially based on the precdent set in a previous VfD, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/BSD_and_Linux chowells 09:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I think it's useful (especially the listings) and the POV issue could be addressed. freshgavin ^TALK 05:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Useful article. --Cactus.man ✍ 06:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. For as long as these languages are so simular it would be interesting to monitor their convergence/devergence through the course of evolution. We might consider labeling the comparison with versions. --moxon 16:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment I originally nominated this article because it was hopelessly POV and I couldn't imagine how it could be improved. I'm pleased to say that I was proven wrong so can we just speedily keep this now please to avoid anybody else wasting time voting when it's clearly going to be kept. Thanks. chowells 11:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 13:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-Strike surfing

I'm a gamer, but this is pure gamecruft. A useful article for the Counter-Strike encyclopedia, but not Wikipedia. Al 12:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete not even of interest to the vast majority of CS players. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's of enough interest (to some) to warrant a merge, but it's already better covered at Counter-Strike_maps#Surf. freshgavin ^TALK 23:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, don't move and don't merge. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 02:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Wikipedia

This has been submitted before, however it was never resolved whether we should keep and merge. I am resubmitting this, and this time I am asking whether it should also be merged. Please comment in the relevant sections. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Previous

Criticism of Wikipedia was nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was "speedy keep". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wikipedia/18 October 2005.

Criticism of Wikipedia was nominated for deletion on 2004-12-03. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wikipedia/2004-12-03.

Criticism of Wikipedia was nominated for deletion on 2005-02-25. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Wikipedia/2005-02-25.

[edit] Rename

Let's be honest. These are not arguments against Wikipedia. They are arguments for changing the policies of Wikipedia to give administrators more power. The article should be renamed to reflect its content. --Peter McConaughey 22:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keep as is

Keep. It's an important entry of reference that people not convinced of the Wiki idea (especially thos used to traditional encyclopedia usage) can be pointed to. martin 8 December 2005
Keep. Should be an independent subject.. KrisR 4 December 2005
Keep. It's too large to fit nicely within the main Wikipedia article. -- Saikiri~ 02:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia is a very valuable resource, and a fascinating social experiement, but many, if not most of these points are right-on. The only argument I could see for not keeping this is that it is POV, but that would be somewhat disingenuous. --RoySmith 03:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Doesn't need merging - wouldn't look good jammed into the main WP article. --Loopy 03:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as useful resource. Capitalistroadster 03:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Does anyone have an actual reason to delete or merge this? Seems kind of strange to have a VfD without lodging a single formal complaint with the article as-is. -Silence 03:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia has become a case study in all kinds of debates about knowledge and democracy. This page documents some of that. (Comment: If this was intended as just another VfD/AfD I think you'd be right. I guess this is intended to settle the keep vs. merge question... but I agree, it feels like this has been done and done.) rodii 03:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Too large to merge anywhere. Creating sub-articles is a natural part of the growth of an article, so I'm not sure what the problem is here. BrianSmithson 04:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- The problem is that we need to determine whether enough people believe it should be merged or not. That's the main reason for this AfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  - We don't (or should'nt) need an AFD to establish consensus for or against a merge, though. El_C 05:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I think it is beautifully well written, well resourced, and neutral. A wonderful article. It is important to keep it because it reflects transparency of Wikipedia. I think that there should be more of this kind of article. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 04:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep A useful collection of information, too big to merge with main article. Jasmol 04:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep- Per Zordrac. Reyk 05:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above. worthawholebean _talk^contribs 05:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 05:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. El_C 05:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Worthwhile article, located correctly. Herostratus 06:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as the article is well written and accurately portrays the flaws and eventual undoing of this encyclopedia. --Agamemnon2 08:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's an important subject, as much as any other current event. --QubitOtaku 10:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. I don't understand why it's up for AFD again seeing as it's been kept the previous times. Wikipedia has to include the bad with the good and while I disagree with Agamemnon2's statement about "eventual undoing" I think it's articles like this that make Wikipedia worthwhile. I don't recall seeing an article in Britannica devoted to people who don't like it. Just as long as this article retains NPOV, I'm all for it, even if I don't always agree with it. In fact, deleting this article would play into the hands of some of the critics who accuse Wikipedia of censoring any criticism about it. 23skidoo 16:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. To be objective and unbiased, me do need some critics. However, the article could needs some edit, because i think it is slightly POV
Keep as is The Land 16:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Gtabary 17:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia is highly notable these days, and thus fair game for criticism; it also shouldn't put itself in the position of appearing to censor its critics. *Dan T.* 17:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep: Too big to merge, and the last thing anyone would want to do is justify the complaining of people like these. Until Wikipedia's perfect, it'll have its critics, and that information is welcome as long as its encyclopedic. karmafist 18:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with karmafist. I tried to ask them for some constructive criticism, but they have none. Apparently I was "trolling" using the power of my "hive mind" (and other such personal attacks). With critics like that, we're actually in a pretty good position (they just look - and they are! - unreasonable). For instance, they criticise us for being in the top 10 of clusty.com (Daniel Brandt's recommended search engine) - surely they should be criticising the search engine and not us? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Too big to merge, and I don't buy the argument that "Criticism of X" articles are automatically more POV than any of the very POV articles we wouldn't dream of deleting or merging, like those of major religions or heads of state -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Any organization should have a plan to derive benefit by listening to criticism. There should be a link to Criticism of Wikipedia in the toolbox in order to make it easy for users to provide criticism. --JWSchmidt 23:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep It is important that WP acknowledges its critics. --rogerd 23:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep, though when I say "as is", I don't mean the article as it is at this instant. In particular, the recent removal of the counters to some of this criticism strikes me as an effort to turn the article into a POV attack. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Tlogmer 02:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep Olorin28 03:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep as an important hubris-deflator for those like myself who try to believe that nothing is ever wrong on Wikipedia (I don't mean that in a negative way, I'm just saying I'm prone to believing everything I read on Wikipedia without acknowledging the possibility that someone has discreetly edited a number somewhere. I RC patrol, I know what kinds of stupid crap people do!) Mo0[talk] 06:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As AOLers used to be notorious for saying: me too! --Modemac 13:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If this useful material were merged into the Wikipedia article, that article would simply expand too fast for comfort. This is clearly material that belongs in its own article. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 20:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep by now. Ashibaka tock 01:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
KEEP! Its healthy for organizations allow for criticism - allowing this to stand will also blunt the negative impact if its removed. But one word of caution, the content on this article should never dissolve into a personal gripe section. My greatest fear is that future "contributors" could use the space to air their personal gripes, an Wikipedia has a mechanism for dealing with that. Stu 17:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep or speedy keep given the general consensus here. Hall Monitor 18:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep — Matt Crypto 21:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep It troubles me that some Wikipedians are unable to tolerate criticisms. This page is a valuable resource that provides alternative views of Wikipedia and can help improve the project. --SamOdio 18:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep What wont kill us will only make us stronger. We are the BORG Larsinio 19:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. We should strive to address these criticisms, not silence them. Silensor 19:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Sounds like a noteworthy page that we should pay attention to. --Thephotoman 00:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Those unfamiliar with WP should stumble across this early in their wanderings through it. BYT 20:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep and delist. If someone doesn't within the next 24 hours, I will. —RaD Man (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please do not do this, and let it run its course. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep: RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 01:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Delete entirely

Delete Somebody can make a user who does NOTHING BUT CRITICISE, and this could be their user page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blah2 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Redirect (please list where)

Redirect to Wikipedia:Criticism of Wikipedia. Thgis would make far more sense in the project namespace than in article space. Grutness...wha? 05:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a certainly logic to what Grutness says, and from a purely logical point of view, I think he's right. On the other hand, hiding critisism of oneself out of the public view is the Wrong Thing to do. --RoySmith 14:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Um. Are you suggesting that our only real reason for wanting to keep the article as-is is to stave off being criticized by criticizing ourselves first, and that it's only by being (at least to some extent) illogical and irrational, only by treating this article preferentially and being biased enough to deal differently with this article than we would with any other article, that we can possibly argue for this article's existence? That's nonsense, I'd argue the same for any Criticism article about a major subject that has had a large number of significant criticisms. We already have a page called Wikipedia:Criticisms, which is a page for the purpose of Wikipedia editors to read over, discuss, and try to address relevant critiques of Wikipedia. The purpose of this article, on the other hand, is for our readers. Many people will no doubt be interested and fascinated to see some of the main criticisms of Wikipedia (and the significant responses)—all the more so, yes, because the page happens to be on Wikipedia, but even if it wasn't, the topic's significant enough that we shouldn't attack such a well-written article. We should do the same thing we do with any other article: try to improve it, fix its biases, bring it up to shape. Endless VfDs don't improve the article, they just lead to us spending more time arguing back and forth, back and forth, then actually working on the article itself (which is, in fact, the case with this article, from what I can see). -Silence 22:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Wikipedia:Criticism of Wikipedia. I agree with grutness, it would make more sense to have that in the Wikipedia: name sapce --Chemturion 21:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

On the theory that abuses of WP, and the resultant criticisms, are not prominent or newsworthy? I have to disagree. The Siegenthaler thing was on the front page of the New York Times Week in Review section this week, quite a promiment placement. Clearly, this should be front and center, not something for insiders. It is simply too big to pour into Wikipedia. Seems to me like the consensus here is dead-on. BYT 20:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge and redirect (please list where)

Merge to the Wikipedia article. In The Flesh ? 02:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Merge to the Wikipedia article. Smerk
- Incidentally, as a side-note to the vote, would you guys (a) support the merging of Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox into Mozilla Firefox, Criticisms of Internet Explorer into Internet Explorer (and possibly other articles, like Common criticisms of Microsoft into Microsoft or even Criticisms of communism into Communism), (b) support the merging of this article but not those, because Wikipedia criticism is less noteworthy than that of Mozilla Firefox, etc., or (c) none of the above. Just interested in getting a broader perspective on what this vote would entail for Wikipedia's requirements to be a distinct article; that way its results might be useful for future decisions. -Silence 04:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  - I wouldn't. The Internet Explorer criticisms was done to specifically keep the size of the article down to a minimum. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    - And criticism of Wikipedia wasn't? Wikipedia is 21 pages long, whereas Internet Explorer is just over 10 pages long, and the Criticism page for the latter is only 2-3 pages longer than the one for the former. Thanks for the explanation, though. -Silence 05:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
      - You are talking cross-purposes with me. I don't believe that the Criticism of Wikipedia article should be merged into the Wikipedia article. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  - To be fair, criticism of Wikipedia IS vastly less important than criticisms of Communism, Microsoft and Internet Explorer, and I'm pretty sure Firefox has it beat in overall importance too. No need to raise ourselves on a pedestal here. --Agamemnon2 08:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    - I would agree that criciticms of Wikipedia is less important than all those things, however this does not mean that criticisms of Wikipedia are not important. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Merging is the wrong answer. Making the scope of the article neutral is the right answer. And, indeed, Criticisms of communism is an example of the sort of perennial neutrality dispute that results from "Criticism of X" articles with a non-neutral scope. See below. Uncle G 17:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Clean Up and Merge into Wikipedia --Arm 13:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I'm sick of seeing this thing, frankly. I disagree with this and all other pages titled Criticism of X; I would much rather like to see Evaluations of X or perhaps Critical evaluations of X. Doesn't anybody wonder why we don't have Praise of X or Positive opinions on X articles? Articles like these are ways to exile negative POVs to places where they can do less damage. That has some value, but it's still a poor compromise of our NPOV policy. Opposing viewpoints should be integrated, not separated. These articles attract huge amounts of unverifiable statements and irrelevant fluff as a result of their unquestioning titles.
That said, I suppose this is just an issue of practicality that is not going to resolve any time soon. Until and if I can finally find the strength to rewrite this thing into Evaluations of Wikipedia and hope it's so great that nobody wants to undo it, I'll leave it alone. JRM · Talk 12:58, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
IMHO, "Critics" can be quite positive. Unless you mean "Criticasting", which you are doing now, if you ask me (not that anyone did) Nazgjunk - - Signing is ^{for Whimps} 16:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

With a dictionary in hand, you may be perfectly correct. Looking at the content of these pages, though, it's clear that most editors do not in fact have a dictionary in hand when editing. "Criticism" is a strongly negative term, regardless of what it can mean or ought to mean in a scholarly context. JRM · Talk 17:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The distinction doesn't run exactly like that, please stuff the scholarly context back in the closet. "Criticism" and "critic" can be quite neutral, and with words like "bible", "literary", "movie", "theatre", or such in front of them, they are. "Literary criticism" is book reviewing, and "biblical criticism" is about analyzing the bible, not about pointing out weaknesses in it. But "Criticism of X" is negative regardless of context. "Criticism of the bible" would mean pointing out perceived weaknesses in the bible. Therefore, assuming nobody would want to coin a horror like "Wikipedian criticism", a neutral article would indeed need to be called something like "Critical evaluations of Wikipedia". Bishonen | talk 23:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
AFD is not the place for solving the problem with this article, since doing so doesn't involve deletion at all.
See the main discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content_forking#.22Criticism.28s.29_of_....22.

JRM is exactly right. "Criticism of X" pages are inherently non-neutral, since they only present one side of a debate, contrary to our policy. They are a short route to perennial and unresolvable neutrality disputes. Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Mormonism, Criticisms of communism, and Criticism of Hinduism all sport neutrality disputes, all because either the scope of the article implies that the only discussion of the subject that exists is negative or the scope of the article inherently advocates the negative point of view. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arguments for the existence of Bigfoot, the way to resolve this problem is to have a single article that encompasses the entire debate, but this is not a matter for AFD, since deletion is not required in order to achieve this. Just rename or merge the article to a neutral title and expand its scope.

This should have been discussed on Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia as a simple renaming/merger and refactoring proposal and taken to Wikipedia:Requests for comment if there wasn't enough input. Uncle G 17:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that last remark. Which is why I in fact have done this once already. Neither the talk page nor an RFC had any effect, and I strongly suspect nothing short of actually going ahead with the rewrite will. But that's only going to stick if you produce a brilliant article from the start, since otherwise people are going to say you're "acting unilaterally" and "against consensus", which in this case just means you're violating the status quo, and people don't like that. It's pretty hopeless, really. JRM · Talk 17:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that "criticism of..." pages are inherently non-neutral. The way to make them neutral, obviously, is to list all the noteworthy criticisms (citing them all), and then to list noteworthy rebuttals to all of those criticisms where they exist (citing them all), and counter-rebuttals if those are noteworthy, etc. "Criticism of..." articles aren't just a place for criticism, they're a place about criticism—the history of criticism of communism, for example, or Christianity, would belong in those articles, not just the criticism itself. The fact that an article is too POVed currently does not mean that the topic is inherently POVed. In this case, all it means is that it's unusually difficult to get the article NPOV—though far from impossible, since many of the "Criticism of..." articles (including this one) don't have NPOV stickers on them. Separating Criticism into its own article is only a "POV fork" if (1) no criticism is mentioned as well on the article's main page, even where appropriate, and (2) no responses to criticism are allowed on the criticism page. Those two requirements may not be satisfied quite yet for some of the pages, but they certainly can be in the future. -Silence 19:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That's a nice idea in theory (and I do not believe in "inherently non-neutral" articles either), but the point-counterpoint style is not a very good instance of NPOV either. I am not convinced that criticism of any topic (as opposed to critical evaluations, which is not quite the same thing) should be separated, when endorsement, encouragement or neutral reactions never get split off. In most cases the criticism of a topic is not interesting in and of itself, but in context of the topic. The present structure encourages articles of the form "Topic. X, Y and Z. Oh, but Criticism of Topic." "Criticism of Topic. X is bogus, Y is bogus, Z is bogus." It should be "Topic. X, but maybe X is bogus. Y, but maybe Y is bogus. Z, but maybe Z is bogus." The individual parts can get separate articles again, but it should be unusual and undesirable for (unqualified) criticism to be a topic in and of itself. It makes things unnecessarily hard and obscures the broad picture. It's an easy way to split up an article, but I'd argue it's a suboptimal one. JRM · Talk 19:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

A number of the articles caught up in previous edit wars -- especially religious articles -- seemed to settle down after a "Criticism of..." section was created. (Examples: Criticism of Prem Rawat, Scientology controversy.) The reasoning here seemed to satisfy both the proponents and opponents of the "critics" of these groups. Those who wanted to place negative information about the groups were generally content that they were able to keep their information and links in the spotlight, with prominent links to their article on the main page; meanwhile, supporters of the groups in question were largely free to add their own information to the main page while letting the critics have their say in the "criticism" article. --Modemac 13:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute that this will help stop edit wars for controversial topics. It is a compromise, a truce of sorts, a way to prevent you from having to face the harsh and complex demands of NPOV. Splitting up an article in an unbiased/pro part and a contra part is not neutral. Our job is not to keep editors con\tent, but to provide an integral story to our readers. Basically, NPOV is hard, tough noogies. Why not Criticism of George W. Bush? Sure would cool some edit wars. No. That's Wikinfo's modus operandi, not ours. By doing this we give up, saying "maybe NPOV is just impossible/not worth it".

And besides—we're talking Wikipedia here, not religion. Do we really think Wikipedia editors will be unable to exercise restraint when faced with criticism of "their" encyclopedia? I value us a little higher than that, really. JRM · Talk 01:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Like in religion, some will be able to exercise restraint and others will not. I'll have you know I'm a "religious" person. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And we have plenty of Bush supporters too, I wager. My comment was not directed at particular groups or individuals. I trust my implication that some topics will attract more and more heated conflicts than others is not challenged. Wikipedia is special because it's personal too all of us, and because it is, we should respect NPOV even more than for other topics if we want any hope of looking good. JRM · Talk 15:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

True, just wanted to point this out. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 10:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural identity

Appears to be (confusing) original research exclusively. See Wikipedia:No_original_research. Sandstein 14:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep Seems to be a reasonable article topic. Needs cleanup, maybe, but not deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- The topic is perfectly reasonable, of course, but the article contains only original research right now. (Or should we just delete everything except maybe the introductory sentence and then continue improvement?) Sandstein 19:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and improve. Logophile 16:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Feels like a copyvio, but I can't find an online source. --Carnildo 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Blatant copyvio. See [7]. I'm not sure how to change this to speedy. freshgavin ^TALK 23:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- That's a Wikipedia mirror, as are most of the other Google hits for lines from this article. --Carnildo 00:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oof. Didn't expect a mirror to have such a different layout. Won't make that mistake again. - -;;. Still feels like a copyvio, the initial definition is worded exactly the same on tons of sites that aren't mirrored, but if nothing is found, then I say keep and cleanup. freshgavin ^TALK 04:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Notable topic with more two and a half million Google hits [8] and there are 1860 papers listed on Ebbsco Academic Search Premier search for that topic. The copyvio alleged by user Freshgavin isn't relevant because it seems to be a mirror of the Wikipedia article. Capitalistroadster 00:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep with major cleanup. An important topic, but the discussion is limited in its usefulness and badly written. --The Famous Movie Director 00:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Lince

I can find no reference to anybody of this name either as a sociologist or a soccer player, the poster listed his birth date as 1998 in the list of sociologists and added another obviously bogus entry at the same time. The team in Thundersley is actually the Rovers not the Rangers Bob Palin 15:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Joaquin Murietta 00:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As per nominator. --OorWullie 08:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 13:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David E. Auxier, CFPIM,

Unwikified advertisment. No notability established. --S.K. 09:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom CambridgeBayWeather 13:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (6 keep, 4 delete, 5 merge, 1 redirect, discounting sockpuppets and IPs). Rob e rt 00:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Even Pedley

This person is of low noterity and is being used to push DOM Davidpdx 01:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

(Note:If this is deleted, the redirect (which is empty) should be deleted as well Evan David Pedley)

Delete not notable. The correctly spelled name gets less than 300 hits: [9] and no google news hits [10]. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

- Keep I stand corrected. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 04:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as notable: If you drop the middle name, you get 139,000 hits, and most people that have middle names, rarely use those. The Wikipedia rules for keeping an article about an individual are only that they have been written about in two major publications, if I remember, and in this case this man has been not only in countless news articles around the world for many decades, even this year, almost two decades after his death, he has been talked and picture shown on national and international TV programmes, such as CBS 60 Minutes II. However, I admit that the article needs more work, and just pieced that together to get the article started in earnest. I don't know how an article about Pedley in any way pushes the DOM. Johnski 03:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Johnski. "used to push DOM"? POV error exists only if permitted by editors. Put an NPOV tag on the articles or sections you dispute, or edit them to fix them. POV errors don't make a subject a less valid topic for an encyclopedia, although they clearly reduce the quality of the articles they exist in. Unfocused 03:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I rewrote the article, though I will say that in my opinion it is pretty bad form to post such an obviously POV cut and paste job in lieu of writing an NPOV article. I removed all the information about Ben David... this isn't his article... as well as some of the unimportant biographical details about marriages, etc. I'm going to tag this with "disputed facts" as soon as I can find the tags, because some of the information I have not been able to independantly verify yet.--Isotope23 12:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Should also mention that his name is spelled wrong ("EVEN" should be "EVAN" per all accounts). When I get a chance I'll add a section on pseudonyms... and the fact that he seems to have alternated between Evan David Pedley and David Evan Pedley. I'll see if I can find independant verification of what the guys real name is.--Isotope23 14:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

~~Delete per nomination Davidpdx 04:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)~~
Merge NPOV content into Dominion of Melchizedek and delete-I tend to agree with Gene Poole, this imformation would be better in terms of adding it to the DOM page. Davidpdx 06:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment The previous comment about POV error exsisting only if it is permitted by editors is true. However, when you have one person chronically adding this stuff to over 10 diffrent pages, it becomes a bigger problem then just POV on one page. The editor in question has began a campign to add as many articles as he can as well as add DOM to countless pages to POV push and to try to justify DOM. It has gotten to the point of vandalism through adding and editing pages.

The editor in question also has claimed that there are numerous other people that support his version of the Dominion of Melchazidek article and continues to revert the article up to three times a day. If this isn't POV, then what the heck is? Davidpdx 04:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge NPOV content into Dominion of Melchizedek and delete. This individual has notoriety solely due to his criminal association with Melchizedek, and is best documented in the context of that article. Note that Johnski is strongly suspected of being a member of Melchizedek, and is quite possibly a member of the Pedley family. --Gene_poole 04:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Gene, the reason that I started this page about Pedley was to make the page less cluttered that you want to merge it to. Why do you try to insult me by claiming that you suspect me of being connected to a reputed crime family or the ecclesiastical government they are newsworthy of founding? I don't think this is the first time you got facts wrong, and here again, not that it is pertinent to deletion, I can not find any evidence to support your statement that "this individual has notoriety solely due to his criminal association with Melchizedek". Although Context Magazine says that Pedley founded Melchizedek in the 1950s, in fact, it appears that he died in the 1980's years before Melchizedek became newsworthy because of the allegations against the banks it licensed in the 1990s. Pedley was in the news years before the media began writing about DOM, and apparently the subject of a book called the "Fountain Pen Conspiracy". Just before Melchizedek hit the news, around 1990, the Sacramento, California U.S. Marshall was quoted by the Sacramento Bee as saying that the Pedley case was politically motivated. This to me is pretty interesting stuff. Are you saying that Pedley's translation of the Melchizedek Bible was Pedley's criminal association to DOM, because that is the only association I can find to DOM other than his son following in his footsteps?Johnski 05:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Merging requires the edit history of the source of the merged info to be kept. Therefore, merge and delete is not a valid vote. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. - 131.211.51.34 09:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow another bs move by Johnski and unsigned at that. This is from the person who tried to convience me that blogs could be used as a creditable source. Speaking of creditablity, you are shooting yourself in the foot in terms of your creditablity by the statements you make. You purposly lie and misrepresent the rules of Wikipedia to push DOM. In fact, here is the true interpretation of the rule you misquoted:

"An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep". The AFD decision may also include a strong recommendation for an additional action such as a "merger" or "redirect". In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action. These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". If they are challenged, the decision should be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages. A second AFD discussion is unnecessary."

You continue to make statements in bad faith and revert things without consensus, why should anyone trust you? Davidpdx 10:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Davidpdx, I'm not asking anyone to trust me, only to write balanced, fair and factual articles. I don't believe that I said that a blog is a credible source only that one can be used in certain circumstances, and I finally admitted that you were correct in regard to the way I used it, which was only in a single case. Look at 131.211.51.34 activity and think about whether that is really me.Johnski 19:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Template:Votedelete: Anyone who cares should move NPOV content to DOM now. (SEWilco 14:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC))
Delete and give a slightly larger mention to the subject on the DOM page. Not notable outside of DOM-related activity. flowersofnight 15:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No notability outside DOM. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, with maybe a bit of a smerge. -R. fiend 16:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable person. In the grand scheme of things, Pedley has no notability. Per (SEWilco anyone who is really passionate about this could move content to DOM site, though anything pulled from this article needs serious NPOV edits.--Isotope23 21:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep but rewrite. A glance at Dominion of Melchizedek proves that Pedley is notable. However, as this article currently reads, he appears to be Yet Another Forgettable Translator of the Bible (tm); only when you get several tedious paragraphs into the quoted text does one find that he is involved in several felony financial crimes. Unless it can be shown that this is a hoax, I think a career felon is notable. -- llywrch 23:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll tell you what, I'll do a rewrite when I get a chance today. The more I look at this, I'm on the fence a bit on notability because while Dominion of Melchizedek has slight notability, I'm not so sure that this notability is necessarily confered on the creator. Still, I will rewrite it NPOV (which is sorely lacking right now) and condense it because I don't believe there is much value in hearing about his marriages, etc. The arrests and convictions are all verifiable, though Pedley claims they were cooked up. Even if this article gets deleted, at the end of the day it's still good practice for NPOVing an article.--Isotope23 11:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep but rewrite.207.47.122.10 08:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment I protest the vote from 207.47.122.10. This is clearly the IP address of Johnski, the main person involved in vandalizing numerous pages on Wikipedia. He is adding several pages in order to push DOM and make it seem legitimate. Each person has one vote on a rfd. It's time Johnski learns to follow the rules. Davidpdx 13:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep rewrite and watch page. I've nominated a page for incurable PoV myself, but Isotope23 seems to have done a fair fix, if it can be maintained. Septentrionalis 16:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge into DOM article. Pavel Vozenilek 17:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge content into Dominion of Melchizedek and delete. Shocktm (Talk * Contributions) 20:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge Lets keep this stuff in one place. Dejvid 18:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Rewrite looks good but needs more work. Dejvid, Did you agree with Melchizedek's spiritual war on Serbia, which was launched just before hell fire came from America?SamuelSpade 21:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: As SamuelSpade is a sockpuppet of Johnski, this vote may be disregarded. KAJ is also a sockpuppet of Johnski.--Gene_poole 23:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Poole, please stop claiming that I am a sockpuppter. KAJ 20:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep: Pedley is notable and may be involved in things other than the Dominion of Melchizedek Tom harrison 23:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus---KEEP by default. This likely shall be AfD a few months from now depending on how much notability it achieves; this article was created too early, before he topic could prove itself worthy. Keep for now, and then anyone can AfD later if necessary.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 14:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Men Don't Leave Tips: Adventures X Africa

Looks like author's self-promotion of a not-yet published travel book. -- RHaworth 14:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The article provides no evidence as to the book's significance, and is principally concerned with making sure the reader understands just how good it is. Sliggy 20:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The article factually describes contents of the book which is due to be released November 1, 2005. The book is on record with Bowkers and Library of Congress. The tone might be edited to be less sales-oriented, but reviews are helpful. 24.161.133.194

The reviews, helpful or otherwise, are misplaced. There is a need to keep a neutral point of view. Sliggy 15:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The tone of the description has been edited to present a more neutral view, yet at the same time present the book's significance as suggested. Open to further suggestions, if needed. Pelegrinotrek

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 04:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deuce Gang

I can't find anything on google or Amazon pertaining to rappers Deuce Gang. They expect to be "featured on numerous projects" in 2006. My crystal ball is stuck on 2005-- JJay 23:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --JJay 23:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Molotov (talk)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "dirty thirty"

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Even if as widespread as claimed (it's not), who cares? Al 16:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

There are a few hits for this and "beer goggles" is pretty active on the wiki. Nevertheless, voting Delete because I don't see any expandability. Would change if someone makes a case for it. --JJay 17:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless it can become more than a dicdef. If it is kept, should probably be moved to get rid of the quotes... --Alynna 18:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Few relevant hits. Possibly could become a definition on Wiktionary; however, I beleive that the term does not currently have sufficiently wide usage to be accepted. The top google hit for "dirty thirty" is about power plants. Cool3 23:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Rob e rt 00:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Domobot

Searches through Vivisimo and Google only turned up this article. The concept is imaginary. Octothorn 09:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn neologism. Haeleth 13:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the 1,090 Google hits appear to be either Wikipedia or its mirrors, suggesting neologism. Wcquidditch | Talk 22:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. User:SandeepMadhur and User:Gemini5785 are obvious sock puppets. — JIP | Talk 10:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Douchecunt

Protologism. WP:ISNOT a dictionary—even of established words. enceph alon 09:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. enceph alon 09:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable neologism. — JIP | Talk 10:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per — JIP. -feydey 12:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete attention-seeking behavior. Denni ☯
Keep This is a one of a kind word and needs to be treated like that. Wikipedia has both "douchebag" and "cunt" as words so there is no reason why the combination of the two words should be erased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SandeepMadhur (talk • contribs) , at 22:42, 2005 October 21..
Keep Society create new words everyday. Words don't need to be in a dictionary to be validated. And I've bet many people have combined the word "douche" and "cunt" to form douchecunt to insult, make fun of, or joke people. Just because some poor brown man at UR thought of putting it on wikipedia, doesn't mean you have to be jealous and try to take it off!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gemini5785 (talk • contribs) , at 04:49, 2005 October 22..

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. gren グレン 10:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Downfallout

Although this company is verifiable, I am not convinced that it is notable. Anybody can make a website and publish a press release for their game, but this does not prove that the game or the company is notable. The website doesn't appear to have an alexa rank. Unless notability verified, delete as not-notable; possible advertisement. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Fails to meet guidelines in WP:CORP. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 21:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Save. I would contend that this entry is notable based on the historical significance of the game and the contribution to popular culture made by its creators. I believe this article highlights a unique moment when the contentious nature of an American presidential election aroused enough international attention to allow a video game featuring its main candidates to become a success. --StJohn79 02:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC) [ talk ]

Delete A fine try StJohn79, but the notability of this election does not make everything that tries to capitalize on its "success" notable. This company is not yet successful in its own right. --Reflex Reaction 20:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (no real consensus, too few votes, however borderline speedy). gren グレン 09:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E-reaming

Non-notable neologism, one of the several million that can be formed by taking a common gerund and appending "e-" to the beginning.

Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
e-Delete. Non-notable e-neologism, as per e-nom. e-Lord Bob 18:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP (withdrawn). gren グレン 10:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Lenape Nation of Pennsylvania

Perhaps needs the delete tag, but I like living life on the edge. Anyway, this is a definite delete. Molotov (talk)
19:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it is notable. But must be written in a better form. Molotov (talk)
19:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It is notable... I've taken the liberty of adding a redirect to the page (leading to Lenape whilst I do some research to add an actual article here.--Isotope23 20:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

- Withdraw nomination per redirect. Molotov (talk)
  22:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 21:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Egg gun

This one is good! A personal prototype that has received no publicity or acknowledgement consititutes original research and a non notable article. I think the author is cool though, but a definite delete. Wikipedia never fails to suprise me. Molotov (talk)
22:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, original research. (Aside: This is why we need WP:PWDS...) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ditto Bunchofgrapes —Wayward ^Talk 23:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. That would be original research, then. -Splash^talk 23:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete OR. nothing to debate here. --JJay 00:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per OR policy. However, the person who wrote this is obviously creative and has a good grip on the English language. I suggest those of us who thought the article cool, even if not fit for Wikipedia, tell the guy/girl that we liked the article anyway. We'll want to keep the (anonymous) writer around. ~~(The person has also contributed to one stub that does fit into Wikipedia.)~~ Okay, never mind on that last bit, that was a test edit, obviously. Still liked this article.... --Jacquelyn Marie 01:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Would it be entirely inappropriate for me to say here that I'm not sure the author is so cool? (Probably, but I'm going to do it anyway.) This sentence on his external "egg-gun" page [11] makes this Wikipedia article look like a calculated attempt to simply boost his Google PageRank: "Besides actually using the egg gun I have decided I need to become the number 1 ranked web site for the key-phrase egg gun." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  - To aid that campaign, I have munged the link in the article. -Splash^talk 03:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Okay, point made, but the article was still cool if unencyclopedic. :) --Jacquelyn Marie 05:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Rob e rt 00:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emayatzy

Makes a claim to notability, but still nn. 44 google hits. Punkmorten 16:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Parts in two shorts doesn't make her very notable. Al 17:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN. --JJay 17:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was TAKE OUT EVERYTHING. — JIP | Talk 10:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enigma Group

hacking organization vanity. warning: Comes with a comment that says not to "remove anything." ;) — brighterorange (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity, non notable, unencyclopaedic, advertising chowells 20:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn group's adcruft...--Isotope23 20:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertisements. --Jacquelyn Marie 20:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Blatent advertising. Could be classified as copyvio too, since it is copied from the link. But where is the comment that you speak of? Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- The comment's an actual HTML comment. Click "edit" and you'll see it. Haeleth
Delete per nom. Haeleth 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as copyvio. The comment at the top of the article source is incompatible with the GFDL. --Carnildo 23:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Remove everything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom (and the others have a point, it could perhaps be speedied for copyvio) - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ethiopian folklore from a structuralist narrative perspective

Unencylopedic essay: original research. Tearlach 17:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete essay per apparent WP:NOR.--Isotope23 17:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom; smells of copyvio to me, but I can't find an online source. Haeleth 19:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Reflex Reaction 20:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, and thanks for the note, but I would have figured User:Francs2000 and User:Tuf-Kat know how to write "keep" instead of "Do Not Delete" anyway. — JIP | Talk 10:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EWA

Bandcruft, vanity. No recordings etc. CambridgeBayWeather 13:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Marked for speedy deletion as nn-bio. Sandstein 14:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NMG. I don't think bands qualify for A7 though. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete, Was cited as being a 'work in progress' so it should be presumed that, for now, it is genuine- 17:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as above. -R. fiend 20:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete, I have heard them mentioned on the UK's 'NewStyle Radio 98.7fm' - Francs2000 1:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete per WP:NMG. 7. They were featured on mass media [[12]in a story about local talent.- Tuf-Kat 3:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: The "votes" by Francs2000 and Tuf-Kat as well as the unsigned vote were actually cast by an anon, namely User:82.46.138.72. See [13]. To you who did this, note that this type of behaviour is considered highly disruptive if not outright vandalism and can lead to you being blocked from editing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Striking out forged votes. CambridgeBayWeather 11:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. This is almost a speedy delete, but the debate has already expired its five-day minimum review period, and as per User:Allen3, it has become a disambig page without any links to articles that actually exist, making it useless. — JIP | Talk 18:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] False Alarm (Disambiguation)

A disambig page between three articles, each of which are under AfD with a consensus leaning to delete. Delete either right away or after all the articles it links to are deleted. — JIP | Talk 16:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Only links to this disambig, btw, are from the aforementioned articles. BD2412 ^talk 16:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not to mention, none of those articles are what I'd expect at a "False alarm" article. Mmmbeer 17:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. All articles linked to by this disambiguation page have been deleted. --Allen3 ^talk 00:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (5d, 1k).--Scimitar ^parley 20:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Farrokh B. Malihi

Vanity. Ifnord 23:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment Hmm, 5 patents and 30 papers. If it can be verified then perhaps notable, and a keeper. Otherwise, nn-bio. --Kgf0 23:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC) EDIT: Verified US Patent #4,921,629, which is cited by 36 later patents. IANA Patent Lawyer, so I can't speak to whether that's notable or not. However, if the article is kept, it is in serious need of cleanup, and right now it is somewhere between a blurb and a Curriculum Vitae, neither of which belong here. --Kgf0 19:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete I can only find two papers on google scholar [14]. Even with patents, he doesn't seem to involved with academia. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 05:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
A list of my patents and published articles can be furnished upon request. Thanks for your interest. Farrokh B. Malihi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.241.23.2 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC).
Relisted. No vote. Alphax ^τεχ 07:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It seems that the article has been written by the subject contrary to best pactice according to WP:VANITY. Further, it fails to meet our notability guidelines according to WP:BIO and needs sources. However, if Farrokh wants to create a user page, he is welcome to post his data on that. Capitalistroadster 07:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete Malihi is already listed at Modern Iranian scientists and engineers, that mention seems sufficient. (btw: patents at [15], published papers at [16]) --anetode¹ ² ³ 09:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: it would appear that his name was entered on that list by 80.191.11.17 (talk • contribs), the creator of Farrokh B. Malihi, so this is none too reliable. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Nevertheless, with those links we now know what the precise claims being made are. They can be now be verified or disproven. — Haeleth Talk
Weak keep if the claims of the article can be verified; they're notable enough. Delete as unverifiable if they can't. The article having apparently been written by the subject is irrelevant: it may not be a good thing, and it means the claims should be checked more thoroughly than otherwise, but it's not grounds for deletion! — Haeleth Talk 13:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The two papers on google scholar seem not to have been cited by anyone. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete Outright vanity. Delete under A7 Prashanthns 16:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flecko.net

del nonnotable. 151 unique google hits is way to few for a (quoting) " the greatest website ever". mikka (t) 02:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable, advertising. freshgavin ^TALK 05:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising, vanity. Alex.tan 09:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, webvanity and advertising. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn vanity CLW 14:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 05:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 06:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Garbage Compactor 3263827

Subtrivial Star Wars article. Has absolutely no potential for expansion or merging with other artices. Creating a redirect anywhere I feel would be pointless. Only inbound link is a redirect for 3263827, the compactor's number. Saberwyn 00:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination. Saberwyn 00:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, possibly the most notable garbage compactor in the universe, potential to expand to describe indigenous fauna. Kappa 00:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- There is no potential to expand. In the book, the "indigenous fauna" are described no more specifically than "it", "something", and "whatever". In the film, they are never shown on-screen. Any such expansion would be content created from thin air, which we are not in the business of publishing. Uncle G 01:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I just read in the Star Wars Encyclopedia that dianoga live there. Surely the Star Wars experts should weigh in on this.—Gaff ^{talk 01:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)}
  - There is no such creature mentioned in either book or film. And that encyclopaedia article, like this one, gives a unit number that is not in either the book or the film script. One doesn't need to be a Star Wars expert in order to read the few pages of the book necessary to verify this. I've given the page number. ☺ Uncle G 02:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    - This number, however is present in the film; it seems like it might have been an improvisation (either by Hamill or Lucas). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    - It is also present on the recorded LP from back in the day. The film script and the book cannot be taken as strict Star Wars canon. But anyway, still seems like insignificant trivia not worth the time of debate on AfD. I agree with merging it to either Death Star or Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope.—Gaff ^ταλκ 04:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    - The dianoga [17] in this compactor is Star Wars canon, but mentioning it would only add a sentence or so to the article. -LtNOWIS 01:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge with Death Star, in spite of cute comment from Kappa. Jkelly 01:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete fancruft, unless expanded as kappa suggested. And btw, there are much more notable garbage compactors known for those who read books. mikka (t) 01:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Death Star. No one would look up the redirect, but it wouldn't do any harm, either. CanadianCaesar 01:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Death Star.Voice of All ^{@|Esperanza|E M} 01:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Just for completeness, I note that this is not the number of the garbage compactor that is given on page 153 of the book. Nor is it the number given in the various on-line copies of the 1975-08-01 edition of the film script. Uncle G 01:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
DELETE. This article has a low chance of being expanded to anything other than a stub. It was already well-covered in the article at Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, and, being the minor detail that it is, does not need an article "just becuase it is Star Wars". And... this is coming from a fanboy. Take it to the Star Wars wiki. Well, I guess it's probably there already anyway, and can't be expanded, as I said above The Wookieepedian 01:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
M/e/r/g/e with Death Star per genius mergists above. BD2412 ^talk 02:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Wow, can the Wookieepedian's vote count triple? Anyway, delete as subtrivial cruft. (That said, the closing admin may take this as a merge vote if it helps establish consensus.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope. Contrary to Wookiepedian, there is currently no mention of this Compactor anywhere in the article. --Anetode 04:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Death Star. freshgavin ^TALK 05:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
possibly the most notable garbage compactor in the universe Oh, good Lord, Kappa's championing of the subtrivial may have reached its ultimate expression. Delete, period, full stop. --Calton | Talk 05:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, subtrivial fancruft. MCB 06:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, subtrivial fancruft. Psychonaut 08:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The most notable garbage compactor in the universe is a classic line, however. Dottore So 10:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, only useful for recycling fancruft. Sandstein 14:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
What the--?! Delete subtrivial compactorcruft without merging. The redirect should go too. flowersofnight 15:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Kappa. Only joking. Delete, 'potential to expand to describe indigenous fauna' notwithstanding. Proto t c 15:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Why am i not surprised there's an article here? Anyway delete, beyond subtrivial. -R. fiend 16:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
It might be worth a mention in the Death Star article but there's not much information to merge. Delete I guess. --Optichan 17:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Death Star. - Falerin 17:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Death Star. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete As crufty as crufty can be. KeithD (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- There's always a cruftier fish
  - Wow! THAT is the crufiest—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge per above arguments. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Death Star. This is the kind of trivial silliness that hard-core Star Wars fans like to know; my brother, for instance, loves stuff like this. Not deserving of its own article, though. Do not under any circumstances interpret this vote as a keep.--Scimitar ^parley 21:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with death star. Cool3 23:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect the Lucascruft, perhaps to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope which it asserts to be featured in. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Death Star. As above not a keep vote in any way. Marskell 10:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge, but Kappa's vote should be framed and put on a wall somewhere. the wub "?!" 16:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ladies and Gentlemen, a new and seemingly obvious precedent has been made -- Garbage Compactors are not notable. This one definately goes into the "Kappa's greatest hits" compilation though...Karmafist 20:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Dianoga are large garbage parasites resembling squid, capable of growing up to 10m in length and are also called garbage squid. They originated on planet Vodran, but can now be found anywhere trash and sewage are, living off of any present organic matter. They are primarily scavengers, and only pose a threat when starving.

Delete an article much more likely to get us laughed at than respected. Denni ☯ 23:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Death Star. Penelope D 01:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Death Star. -LtNOWIS 01:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gay pubs in Leeds

Articles: Bar Fibre (Leeds), The Bridge Inn (Leeds), The New Penny (Leeds) and Queens Court (Leeds).

Four gay pubs in Leeds. No special claims for notability. -- RHaworth 11:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete all four as NN. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge into List of gay pubs in Leeds (or ...in West Yorkshire]]). Grutness...wha? 23:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete: "Basically, this is a typical gay pub as you would expect to find anywhere in London or any big city" says it all. Don't merge this into a list; Wikipedia isn't the Yellow Pages, and these articles are vague description and POV review. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Merge as a list into something like LGBT culture in Leeds. Youngamerican 02:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete them all. hard to imagine how any of these could be any more than a stub. If it was an article about a chain of pubs that might be notable but I'm afraid I think most articles about places where I go for a few hours to drink unhealthily large amounts of vodka aren't notable. chowells 17:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to -phobia (contents are already present there). --Stormie 04:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gephyrophobia

del. Nonnotable dicdef that exists only in various lists of phobias plaguing the 'net. mikka (t) 19:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

See Arachibutyrophobia above for discussion. mikka (t) 21:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to -phobia as above. ~~192.18.1.4 16:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)~~ (now logged in) Tonywalton | Talk 16:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless there is verification someone has actually been diagnosed with this. -- Corvus 04:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Jni as nonsense and nn-bio. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glen Melendez

A quick check of the Internet completely fails to produce any evidence that Mr. Melendez is the world's most deadly assassin, that "Brother John" trained him in the arts of language, or that he discovered time travel. —Cleared as filed. 03:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I think saying he is “king of the world” qualifies the article as patent nonsense; hence it should be speedy. ♠DanMS 03:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. 3 votes (including the nom) is enough. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gocke

Article does not establish who the subject is, to the extent that even his/her given name is unknown. Article is not salvageable. Delete. Cleduc 04:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete. I'm pretty sure that this article refers to Rainer Gocke, a requested article. However, it doesn't do any good in its present form. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 04:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete - even if this is Rainer Gocke, there's no point moving this article to Rainer Gocke in its current state. CLW 15:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 04:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Google's law

Neologism, unverified, not in common use User:Purplefeltangel/sig 23:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Molotov (talk)
23:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As per nomination. freshgavin ^TALK 05:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom, or purely on the basis of being awful. --MacRusgail 16:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Coleman

clear vanity, but doesn't meet my speedy threshold ("is noted as... popular blog..") — brighterorange (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel this Article is important because Greg Coleman was a noted and successful Blog pioneer much in the same respect as Tony Pierce. If an article for Tony Pierce can exist on wikipedia then so should one for Greg Coleman. --SeannyFunco 20:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Some kind of evidence that he is noted would help make the case. The blog he is noted for has a very poor alexa rank. — brighterorange (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can provide some verifiable sourcing on the claim that he was a blog pioneer. Right now I'm not seeing anything that is WP:V.--Isotope23 20:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Frankjc2 20:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Runs a non-notable web site with an Alexa ranking of over 3.5 million. Closing admin be aware of new user/sockpuppet votes. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn bio. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per the nominator; borderline, but not quite a speedy deletion candidate. Hall Monitor 22:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Alexa rank very very poor for someone whose claim-to-fame is their blog. I'd consider this speedy material. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 22:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Frampton

While sad, he is just one of the thousands of people to die in the war on terror and Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- Kjkolb 01:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom --JAranda | watz sup 01:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete respectfully. freshgavin ^TALK 05:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete gently, Wikipedia is not a memorial. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, sad but not encyclopaedic. Proto t c 15:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 21:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. --Cactus.man ✍ 05:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Rob e rt 00:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Habboparadise

Reason for deletion: Advertisement Geopgeop 22:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Alexa rank of almost 2,000,000 [18], only 2,000 google hits [19], and no google news hits [20]. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 05:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As per nomination. freshgavin ^TALK 05:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Had Verheijen Painter

Non-notable artist. I can't verify his notability and he gets 9 Google hits. The article reads like a vanity article. Tempshill 20:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity/advertising chowells 20:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

When Vincent van Gogh was alive, no one ever heard of him and nobody liked his paintings. Had Verheijen is a professional painter who has to make a living of his works. He is a perfectionist in everything he does. The inclusion is no vanity/advertising but a place the artist deserves due to the high quality of his works. And who are we to judge, a present non-notable artist is maybe a famous one in the near future. Art is art. Willem Tijssen (webmaster and author article)

With respect to the author, (and the artist) art is art, and a lot of art doesn't make it to the Encyclopedia. 'Vanity' seems like a harsh word, but it is meant in the context that this article does much more to promote the artist than it does to justify his fame/infame (which is basically what a 'pedia tries to do.) I think van Gogh would have understood. Delete. freshgavin ^TALK 05:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks freshgavin. I studied Van Gogh a bit while developing the Internet site on the life of Jelle Taeke de Boer and I am sure if Vincent could read this he would try to cut of his other ear as well. If appropriate I can delete the painting photos from Had's site to keep it very modest. Willem Tijssen. By the way, how come I can not find any references on you? Wikipedia does not yet have a User page called Freshgavin!

That's because I'm incredibly non-notable. freshgavin ^TALK 23:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. When he becomes famous, he'll get an article. -- Corvus 05:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Let him stay. He will become famous what I see. --

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 06:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hisham Sliti

I nominate Hisham Sliti for deletion. Although the prison conditions and hunger strike are notable current events, this individual is not. Joaquin Murietta 14:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Disclaimer, I started this article.

I have been reading the accounts from various detainees, through their lawyers. A number of the detainees specifically cited this specific beating as a key trigger to the second hunger strike. I think this makes him worthy of an article, -- Geo Swan 17:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep, passes my notability bar. It could do with some expansion though, especially about his arrest. --Apyule 15:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep - In need of tidy up and expansion, but a notable subject. --Cactus.man ✍ 05:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Rob e rt 00:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] InfiniTEE

Non notable bio. The user has created another page Tomasia with same content. --202.156.6.62 18:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Fails to meet guidelines in WP:NMG. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete concur that fails to meet WP:Music --Reflex Reaction 20:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intense addiction

Man these band articles are just endless. Don't see a speedy so here we go. Intense Addiction looks to be a high-school band (maybe junior high since the average age is 14). They may play clubs in the Youngstown, Ohio area and claim to be working on three albums but have released no recordings. Their "appeal is to a very small and unknown audience". Nothing on google and...oh, they may be on the point of breaking up... JJay 02:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --JJay 02:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, vanity. freshgavin ^TALK 05:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn, vanity, petty internal personal attacks... CLW 14:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DV8 2XL 20:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 06:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 21:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Italian paper clips

Delete as non-notable office supplies. OK, so it's a jazzy design but is it really encylopaedic? Eddie.willers 21:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete or Merge with Paper_clip Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete and do not merge. Molotov (talk)
22:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete and do not merge. Embellishment? freshgavin ^TALK 05:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Interesting design by Cavallini, but not worthy of a separate article. --Cactus.man ✍ 06:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - The data in the article is also misleading. According to the Early Office Museum, The Clipiola design goes back to the 1900s. Caerwine 18:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jefferson P. Burrow

Vanity (0 Google Hits) Swamp Ig 07:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity lol. *drew 07:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn-bio. MCB 20:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jenny Lee Burton

Vanity? Fiction? Nonsense? Google hits: 67 Alr 20:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Few google hits, but the results do show that she was featured on CNN's Larry King Live [21]. No vote. Punkmorten 21:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, no questions asked. Hall Monitor 22:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep but improve, as she's apparently noteworthy enough to be showing up on television. --Golfhaus 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and improve. Though I don't like what she's doing to her body (ick), she has gained obvious notoriety (as proved by links), and many people will want to know about her. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeylani

Seems to be vanity. No related result came out when googling the term. Delete --*drew 07:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete- A medical student in Sudan… etc. – I wish him all the best. However, right now notability is yet to be established. --Bhadani 13:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn-bio. MCB 20:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was userfied. Jkelly 01:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karl M. Schwartz

Vanity, makes no claims as to notability of subject of article or his unpublished manuscripts. Wikiacc (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I userfied. Jkelly 01:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Middleton

unnotable SqueakBox 18:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose- its already been on AFD and the consensus was to keep. Perhaps you should have looked at the talk page before nominating. Astrotrain 18:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep - girlfriends of royalty, especially those who receive extensive media exposure, are inherently notable. This article can be condensed a little - we don't really need to know her grades. 23skidoo 19:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
definately keep her media exposure has been to big to ignore - fdewaele 21:16, 18 October 2005 (CET)
Delete per nom. Molotov (talk)
19:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I was obviously aware of the previous Vfd as I had to move it to make way for this one. It was 6 months ago. If you take much more away from the article there will be nothing left other than unfounded speculation that should not be in an encyclopedia. I must admit it being such a crummy article did affect my decision to have it Vfd'd again, and I would oppose a speedy keep, SqueakBox 19:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep She was mentioned on the BBC national radio news this evening. Millions of people have heard of her, and doubtless some of them will look her up. This is the sort of topic which Wikipedia should be able to cover better than traditional sources. CalJW 20:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, media exposure makes her notable. Thue | talk 22:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, for the reasons given above and (1) so that it won't have to be created again; and (2) toward a "keep" result so that further VfD efforts will be less likely. -Acjelen 22:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep per others: ongoing romantic relationship with second in line to British throne = notable. Haeleth 22:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep and in the future please do not move existing AfD/VfD archives; simply create a new one and append the string "(2nd nomination)" to the end. Moving these pages leads to confusion and invalidates existing links to previous discussions. Hall Monitor 22:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as longterm girlfriend of heir to the British throne. There are 45,400 hits for a search on "Kate Middleton" many of which relate to her. [22] Fortyone articles on Google news reflecting her current high profile. Capitalistroadster 01:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep for reasons cited by others. This woman is very well-known. Crypticfirefly 04:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep She is very well known among all broadsheet newspapers, etc. Blnguyen 05:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep.--Kross | Talk 16:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. As all above comments. --OorWullie 08:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. She might end up becoming the Queen Consort —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.197.39.226 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 04:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katherine Kenyon

This young actress has done some school and local theatre, but doesn't seem to have had much impact outside of her area. According to the article, she's had a mention in The Stage, but I'm not sure how unusual that is. Joyous (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Molotov (talk)
23:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Local theatre? High school? Based on the article she's not notable, and the "national fame" claim seems a bit of a reach. --JJay 00:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Katherine is acknowledged well outside of her local and her article in the stage has brought her representation by a prominant Lonodon agency. Thus, though her professional career has yet to take off due to her school commitments, she is marked to become one of Britain's leading actresses. Please consider this before the article's deletion.

Delete. After she becomes "one of Britain's leading actresses" she will get a page. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Corvus 05:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Christiansen

I’m a little unsure here. I personally have no problem with notable personas adding themselves to wiki as an entry. But this entry strikes me as pure vanity, would be better suited on his user page. This is an entry added by the person in question, himself (the ip traces to Groningen, Netherlands, which is also where he says he is in his blog). Now google does give hits, but they are all of no substance, all entries in Google are basically by himself. I find no external source confirming or even talking about his “fame”. I must say I do believe this is vanity in its pures form. Twthmoses 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable vanity article. No case! freshgavin ^TALK 05:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Should we also delete all the articles written by someone and that only one or two persons read? Read my comments on Kenneth below. F Alphonso 08:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete (still) - This makes me laugh a little. I am sorry for this. Having your “friends” come in a confirm you, well… don’t insult my intelligence. I still don’t see anything, whatsoever, that valid this as an entry in an encyclopedia. There are 10-of-millions of people like you. GNOME developer, GNOME membership, doing a little language, studied at DIKU and Groningen university... ok that narratives it down to, I don’t know, say 100 million people, the likes of you. What have you done? Have you been in the news?, on TV?, are you the man in the GNOME universe? Have you written a book?, build something notable? Invented something? What is you claim to fame that sets you apart from the other 100 million like you? I’m sorry this is not personally, but my initial assessment still stands and any doubt I might have had initially has now vanished but the sheer drive to try to confirm notability displayed here, undoubtful by the person himself, and still nothing of any substance has emerged. Twthmoses 15:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity nn. Grue 16:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Reluctantly delete; appears to fail guidelines laid out at WP:BIO. All his activities are noble and worthy, but mere accretion of minor accomplishments cannot compensate for the lack of any one truly notable achievement. He looks like the sort likely to go on to great things, so maybe we can look forward to seeing a viable article on him here in a few years? Haeleth 17:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Undecided Hmm, I think GNOME would have been a lot further if they had 100 million developers =) Also, I would say mastering Low Saxon is something, if he indeed does that. I am sure you can count the number of foreigners who speak Low Saxon on one hand. --Daniel Kim

Hmm… another new user, who’s first and only act (so far), is to respond to this thread. Hmm funny. Anyway. Try to understand this. I did not mean that there are 100 million GNOME programmers /Developers, I mean there is easy 100 million that is equal unique in their field of work / interest. It is no problem factoring any person down to uniqueness. I speak Danish, there are not 10 million people in the world that does that. I speak Funen; we are under the 500.000 mark now. I’ve stood at the top of the Great Ziggurat of UR in Iraq. There are probably not even 50 people in the world with these 3 simple criteria combined. Am I unique enough now? Unfortunately it is not uniqueness that counts, it is notability. Twthmoses 20:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me just throw in a few words now this is about me. Me and a friend one day looks on wikipedia and finds people that I know listed like for instance Dave Camp, and my friend asks if he can add me and I say yes. A few days later he actually does so, me knowing as he asks me for specific data. The page is soon marked for deletion and some kind of conspiracy starts. If it doesn't live up to the guidelines, it should not be here, agree. Haeleth put this very well in a non-discriminating way, thanks. When people write to me in the tone you do, it is not so weird that I get shocked and show the conversation to some of my friends, who then happen to reply. No big conspiracy here. Cheers, Kenneth.
Userfy. This is an interesting page, but is a user page not an encyclopedia article; vanity info, current events referred to without dates, etc. -- Corvus 05:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment from SCunningham
I can confirm that the description fits with the person I know. I don't know about all the details but I can confirm that he at least speaks the languages mentioned and i can say that is all true. (scunningham@terra.com.br)

Comment from the author of the page

O.K. I am a close friend (Thijs Boersma - thijs.boersma@gmail.com) of the person in question and made the page for him as he has done a lot of things and we are proud of him. I have mostly worked with him on language related projects, and I know him because he lives in the house next to. These links given here are just to confirm the points given in the article.

Language related:

Reading the this mailing list it should be clear that he supports minority languages and speaks many as well. http://www.lowlands-l.net http://www.lowlands-l.net/anniversary
The author Johan Veenstra should be able to confirm him working with him. (http://www.johan-veenstra.nl) - he also links to him on his page
He one of the authors of the ANS spelling for Low Saxon: http://ans.phileon.nl/ (which is used on www.lowlands-l.net various places)
Reading the gnome i18n mailing list it should be clear that he used to be one of the GNOME Translation Project coordinators.
From his webpage it is clear that he writes in various languages.
Making locales for minority languages: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/bug-glibc/2004-01/msg00019.html
He made a page about languages in the netherlands with his friend Mathieu van Woerkom http://taal.phileon.nl/eng/index.php
Member of the Group that coordinates all translation to Danish of free software (The group was started by him and Keld Simonsen - a guy known for his works with standards and getting æ approved as part of ascii, if I am now wrong): http://www.dansk-gruppen.dk/index.php?ID=37&lang=da

Most language things he did he didn't do online. Do you want me to give you email addresses of people who can confirm? Reinhard Hahn (sassisch@yahoo.com), Abel Darwinkel (a.darwinkel@pbcdrenthe.nl), Mathieu van Woerkom (mathieuvw@gmail.com). I can supply more addresses if needed.

School related:

This link confirms that she studied at DIKU (Institute for computer science at University of Copenhagen) http://www.diku.dk/aktiviteter/20050622-bachelor.pdf
Proof of studying in Germany http://intranet.ifis.uni-passau.de/db/personen?who=Christiansen
The articles on his webpage shows that he studies in Groningen at the university

GUADEC 2001:

http://guadec.klid.dk/info/ http://mail.gnome.org/archives/guadec-list/2001-February/msg00000.html

He is a GNOME developer:

Has a GNOME membership: http://cvs.gimp.org/viewcvs/gnome-foundation/membership_new.txt?view=markup
He he is giving a talk at the GNOME conference in Seville 2002: http://www.seconix.com/albums/GUADEC-3/abv.thumb.jpg
List as contributor of evolution: http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolution/about.shtml
Original author of intltool (not maintainer anymore): http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/intltool/AUTHORS?rev=1.5&view=markup
Speeches at SSLUG.dk in Copenhagen: http://www.sslug.dk/emailarkiv/moede/2001_02/msg00027.html
Papers confirming as well: http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/kasperedwards-ec.pdf http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/bosco.pdf
If you want addresses of people that he has worked with, I can probably get that also.

Comment from Falphonso
Keep. I can confirm some of the points talked about in this profile. I know him personally from his engagement in the Gnome and GNU/Linux communities in different development and translations projects.

http://www.advogato.org/person/kanikus/

I met him several times on differents GNU/Linux related events. I can confirm too about his support of the minority languages.

F. Alphonso (fabrice.alphonsoATgmailDOTcom)

languagefreak

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Lucky 6.9 as vanity. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kexsteve

Failing WP:MUSIC? Abstain. -- (drini's page|☎) 04:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Failing big time. Guy's putting copies of his user page all over the place under different spelling variations. Speedied as nn, single-person vanity. - Lucky 6.9 04:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was confusing, but I think that I hope that I'm not blundering to much if I call this a redirect to energy ball. The term does seem to have some hits as referring to light balls or something like that. Ah well, if anybody thinks my decision was completely wrong just inform me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yep, redirecting to energy ball was dumb, since it just made a back-to-back redirect, let's try again, redirect to fireball? Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

~~The result of the debate was No Consensus. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)~~

Debate re-opened and re-listed, by request of A Man In Black. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 03:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kinetite

Two pertinent Google hits for "kinetite telekinesis" on a Star Wars webforum. Delete as original research, or poorly attested neologism. Pilatus 13:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as particularly neo neologism. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm thinking keep and expand, but probably rename to energy ball or some such. The article is about all energy balls, fire balls, power balls and the like in fiction and gaming. According to our fireball disambiguation page, we don't have an article for this yet. It's not original research or a neologism. The term kinetite appeared in Splinter of the Mind's Eye, the first novel in the Star Wars Expanded Universe, according to this source. However, energy ball is a more common name.-LtNOWIS 18:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Relisting for more eyeballs. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Rename and redirect. The word is not notable; the concept, however, is potentially encyclopedic. I have no idea what to rename it to; energy ball seems iffy, but I can't think of anything better. --Ashenai (talk) 09:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. Neologisim, original research. Is suggesting 'rename and redirect' a good idea when you can't actually suggest what it should be renamed to? Proto t c 16:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did suggest what it should be renamed to: energy ball (sorry if that wasn't clear). I just noted that I wasn't really happy with that, so as to encourage others to suggest better redirect targets, if they could. --Ashenai (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete blantently obvious neoligism.... maybe a redirect to a dragonball article afterwards.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kingfisher Safaris Resort

non notable + advertising-- SoothingR 09:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There should be a CSD criterion for articles speaking in the first-person voice. — JIP | Talk 10:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. CambridgeBayWeather 13:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Advertisement. Devotchka 00:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ks-connection

delete non-notable website - Ritchy 18:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it isn't notable. (I actualy haven't heard of it either) This article just doesn't give enough information to distinguish what this is or what it does. If someone can provide more infomation on this, it might become a valid article. I think its too soon to delete it. If it turns out that you are right and that this is pure junk ill change my vote. Tobyk777 19:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete is inherently non notable and probably never will be. If this article about a website is present, why not allow every website to have n article on Wikipedia. Doesn't seem like a good idea. Molotov (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. mikka (t) 20:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete: doesn't seem to be notable. FWIW, Alexa rank is 375,973 and only 92 incoming links are reported by Google, so it fails the guidelines proposed by WP:WEB. Haeleth 22:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kupocentric

Delete. Nonsense/joke. Probably speedy. No such word, by the article's own admission. ♠DanMS 19:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Molotov (talk)
19:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete and fast Tobyk777 19:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Kupocentrically Delete. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not for inventing new words because it is neither an outlet for original research nor a dictionary. -Splash^talk 00:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kyle Mina

Borderline speedy. His claim to notability is that he drank 69 beers in a day. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mina's. Flower party■ 02:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

If he could prove that 69 beer thing, he might be notable. Until then I second with Delete. --JJay 02:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Cleduc 04:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- As per nomination, unless 69 beers is a verifiable record. Ben D. 06:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity, non-notable, non-verifiable. Alex.tan 09:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 14:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete! This is true, I was a witness to his 69 beer claim. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.80.89.57 (talk • contribs) 07:15, October 19, 2005 (UTC) This user created the article.
Kyle is the man I was also there... he started drinking at one in the morning and didnt stop until midnight...and how can you delete a guy that rocks the Vega claw —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.80.89.57 (talk • contribs) 07:17, October 19, 2005 (UTC) This user created the article.
Delete NN --Rogerd 06:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
It would be ludacris for anybody to delete this article, this man is an absolute legend at Stonehill College, as a resident I can verify he did this and he belongs in some sort of hall of fame, if not Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.80.89.57 (talk • contribs) 03:09, October 23, 2005 (UTC).
Delete. And I'm actually 20010918th in line to the British throne. Delete this nonsense. --Madchester 03:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
It would be a travesty if this page were deleted. This man is a legend here at Stonehill and he rocks the vega calw like no other. Kyle, I'm rooting for ya big guy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.80.89.12 (talk • contribs) 16:09, October 23, 2005 (UTC).
Delete. Total NN. He's not even on Google, except for when he shows up here. Some glorified frat boy who does not deserve an entry here. Devotchka 01:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lado_District

Delete This is copy/paste, nonsense, and a possible copyright infringment. Bjelleklang - talk 09:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Redirect to Lado Enclave. Looks like vaguely like a source document, and I can't find an online match, so maybe transwiki to Wikisource first. —Cryptic (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Relisting, no vote. Alphax ^τεχ 07:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep & move to Kingdom of Lado See Bari people & es.wikipedia entry @ [23]. The article concerns a disputed national entity, but there are resources ([24], [25], [26]) that would be helpful in cleaning it up. --anetode ¹ ² ³ 08:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Move and cleanup, as per Anetode. -Colin Kimbrell 03:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Landonsaur

High school comic strip. No google hits makes it hard to judge notability. JJay 19:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --JJay 19:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete not-notable. SYSS Mouse 19:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete the fact that it's a high school comic strip makes it easy to judge notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leo-ing it

Neologism. Claims of "slowly spreading across the USA" are alas unverified. It is already ~~has an entry~~ mentioned in UrbanDictionary, no need for it here. Punkmorten 16:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Syrthiss 17:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Al 17:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I guess I'm leoing this by voting Delete. --JJay 17:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I vote that this stays: no entry in UrbanDictionary and I have friends that use it in New York and Virginia. Get out more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.36.29.78 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC).
Delete: while I can't find it in UrbanDictionary either, that's irrelevant, because (a) Wikipedia's not a dictionary, and (b) I see no evidence that it's not a neologism. Haeleth 19:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep I have heard this at NYU. When I visited colleges this year I heard it on several places. I thought it had been from a song. Also there is other slang listed here such as shizzle and leet20:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Rizzle my dizzle

Interesting that your ip is similar to the unsigned comment above, even if you do have a point. However, I think that shizzle and l33t are a bit more in the vernacular. --Syrthiss 20:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In addition, they have 3 edits combined. Punkmorten 21:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep You can now count Colorado University, UT Memphis campus, and Uni. of Texas, Houston

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus to delete). --Stormie 05:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lissa Noble

Unnotable, unencyclopaedic vanity / worship page. Exploding Boy 21:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. And I am against the suggestion that information which I find very useful should be removed because someone else thinks I should not be allowed to read it. What a bizzare and arrogant notion. The only thing that should be considered for deletion is idiocy of this type. Posted by User:217.42.59.214
- It should be noted that the above user has made only three edits, two of them to this page and a third to add some linkspam to the foot fetish article. Exploding Boy 00:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  - she is a famous model, there are several pages on wikipedia about models —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.96.24.183 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC).
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete If all the claims were true, there's a chance this person would be notable, loosely speaking. However, much of what the article says is not verifiable, and it's not gonna get improved. Anville 16:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ unless she's notable within the foot fetish community. Perhaps one of the Wikipedians who want to keep the article can document her importance if they want it saved. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep after verification provided by User:131.220.97.115. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can offer evidence to meet WP:V.--Isotope23 17:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. I think she is probably one of the better known foot-fetish models; "Lissa Noble" with quotes gets over 95,000 Google hits (did not make unique count), but her web site [27] has an Alexa rank below 1.2 million. MCB 20:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Isotope23. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep insofar as the objection consists in the verification of the information. This can be verified e.g. by an article by Mitch Persons, Lissa, Fetish Queen, Part I and II, also online here and here. Besides, an interview with Lissa Noble also confirming some of the information can be found at http://www.wusfeetlinks.com/lissainterview.html. --131.220.97.115 10:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

It's time to end this vote; it's nearly a month old and should have lasted no longer than a week. Exploding Boy 05:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: It's lasted so long because you forgot to do the third step in nominating for AFD, listing it on the AFD page itself. User:Cryptic did it for you (see above), but it has been five days, so it seems like it should be closed now. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. I counted 55 for delete and 41 for keep. Or 53 for delete. Or 56 for delete. Depends on if you count anons or not. In any case, let's try to make this more accurate or else we'll be going through this again in a month. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of best-selling music artists

Strong Keep - is a great source of discussion and seems a fair mark in the sand
Strong Delete This list is made up
Strong Delete It's been proven that Beatles and Elvis have NOT sold over a billion records, there weren't even a billion of their albums printed. What's Michael Jackson doing way down on the list? He's been known as the biggest selling artist of all-time for a number of years now. This list is so wrong. Street walker 06:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
dream on street walker, your views are biast towards michael jackson and have been more than obvious for a while. Michael Jackson has only been known as the number 1 act ever amoung his fans, NOONE ELSE, it has NOT been proven elvis and the beatles didn't sell a billion. There have been over 3,000 Presley titles in print, The Beatles dominated the charts around the world more than any act ever, both had more sales chart ativity than jackson. GET OVER IT.
Strong Keep Why don't people just try to improve the accuracy, rather than blaming it? This is a collabrative community, isn't it?
Strong Delete Metallica, 10 billion albums sold? Yeah right. And the Beatles aren't even on the list. I think we should do another one like that with certifiable sources and lock it from edition if it is possible. That should be a good idea.
Delete Entirely fake figures from sources that are not accurate. It has become an article of fanboys of bands. Get rid of it!
Keep - useful, if not entirely accurate
Delete Full of inflated figures from shockingly dubious sources. Just look at the reference for Deep Purple's ludicrous claim of 100 million sold. This is a band that hasn't even sold 10 million in the USA. There is no way they sold more in countries where they generally charted worse. Just because some press agent makes a claim doesn't mean it's fact.
Keep it's a useful (though slightly innacutrate)
Delete it's highly innacutrate.
Delete Just go and delete it It's useless
Delete based soley on it claiming the Beatle's are a US group.... Xeno
Delete As stated before, it is biased. Mr Bisciut
Delete. This 'article' is, by far, the worst one on Wikipedia. Frankly, its getting out of hand. The figures are exaggerated and unreliable (there is no worldwide tracking system for sales) the page is vandalised incessantly. Many users take the page as a 'fansite' or forum, and they come here everyday and make false numbers and change the list to suit their artists. Really, what kind of article is this if its so unrealiable, people have to do their own research so that they can check if this article is accurate? At times, I want to revert the vandalism, but the page is so destroyed, I dont know the correct version to revert it to. Journalist (talk • contribs)
Keep Gilgamesh he 07:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- ~~Any reasons in particular?~~
- Delete Gilgamesh he 12:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete ProhibitOnions 14:43:43, 2005-08-18 (UTC) The page is near-useless as a reference, and the fact that it lacks a methodology makes it prone to inflated fan figures, which are highly partisan. Similar non-scientific articles, particularly Biggest-selling female musician (Note: also marked for deletion), which repeats the same exaggerated fan claims, must also be deleted.
Delete as i already mentioned to you on the discussion page there is no reliable "methodology" everything that was suggested by yourself and others was just as faultless, if not more so. Also, are sales that importnat in "music" anyway? We can celebrate a musicains carrer in their articles, regardless of how many albums/singles/candy bars that they have sold 195.93.21.1
Delete, essentially a list of unverifiable assertions. --Jacj 18:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no way of positively knowing this... it is mostly a bunch of estimations. Croat Canuck 22:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I say delete it until there's a better way to verify cd sales
Keep. There is no way to verify record sales, estimates are all that is available. -user:Fallout_boy
Abstain. In one sense this article is unfixable. To do it right, you'd have to have reliable worldwide data (doesn't exist), a better wiki table formatting/numbering mechanism (doesn't exist), a real database query mechanism for the stats (doesn't exist), and no vandals (too many exist). Vorash spent tons of time and effort on this list, but eventually he was driven insane and left Wikipedia. On the other hand, even if you delete this article, someone else will create one down the road, and it won't be as good as the one Vorash put together before he left. Minus the vandalism, and with all the necessary qualifications that were given, the article did have some merit, in that it gave an order of magnitude idea of who sold a really lot of records and who didn't sell so much. Sometimes fuzzy data is all you have to work with. Wasted Time R 15:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete, There is no way to verify, or know exactly who sold the most CDs, so therefore it is an estimate. Until we can verify it, and know exactly who sold many CDs, this article should be deleted.-User:jfriedman11746
- ~~THERE WILL NEVER BE A WAY TO VERIFY RECORD SALES. Especially on older releases, sales were never recorded, and even recent releases are difficult to keep track of sales. user:Fallout boy~~
Delete 68.101.51.87
Delete --AVainio 12:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Many of the accounts are false. Annie Lennox has sold 50 million? Maybe, but her own webpage states that her two albums have sold 12 million copies. Ok, maybe the 50 million (mentioned in some Live8 materials) could take into account the sales from Eurythmics. If so, why does Eurythmics have 80 million albums sold. That is just one example. These figures will never make sense. Just too little accuracy and too many wild, opinionated guesses thrown around.
Delete --Woodchuck96 No validity, insane numbers, almost no accuracy - all in all, an horrid article which is a shame for Wikipédia.
Delete --Khalif 18:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC) inaccurate figures.
Strong Delete - Besides the American/Euro-centric nature of the artists mentioned, there just aren't many resources to validate the numbers. For example, I remember news of Coldplay selling in the range of 20 million records at the beginning of the year. Just weeks before the release of X&Y, EMI give press releases claiming that the band has now sold 25+ million records. I doubt a band can sell 5 million records (in just 6 months) globally between releases.... in other words, the labels put their own spin on the numbers whenever they need to promote an act. --Madchester 01:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, evens sales info from the RIAA is as unreliable as anything, it is not a 100% truth.
Keep - This holds a lot of estimates on artist sales, and the article itself says that the information is suspect. However, this page is still a reliable reference (and is probably the best reference available in the world because the sources are so varied and averaged) People still have a ned to find out whereabouts famous artists are on this list, and there is no other place on the internet where you can find results tabled like this, which regularly get updated. If you're going to delete this, you might as well burn older school atlases "Because they're unreliable", as well as delete a significant amount of wikipedia. Those areas would be places like biblical references (only one reference), theories and death tolls. Wikipedia is a place to pool all the information on the internet, so why not keep it that way? --Mahogany h00r 19:35, August 21, 2005 (GMT+12)
Keep There are no doubt a lot of mistakes on this list. However there will always be mistakes on these kinds of lists. Even recordlabels are often promoting artists by quoting much larger recordsales than the actual numbers to boost sales and make an image. However I think this list is as good as it gets. In adittion to " offical numbers there are also numbers for bootlegrecordings and so on. These kinds of list will never be accurate. However they give an general idea.

I have also noticed that a lot of posters only talks about US sales. This is OK, since it's the only country who has an official statistic. However it does'nt mean that there is'nt a world outside the US with 6 billion people. Just because an artists has sold 2 million in the US, does'nt mean that they haven'nt sold 40 million in the rest of the world.

It is also noted on the list that: In general there is no official organization that certifies worldwide record sales (such as the RIAA does for U.S. record sales). Thus, there are few if any reliable figures to go into this list. Fans, biographers, and record lables may overestimate sales figures for publicity purposes. Many of bestselling artists from Asia, Africa and Latin America are still not included because of the lack of data. Thus, the list cannot be considered definitive, and should be taken with a large grain of salt.

I think that is good enough warnig. If we delete this list, we might as well delete all the bio's as well. Proabably a lot of mistakes there too. Soon we wont have a lexica at all............ ( User: MNorge1978 )

Comment. Careful now, saying that removing this project page will also lead to the deletion of artist bios is a slippery slope argument. Artist pages like Radiohead and Coldplay are all respectable, even with no details of total album sales. --Madchester 15:01, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
~~There is virtually no need to mention sales info in Bio's, not in Wikipedia.~~
Keep I mostly agree with the comments below (I am still laughing about the 5 billion sales proposed for Cher). However, I think it would be better to reach a consensus about what kind of estimations may or may not be used. After all there are albums made gold or diamond regularly, which means that some estimations are indeed accurate. I propose to keep the article, indicate each time what kind of source is used, and reach a consensus about which of these sources are reliable (and delete the entries that are clearly not). User: Nyco
Come off it, there is NO CONSENSUS that is FACT. Just because albums are "certified" for sales, doesn't make it "more reliable". Album certifications rely a lot on what the record label say. Unless someone from the certification company (I.E the RIAA) has PERSONALLY COUNTED every copy of the record, even those statistics should be taken with a pinch of salt and NOT given credit as facts. If the RIAA's figures were so accurate, their certification of sales wouldn't be such a mess, i.e Led Zeppelin suddenly going up from "50 million" to "106 million" since 1990. It's complete fabrication. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.1 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 21 August 2005.
Delete It's shoddy, downright shoddy, and should not be tolerated. Agamemnon2
Keep I see that some people are taking this matter much too seriously. I just look at pages like this to keep me entertained. However, with the deletion of this page would result in artist page deletions, such as the Peter Gabriel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.69.228.174 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 21 August 2005.

How would PG's pages be deleted? Again with the slippery slope argument... The only thing that would be deleted would be a link to this project page and perhaps the sales figures on the discography section. Otherwise, the rest of Gabriel's articles contain verifiable facts. --Madchester 18:48, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Most slop is slippery. Vorash did sometimes insert the sales figures he found into the individual artist articles, as well as almost always adding a See also to here, which would now become a red link (and tops on the articles desired to be created list!). Wasted Time R 18:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete This page may be too incorrect regarding number of sales. But it has a lot more information in it in a tabular form than number of sales. I would like to have that information somewhere else (with some other topic). Otherwise, their will never be a way to correct the sales.--Anupam Srivastava 21:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep Well, I withdraw my delete vote considering the fact that my argument was not strong enough in the first place. Secondly, I agree that since there are so many votes for Keeping it, deletion will only result in recreation of this page, never leading to its improvement.

Delete. No international governing body? No way of determining who has sold the most. Like for the World's tallest structures, there's actually a head honcho called the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat that has set out different categories and rules for building heights. Without some global party overlooking sales figures, those numbers will always be contestable.--LeoTheLion 22:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep A page I've been looking for for ages. I quickly copied it since a unique attempt is submerged in a perfectionist debate. I see a lot of negative votes from readers who apparently overlooked the top page "Note". I propose them to channel that energy into improving the list. Personally, as long as the limitations of the list are clearly stated, and every entry is tracable through source mentions, I can make up my own mind about the degree of exactitude. --Karl1000 00:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and see if it can't be protected from vandalism, like Wikipedia's main page. Discussion of changes or updates can be made on the discussion page. Personally, I like the page, despite its (current) obvious flaws. If semi-reliable data can be found for the artists, and the page protected from vandalism and grossly inflated numbers, I see no reason why it can't stay. I'd also like to add that other countries BESIDES the US do keep tallies of record sales, contrary to what someone above stated. Versions of the RIAA exist in many (even most) non-Third World countries, and many do have searchable web-sites.--Firsfron 02:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete because the rankings are unverifyable. Even listings from RIAA (and others) could be challanged - and in any case, duplicating RIAA's listings could raise copyright issues. The best thing to do is write an article discussing the issue of sales rankings and give links to sites with such lists --Ezeu 08:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC) I did vote delete, but now think the article should be a keep - because there are many votes to keep. If removed, we will just have the article being constantly recreated. If they want it, let them have it. Really aint a big deal is it? Not considering all the other crap there is as Wikipedia.--Ezeu 21:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- No one is suggesting "duplicating RIAA's listings", and in point of fact since the List of Best-selling Music Artists is a worldwide list, that's not even an issue (RIAA only certifies the US). However, the RIAA sales data can be cited as a source, and even though their data "could be challenged", it usually isn't: these are the officially recognized bodies, after all. At some point, you have to stop believing in conspiracy theories and just go with official estimates. Deleting the entire list because you don't believe the RIAA numbers is kinda like saying "let's delete the Wikipedia articles on the U.S. Census, 'cause I know Philadelphia has more people than that!"--Firsfron 10:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  - How tedious! Anyway, my vote remains the same. - Ezeu 13:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep What else would be created to fill its place? It definitely fulfills a great need as an overview page and does so as accurately as it can. 150.101.189.156 14:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete The fact that there's a disclaimer and lengthy cautionary note at the top of the article does not bode well for the validity of the article's contents. --207.236.66.194 19:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep This page should definitely be kept since it is the only list of artists with their sales figures that people have easy access to. It's not perfect by a long shot, but what is? This page should definitely be kept, and I will create a new one if it isn't. --agetoagedc 01:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
- ^ If you create a new list, it probably will be deleted for the same reasons this one is being deleted. Journalist (talk • contribs)
  - ^You're wrong there, Journalist, and you should read the wikipedia deletion policy: if a page is recreated several times after deletions, then it is kept because the fact that it is recreated proves that it is of interest... Nyco (talk • contribs)
    - ^ Actually, the exact wording is "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article". The policy does not say that the article is automaticall kept. Furthermore, This article conflicts with the Verifiability, No Original research, and NPOV policies. It is also reverted daily by some who are trying to maintain it and others who want to change figures to suit their fav artists. Wikipedia is about accuracy and right now this article is far from it. Journalist ^{C.Image:Smilie.gif Holla @ me}
^{Delete As I said it needs to go.--Meanie 04:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)}
^{Strong Keep, for two reasons: 1) The majority of people who want this article to be deleted have not put up a decent argument or good enough reason for its deletion. And 2) It is a decent list of best-selling artists that is useful in a historical context to the music industry. Most of the estimates can be researched and linked to actual sales of artists, although some are still slightly difficult to pin point it is still an article worth saving. Piecraft 22:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)}
^{Keep The delete voters are taking this too seriously. It is a topic of enormously wide interest, and Wikipedia should do its best to cover it. Osomec 00:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)}
^{Comment Create a new article say, Best-selling musicians in the United States, since the sales figures there are relatively verifiable through an official source, i.e., the RIAA. Not all countries have the luxury of such a counting system and it's a futile exercise to estimate the sales in other countries, where statistics are not so easy to come by. --Madchester 03:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)}
- ^{See List of best selling music artists in US. Wasted Time R 03:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)}
  - ^{I think it should be redirected to that the Best-selling musicians in the United States per the site's naming conventions. :-) --Madchester 05:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)}
^{Keep Although the mentioned numbers are somewhat inaccurate for sure, they do provide a basis for comparison which is what many wish to see. I recommend that a range of numbers is provided for each artist/band instead of just one. Hamid 22:30, 25 Aug 2005 (GMT)}
^{Delete* These figures are rediculous. I am the biggest Oasis, Beatles and U2 fan going, I checked the RIAA, BPI and the European equivalent and no way have these artists sold so many based on certified awards. Oasis have sold 40 million based on certified awards. U2 is 90 million. Theres no point having this page if the info is incorrect. Mediatraffic also provided accurate information which refutes the information on this page. (Previous unsigned comment by 82.37.10.44)}
^{Delete* By far the worse article I have seen on Wikipedia based on the fact that none of the data is accurate and I assume that is what this community prides itself on.}
^{Delete* Totally unaccurate.}
^{Delete* Whoever said the RIAA usually isn't challenged is missing a point. So what if it's not usually challenged The fact remains their data is not solid fact. The RIAA flaws are easy to see in their sales fro Led Zeppelin. Since 1980, if we go by RIAA information this band, who havent had much chart action since then have somehow managed to have kept up in the sales leagues over the years with Madonna, Michael Jackson, Garth Brooks and Britney Spears, the top selling acts of their time, to keep moving back ahead of them on the all-time sellers list. I also find it funny how after Garth Brooks leaped ahead of Led Zeppelin with a after huge #1 album in 1997, Led Zeppelin suddenly sold enough records to go back up the list ahead of him. What is being suggested is we just take a "say so" figure from the "offical sources" like the RIAA just because they said so. How is that doing what this list is MEANT to do? It's not! Is that what Wikipedia is about? Not listing facts? Unless their is some magical place in America where Led Zeppelin records are selling non stop and billboard are unaware of it, then this proves that the RIAAs figures are just as much fiction as Harry Potter.}
^{Keep Valuable information that is not easy to find somewhere else. With a note that it can never be completely accurate. --WS 10:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)}
^{Delete. Some articles include a note like that, because figures are regularly changing but even they have a reliable source (say for movie box office totals from Exhibitor Relations). There's no such reliable source to track the music sales figures as they change. --70.27.20.140 18:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)}
^{Keep The arguments against this list being too narrowly Anglo- and Americocentric are specious. I note the presence of artists in the top 49 such as Nana Mouskouri, Mireille Mathieu, Alla Pugacheva, Wei Wei (韦唯), and a host of Indian artists all of whom are largely unknown in the United States and many of whom I speculate are poorly known in the UK. Yes, the list will have its faults and inaccuracies as figures are revised, but most of the acts here are legitimately top 500 acts worldwide, and the problems with the methodology and the accuracy of the sources is clearly laid out. --Craig 20:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)}
^{Strong Keep with the caveat of putting a big(er) bolded disclaimer as to the list's accuracy and scientific merits (those being none at all). There's no need to remove information like this simply because there are inaccuracies; keep it up and it will become more accurate as new information becomes known. Just removing it is tantamount to censorship imo; most people will look on the page for entertainment purposes. Personally I find the list of countries of origin for the bands more interesting than sales figures, and that's another reason to keep it right there. The only real problem is deterring vandalism :/}
^{Delete...also where is Connie Francis on the list? She certainly should be near the top.}
^{Keep -- But... 1) Needs to be improved, not deleted. 2) Should carry an inaccuracy warning at the top. Perhaps an ongoing/current event tag would be useful as well. 3) I'm not sure that there is any other source available for this comprehensive of information, whether it is inaccurate or not. Jsymmetry 23:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)}
^{Keep. Agree with Jsymmetry, it needs to be improved. I am sure there is a list of RIAA sales figures out there somewhere which would validate the list and the positions where they're at. [[Briguy52748 00:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)]]}
^{Keep I haven't seen any other place where there is a list like this, so even if it is prone to inaccuracy, it could be protected and improved over time...}
^{Keep, but agree with the points stated by Jsymmetry above. Definitely needs some sort of warning that the values are for entertainment value only, and Wikipedia makes no claims as to their accuracy. BorgHunter 12:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)}
^{Keep, just because an article is a challenge to make accurate and maintain, doesn't mean we should delete it. This is useful information. the wub "?/!" 13:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)}
^{Delete. I expect Wikipedia to follow higher standards than letting this article slip thru. Until the numbers can be checked and verified it should be removed ASAP.--SunnyD 01:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)}
^{Delete. Missing many Asian artists like Jacky Cheung, Anita Mui, Jay Chau and others. I use Wikipedia as a reference for some of my school work and this article makes me question the overall validity of the site. --Rightsaidfred 01:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)}
^{Delete. No universal counting standards make the article's contents falliable. What is exactly being counted in the list? Albums only? Singles? Live EPs? DVDs? Song downloads? Each figure seems to encompass different items in its total sales. --Winning-Eleven 23:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)}
^{Keep.. Just make sure there are actual sources. JustifED737 15:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)}
^{Keep Good article. Gold Stur 19:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)}
^{Delete. Very misleading in cases where people put their favorite band or artist near the top and the change goes unnoticed. Also, there's no way to confirm any of these statistics.}
^{Delete. There's a lot of sources, but many of them aren't authorities on the music industry, let alone music sales.}
^{Keep You have to think about the artists on this list who are represented factually, such as Amy Grant (I have done my research, she has in fact sold 26 million albums/singles/EPs). Everyone who wants this page deleted only talks about the inaccuracies on this list. But we can't forget that there is an impressive majority on this list whose entries are very accurate. I think this page should definitely, without a doubt be kept. --69.19.170.122 03:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)}
^{Delete Although i cannot argue with the facts (and at least I'm happy Beatles are on top) some of my favorite bands are far too far down, and I dont want to think of them that way Thethinredline}
^{Strong Delete The list is highly inaccurate}
^{AbstainThis article should be kept if various parts can be verified. It should be locked and kept as a place where people can compare different artists. If it cannot be locked when at a higher standard then the only use of it is as a list of Music artists and bands.Cokehabit 11:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)}
^{Delete highly inaccurate and alot of people just fake statistic in favor of the bands they like.}
^{Strong Delete Biased and unaccurate. What are the reasons why it should be kept anyway? Wikipedia's supposed to be an encyclopedia. EN-CY-CLO-PE-DIA. No a 'blog' where everyone can put his own personal sh*t.}

^{I'm sorry, but that's exactly what this article is.}

^{Delete Cliff Richards outselling the Stones? Bad data is worse than no data. Frank from Ottawa 69.196.171.182 02:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)}
^{Delete I agree. mrholybrain 17:37, September 10, 2005 (UTC)}
^{Keep it can become accurate, and will be useful info. .::Imdaking::. ^{Tlk | E-M 04:21:00, 2005-09-11 (UTC)}}
Delete if the data being displayed are not footnoted, somewhat verifiable, and considered at least somewhat reliable. It's a shame. It would be better (perhaps) to have a link to other sources for similar information, whether RIAA listings or at least record labels' publicly announced tallies (for information only). hadley 17:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is a useless list full of inaccurate information—I actually had high hopes for this article in the beginning. Well it looks like those hopes were shattered, because this has become the worst article on Wikipedia. I mean, who really cares whether Kylie Minogue sold sixty million albums or sixty million singles, or if the Spice Girls have sold over twenty-three million copies of their debut album? The information is useful—very useful—but not for this article. These "stats" should be sent to the individual articles. Now please delete this article. It is just truly horrendous. Winnermario 23:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep . There should be room for a list like this.--Jerryseinfeld 17:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete.Until there's some universal counting standard in place, there's no possible way of ensuring the validity of this list. It's open to A LOT of doubt at the moment.--129.97.58.55 22:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, but with regret. In theory it's a very useful article, but would only be so if the figures could be trusted. And each and every one of them could well be wide of the mark. --HighHopes ^{(T)⋅(+)⋅(C)⋅(E)} 17:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Renomination for Deletion

DELETE

Why? Because all of these people who wanted to salvage this list, have had since this voting started to do it. The quality of the article continues to degrade, and if you look at it now it looks really bad, the numbers are even more fudgeded, and its just a plain mess. User:Meanie

Strong Delete Incase this is still going, it should be gone, its a horrible list. The Fascist Chicken 03:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep I've been using guide what I might want to buy/download. Now I see people want to delete it?! If its inaccurate or cannot be verified say so, but it has served a useful purpose for me at least. Gtoomey 13:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, keep, keep Yes, it's inaccurate, and very, very interesting. Must-keep. +H+ 23. Sept. 05
Keep in perpetual VFD status This way everyone who works on it, will never know if the whole thing will be wiped out the next minute. Appropriate. Wasted Time R 13:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete I'm sorry that I first stumbled across this article while the "vote for deletion" tag was removed; in retrospect it appears that I wasted my time trying to fix formatting & sorting errors. Unlike several other voters, the fact that the list is based on estimates doesn't bother me. But in just a few days of observation it's become apparent that this article has become a soapbox for those wishing to promote their favorite artists, and that it can never be protected from vandalism. Engineer Bob 07:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Just because an article is prone to vandalism and inaccurate edits does not mean it should be deleted. Should we delete George W. Bush? His page is vandalized quite often. The Current Events page gets all sorts of inaccurate edits. Should we get rid of it? Wikipedia is a collaborative community, and it has its positives and its negatives. When we see a negative, we should try to make it positive instead of just smashing it.--Fermatprime 02:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete No way of verifying data KrisW6 08:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete: impossible to verify, constantly being falsified by fanboys without anyone adequately fixing it. --Jacj 17:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As for those who say this article is unverifiable, then about half of wikipedia should also be deleted for also being unverifiable. This article has been nominated for deletion several times and as survived them. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the vandalism was being executed by people who want this article deleted.--Fallout boy 04:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. We should fix the list so that's accurate, and protect it from vandalism. --ApolloBoy 05:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I do consider it useful even though it's not completely accurate. Deleteme42 13:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As long as the disclaimers are kept on top, it is a useful starting place. Ellen Whyte
Delete There's no reason to keep this on here if none of it can be proven in any way. Maybe an unnumbered list of artists who may be amongst the best selling, but this? No. Plus, it looks very shoddy and unprofessional.
Delete. I've seen more accurate lists before, and some of these listings seem like fallacies.
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion on the article, but whoever tries to sort this out has my deepest sympathies. —Cryptic (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- The state of this page is a good indicator of the state of the article! Wasted Time R 15:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete and first let me echo Cryptic and offer sympathies to the admin who has to sort out this mess. The intro states This is a non-definitive list of best selling recording artists, embracing worldwide singles and album sales. The factual accuracy of this article is disputed as there is no worldwide list of music sales. So, what are we debating here? As far as I can determine there is no neutral body that compiles this information. Right off the bat, this article fails WP:V and WP:NOR. How can you verify any claim that is made in this article if there is no repository if this information to compare claims against? I could edit this article and add Ween to the list with 300 million worldwide record sales. The only way you could factually dispute would be to comb the internet for their sales in each country, add them all together, and post your results, thus violating WP:NOR. Beyond that, all "hard number" information will likely be culled from fan sites (either artist run or 3rd party) and thus has inherent POV problems. In my opinion, there is absolutely no encyclopedic value in an article that is not based on factual information. On a side note, did the original AfD ever conclude? If so, would it be possible to archive the previous AfD so we are not looking at a ton of votes on a finished AfD?--Isotope23 17:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. GOOD GOD WOULD YOU ANONYMOUS VOTERS SHUT THE HELL UP? There. Now that I've had a cathartic scream, while there is no definite measure of artist sales it is possible to cite various passable lists that are out there and get a general idea of who the best-selling artists are, with citation of who thinks who is where. It's a valid topic. Lord Bob 17:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and delete somewhat. Molotov (talk)
19:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete per Isotope23. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as notable list of artists. Alternatively, the RIAA list should be used for a List of best-selling music artists. If other certifying countries had similar lists this could be a disambiguation page. Capitalistroadster 00:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above. Grue 16:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unverifiable, unmaintainable, of no encyclopedic value. MCB 21:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep- It is useful and after the grain of salt warning, fair to be used or not used as reference. It will continure to be tweaked. No harm done. ~~TheSource~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.210.192 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, just because it may not be accurate doesn't mean it should be deleted... Catz 02:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete per Isotope23. Xoloz 03:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete because only in the US and the UK the charting numbers are exact, so this is impossible... igordebraga ≠ 17:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
[apparently] Keep. Im sorry I deleted everybodies responses about this topic but simply put, your bickering like a bunch of kids. Most of what you people say is not justified. Face it some of you are bias towards the topic [as stupid as that may sound] . Although I do admit that the "list" isnt 100% correct, but atleast there are links to web pages to where the author got this information. But my point is instead of bickering over the topic and wasting time we join together to recreate the page to make it a more accurate worldwide best sellers list that we all agree on and provide factuale evident to prove each response . After all this is wikipedia where were in control of the development of topics on this site. -- 18:29, 23 October 2005 70.128.143.78 [placed here instead of in blankout]
Keep but update a little, wolfetones for example in ireland have been around for around 40 years abd have definitely sold enough albums to amke the list —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.232.33.77 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC).
Delete due to fundamental unverifiability. In the absence of a clean central source for data, I don't see how this could ever conform to a reasonable standard of quality. -Colin Kimbrell 14:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of chocolate-related articles

I think this article should go since Category:Chocolate should cover it. —BenFrantzDale 07:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, users shouldn't have to guess what articles are about. Kappa 16:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
weak delete. Does seem redundant with Category:Chocolate, however it does list some things that are related to chocolate that does not fit the category, like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, York Chocolate cat and Chocolate and slavery however if you remove all the stuff that overlap the category there is not a whole lot left. --Sherool 16:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Since this is a list of current articles, that's exactly what a category is for. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- But why should users have to guess what's in the articles? Kappa 17:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  - By that logic, why do we even have categories at all? Use lists for what they're meant for. See WP:CLS. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    - We have categories because they are self-updating. See WP:CLS. Kappa 17:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, categories are king for this kind of thing. Anybody who wonders what an article is about and lacks the wit to see "Gee, it's in Category:Chocolate, it's probably about chocolate" should steel themselves to the horror and read the article. 142.104.250.115 17:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Vote by me. I tend to spontaneously log out enough when I access Wikipedia from my university library and sometimes I fail to notice. Lord Bob 17:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Categories are like a box of chocolates: You never know what you are going to get. Users' time isn't important, so if they are looking for a brand from a particular country, they can just keep on clicking until they find it. Kappa 18:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Subcategories are your friend. Might I suggest Category:Canadian chocolate or Category:Belgian chocolate or even Category:American chocolate? Lord Bob 18:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      - So that's one extra page to navigate through. Are you going to subdivide by Category:American chocolate in bars and Category:American chocolate in buttons Category:British chocolate with air bubbles etc? Kappa 18:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        At that stage of specificity, I'd suggest "reading the articles". In my opinion, Wikipedia should not cater to the staggeringly lazy in research. Lord Bob 22:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        So someone looking for chocolate in the form of buttons and not bars only has to look through all the chocolate articles for each nationality until they find it. Kappa 22:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        Yep. I just don't believe the oh-so-marginal use to lazy chocolate researchers justifies the redundancy. Lord Bob 22:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        Poor users. Kappa 23:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        Comment (no vote). It seems to me that we must weigh precision of search terms against amount of time necessary for the user to achieve such precision. This is precisely why we have both categories and lists, and why in my mind it's good to have both oftentimes -- if they both work well. Users can choose how they want to find the information. However, if a list or a category is ill-named or ill-organized, it's probably not going to be of much use. If both a list and a category are ill-named or ill-organized, well then, we have quite the large problem on our hands! --Jacquelyn Marie 19:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        Lists can be easily reorganized by copy/pasting and redirection, category regorganization requires much manual labor or a bot and and admin to delete empty cats. Kappa 20:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        My basic point is, list and/or category, if it's not properly done it will be of no use to anyone. I'm personally not voting, but if we choose whether to fix one or the other based on how easy it is, well... poor users. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Since we have the category, anything chocotastic or chocoriffic (or even chocorrifying) can go there. Andrew Levine 21:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- But why should users have to guess what's in the articles? Kappa 22:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  - What do you mean? No "guesswork" is involved. Either you read the article, in which case you know what's in it, or you click go to Category:Chocolate, and find them all. If an article title is so poorly chosen that it doesn't convey what the article is about, then it's a bad title and it the article should be moved to a better title or should have redirects created for it. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Where do you suggest moving Freia and Kuapa Kokoo to? Kappa 22:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
      - Create a redirect from Freia (Norwegian chocolate brand) or whatever you like. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        So I create a redirect from Freia (Norwegian chocolate brand) and take Freia (chocolate) out of category:Chocolate? But then how will anyone looking at Freia (chocolate) know what category it's in? Kappa 23:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is why we have categories. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Clearly redundant with the category. --Carnildo 23:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- But the category doesn't say what things are. Kappa 23:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment There is plenty of precedent for having both categories and lists for things. Plus, this article has been rearranged since it was first submitted to AfD, and now makes several distinctions that the categories do not. I leave it to you to decide if the latter is a good enough reason to keep the list, but redundancy with the category per se is not, per precendent. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I personally don't see enough here to vote on, either way, as the nomination is highly suspect per WP:CLS, which says, and I quote, "These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." If you'd like to offer a reason to delete this article based on its merits and demerits alone, I'd be happy to vote. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This list is weird and self-referential, and anything important should surely be linked to from chocolate. A "list of chocolate products", or something, might make more sense. Flower party■ 17:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 20:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish engineers

Do we need this? It's just as useless as a list of catholic engineers would be...and just as impossible to complete! bjelleklang 09:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete for sure. Partly per nom and partly per implication in general. Why do we need a list of Jews in a particular, generic occupation? Do I need to explain why I find this creepy? Marskell 00:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. What the heck is with these lists? --Qirex 01:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Marskell. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 01:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete like all the other lists. Graham/pianoman87 talk 06:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, useful sublist of List of Jews. Kappa 13:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Listcruft.--Isotope23 16:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete what's next, List of Jewish superheroes? Oh, wait... Grue 16:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish Members of Russian Academy of Sciences

Strong Delete This is listmania at it's worst. We're not going to make a list of Yale graduates —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antidote (talk • contribs) 01:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

DeleteLists are not encyclopedic in themselves.-Dakota 02:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. List of Members of Russian Academy of Sciences makes sense. This doesn't. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete This Listcruft is getting worse and worse --JAranda | watz sup 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete listcruft on steriods Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
keep. I don't know where, but there was a discussion about using lists instead of categories for Jews. I was pointed at this when I was voicing against such lists. But I was explained, and witnessed myself that Jewish categories bringg huge flurry of vandalism and trolling into pages of persons that categorized as Jews. Lists are not so visible to random vandals. Keeping low profile was a major tool of survival of Jewish people for millenia (this in my POV, may be wrong). mikka (t) 17:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Howcheng. --fvw * 18:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
weak Delete Molotov (talk)
23:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Useless subdivision. Sliggy 23:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are an infinite amount of these lists and they don't get any more useful. In fact about 1/3 of this list is repeated on other lists. Wikipedia is not a playground.
Delete per above --Rogerd 13:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep useful list. Klonimus 05:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep List of Russian Jews have a very week representation of Russian Jewish scientists.Simple addition of Jewish members of Russian Academy of Science will improve this List drastically. LazarKr 07:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 07:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of oldest MLB players

Delete This article doesn't seem to have a point. I say delete because what relevancy does listing players who are more than 45 years old when they played? Why not 50 years old? Why not 40 years old? Why not 46 years old? I don't see the value in such an article. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not section 1.7 seems to agree with me. Masterhatch 08:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Arcadian 12:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Interesting from a statistics/records viewpoint, although I'm not so sure on the criteria for inclusion. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, playing most major professional sports (golf is an exception but it's one of the few) into your late forties at the highest level is an exceptional accomplishment. I think it's marginally notable enough to get into Wikipedia. Marginally. Lord Bob 17:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Lord Bob. --Jacquelyn Marie 19:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep 45 seems a reasonable place to put it. 50 would cut the list down to just 5 names. In any case, a decent and useful list. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Lord Bob. Xoloz 04:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Lord Bob. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of palindrome years

This list contains nothing but the palindrome years from 909 to 2992. By nature, this is incomplete; it's also unsuited to any purpose. Pilatus 02:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, I have no idea why anyone would ever need this article, ever. --Explodicle 03:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, no conceivable use to anyone. —Cryptic (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
DeleteteleD --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Useless list - incomplete, and pointless to anyone who knows the definitions of "palindrome" and "year". flowersofnight 17:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per flowersofnight.--Isotope23 17:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete--pgk^(talk) 18:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete People could think this up on their ownMolotov (talk)
19:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I generally like lists, but this is just ridiculous. --Jacquelyn Marie 19:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN hilarious! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Gee it did not make me laugh. To each their own. Molotov (talk)
  22:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete You would have to ride the short bus to need this listcruft. Funny in its own way, though. Youngamerican 02:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator --TimPope 20:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pointless list. --OorWullie 08:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep and Cleanup. As a number of voters pointed out, this article needs to be trimmed down per WP:NOT I: 2.3 . The list should only include the more notable, varifiable, terms(such as those used in popular culture movies/books). The complete list, which is what this page mostly is now(although some terms may be bogus), can go on Wiktionary. Also, this was AFD'd to soon after the last AFD.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 23:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of sexual slang

List of sexual slang was nominated for deletion on 2005-10-18. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slang/2005-10-18.

This is an 89KB list of slang terms, making it not merely a violation of Section 1.2.3 of WP:NOT, "Wikipedia articles are not a usage guide or a slang and idiom guide", but one of sickeningly gargantuan proportions. The first three paragraphs, the introduction, is the only segment that begins to approach meeting the definition of an encyclopedia article; the remainder, whether it's useful or not (which is irrelevant), is just a list of terms. A list of terms does not belong on Wikipedia. This is not the first nomination. The Literate Engineer 22:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep. It is informative, descriptive by comparisons/groupings, and it is extensive (which indeed has its strong and weak points). Further, there is a competing section of WP:NOT, namely 1.5.2, which allows for "structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles". Since many of the terms on the page indeed have their own articles, it is useful for encyclopedic purposes to group and compare them, and this indeed assists with the organization of articles. Also, just because it is long is not an excuse to delete an article, but rather should be an impetus to break it up into separate articles. There's no denying that neologisms and cruft have crept into this article, but that fact demands that more contributors participate in handling verification of such terms. Last, I have to protest this "nomination bombardment", where a consensus wasn't arrived at the first time, so the argument losers try again. This also happened with Body parts slang, and its deletion resulted in a very informative article being wiped off with a slight majority that could not have been reasonably construed as a consensus. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 22:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per The Literate Engineer. -- Kjkolb 23:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep why is no reason given for re-nomination? It was voted on like 2 weeks ago with a quite high ratio of keeps. Anyway like it or not there are lots of lists of jargon/slang/technical terms on Wikipedia, for example List of baseball jargon. As long as they're well organized and useful, I don't see the problem. It's just when the subject is sex or something controversial that people start to look for excuses to delete such lists. Until consensus is to delete all slang/jargon/terms lists changes, I can't see deleting just certain ones for subjective personal reasons, under the thin excuse of arguably breaking WP:NOT. --W.marsh 23:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment Being useful is a necessary but insufficient criterion for an entry. For starters, it needs to be an actual article, which means prose.The Literate Engineer 23:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep encyclopedic, just because something is in "poor taste" does not mean it should be deleted. -Skrewler 00:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- The issue is not poor taste, but that this is a thesaurus, mis-placed in the encyclopaedia in contravention of our clear Wikipedia is not a dictionary official policy. Uncle G 00:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
User:Freakofnurture had exactly the right idea in the last AFD discussion. The article should be trimmed, with the large home-grown and mis-placed thesaurus entries replaced with links to WikiSaurus (which, unlike Wikipedia, is a thesaurus — and a multilingual one, at that), and renamed back to sexual slang, where it used to be. This does not require the article to be deleted, but it does require some resolve, and support (in terms of keeping the thesaurus entries from growing again once excised) from the various editors who have expressed their agreement with this. Uncle G 00:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per previous AfD result. Bryan 00:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep. When it says "Wikipedia articles are not a usage guide or a slang and idiom guide", I think it means that we shouldn't devote an entire article to each and every one of these slang terms. And rightly so. I think having them all quarantined on one page will suffice. I also think that after weeding out a lot of the obviously obscure (and bogus) slang terms, the page should be capped and not strive to become a neverending all-inclusive list of every ridiculous dirty phrase ever conceived. - Wikipediatrix 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Previous AFD isn't even a month old and the vote was to keep. That's enough for me right there. 23skidoo 01:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I am one of the few editors who ever tries to maintain this list, by removning the most obvious vandalism and nonsense. It is unmaintainable and unverifiable because there are no sources (except "South Park", apparently). Anyone voting to "keep" should be prepared to do participate in the trimming that everyone calls for. (That said, this is an irregelular AfD). -Willmcw 07:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Clean up – Trim greatly per my previous vote and per Uncle G. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Per last nomination, if you want to renominate something which yielded a clear "keep", you must have a very good reason for doing so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Very weak keep — as I understand it, the "slang guide" was intended to address how slang is used, not the slang itself. But yes, I'm not sure what useful encyclopedic purpose this list provides, other than perhaps as a future reference. — RJH 15:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge, redirect, and then delete — I was the originator of what is now stored as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slang/2005-10-18, where my rationalle was WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary (#3 A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide), WP:V, WP:NOR. I apologize for the length of my comment; however, I feel it is necessary to address the various issues involved in this renomination. My original nomination was timed specifically to coincide with discussion then ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body parts slang 2; in reference accusations of nomination bombardment, I feel that it is appropriate that similar nominations be made concurrently, both to focus the attention of those having opinions on the issue, and to forestall, in some measure, the inevitable claims that the existance of one policy violation supports the existance of another (i.e., if Body parts slang exists, then List of sexual slang should also exist, and vice versa) as were proffered this time by W.marsh. Given the number of people who would agree with the statement "'List of' considered harmful," real nomination bombardment would be stuffing an AFD day with every "List of" article on the site - and that would be harmful, IMHO. Further, the circular logic of using one policy violation to support another at best puts precedent over policy, an idea I think would seriously degrade Wikipedia over time. After all, there's precedent for vanity pages too, and we AFD them, even though at any given time there are plenty of others continuing to exist. That said, I have to agree in part with Stevie is the man! when he claims that Body Parts may not have had proper consensus; if he feels that strongly about it, I would direct him to Deletion Review. Similarly, I am disappointed that this nomination was made so soon, as this diminishes the odds that it will ever be removed - we can't simply renominate every three weeks until we "win," and apparant out-of-process nominations will garner more Keep votes, as exemplified by 23skidoo. Nevertheless, in the end, this article has numerous problems that speak in favor of, at worst, deletion and, at best, Merge as appropriate (the text of the intro and significant, verified terms to Sexual slang per Uncle G, the remaining verifiable terms to WikiSaurus), and I suppose that is constructively my vote here, even if it means my Disciplined Deletionist credentials are revoked. I wish I could spend more time policing the article; OTOH, I would also like to keep my job, and spending time on that particular page is not likely to help me there. FWIW, I think a move to Sexual slang should, at a minimum, keep the neologisms and protologisms to a comparative minimum. One thing I'm sure of: if we decide again to keep this article, we need many more people looking at it to ensure that it does not suck; to do otherwise will serve only to undermine the credibility of the project as a whole, and of Wikipedia policy in general. Keeping it under the present title creates the appearance of condoning, if not encouraging, the addition of, well, anything that makes a schoolboy snicker. Finally, I would also point out that, aside from the fact that this particular subject field has more than its fair share of attraction to vandals, my nomination and comments have never had anything to do with its contents per se, because Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, nor should it be. --Kgf0 23:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I would note that this article has some verifiable content in the begininng, although the list(which violates NOR) drifts off into unencyclopedic nonsense again. The Body Parts Slang article was nothing but a nonesensical list. This really should be categorized into links to Wiktionary, instead of having the list here.Voice of All ^{T|@|Esperanza} 00:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Its a great flytrap for vandals - keeps them away from serious articles. --Ezeu 04:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Living Better Electrically

not notable Qaz 19:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fails guidelines in WP:NMG. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per howcheng.--Isotope23 17:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lotus Grove

Delete Lack of importance. It is not known even in the home country Sri Lanka. It is just a housing project like everywhere elese. I think it does not deserve a place in an encyclopaedia. It has no notability or nothing special even if we look within Sri Lanka. This is not the first of its kind in Sri Lanka as it is claimed, plus it is baseless for it claims. --Sechzehn 08:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The first planned, gated community in Sri Lanka? Sounds notable to me. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per howcheng CalJW 21:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
If it is the first community of its kind, it is notable enough to keep. Denni ☯ 01:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. This article sounds like it was written by the sales agent for the development. Nominator states that claim to be "first of its kind" in Sri Lanka is NOT true, so unless the article's assertion on that point is verified, this seems like a non-notable subdivision. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lunar Buchanan

Seems to be the author of a nonnotable fanfiction. Fanficton title gets 80 google hits, author gets 16. One incoming link, from Anti-Harry Potter community Creidieki 00:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. Jkelly 01:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Let it stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.165.191.68 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC).

Delete per nom --Anetode 04:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. Alex.tan 09:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 14:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Falerin 17:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Non-notable --Amxitsa 22:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mac Dupont

look like the so called chain of french fast-food is one store in Nantes phe 19:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

delete phe 19:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
delete. NN Devotchka 01:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to (somewhere). The nomination at Talk:Magnolia Crescent says that this is adequately covered in Harry Potter, but it isn't mentioned there (which may, of course, be perfectly adequate coverage!). There is also a very uncertain merger below, but we can't add the material to List of Places since that is just internal links (WP:NOT springs to mind, since it covers internal link'farms' too). So I'm left with deciding to call this a merge without a target in mind, and will simply add a {merge} tag to the article. Someone can redirect it if they like, of course, or try a renomination. -Splash^talk 21:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magnolia Crescent

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Maybe a merge to whatever our list-of-places-in-Harry-Potter article is? (I'm sure we have one, but I couldn't find it.) —Cryptic (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Too minor a place even for our extensive Harry Potter coverage. BTW, you're thinking of List of places in the Harry Potter books. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge It looks like the nominator put his reasons in the talk page instead of here. The place is actually more important than the article makes out. While the fact there is trivial, a number of important events do happen there. That said, there is not enough for where an article listing semi-notable places could be made. List of places in the Harry Potter books appears to just be a collection of links, however. Sonic Mew | talk to me 17:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge & redirect to Bushism. --Stormie 05:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MAKE THE PIE HIGHER

Highly POV poem that uses a link to snopes.com as its source. Following the link results in a page saying the requested page does not exist. Delete as unverifiable and original research. 207.136.11.194 23:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This poem has made its way around the internet quite a bit. It is not POV, but an actual poem made of actual G.W. Bush quotes. [28] This link to Snopes is quite active, and each of the lines has been verified. Disagree, therefore, that it is unverifiable and original research. Merge into Bushisms, as "make the pie higher" seems to have entered popular jargon. - Sensor 00:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable Internet joke. It is verifiable, though; I've fixed the Snopes link to make it easier for other voters to judge for themselves. Haeleth 00:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep It! Why should you delete this? Wikipedia should be about making information available not deleting the less important things. What harm is there in having this poem available here? --Ewok Slayer 00:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a good case for merging this. - Sensor 00:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

 ---I have a newspaper article refrenced on the main page now - to make it more legitamite

Hi, and thanks for contributing! Please read how to edit a page or the WikiMedia editing overview [29] about how to use Wikitext markup. Preformatting text in your reply usually isn't a good idea. Please be sure to sign your comments with three tildes (~~~) or four tildes (~~~~) if you want a date/time stamp after your name. - Sensor 00:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete or merge to Bushisms as some of these "quotes" are unverifiable. --JJay 00:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

See above. All quotes have been verified by Snopes. - Sensor 00:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Recheck Snopes. Look for things like misquoted or "We couldn't turn up a citation". --JJay 01:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge to Bushisms, and include JJay's point that not all of the quotes are quite true, to fix NPOV. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable Bwithh 04:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge Oh come on! this is fuuny, let the author have a break.--Tinman382 19:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge to Bushisms - as per JJay
Keep or Merge, I've seen the poem cited and published enough places that it (barely) qualifies as a notable internet meme. -Colin Kimbrell 14:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- For example, I get more than 31,000 hits on Google for the phrase "make the pie higher", the vast majority of which refer to this poem. -Colin Kimbrell 14:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep This poem is certainly notable. As to being POV, it is a selection of quotes from a single man. I guess then, (tongue in cheek) that would make it his point of view. But seriously, this is an article describing a work of political humor derived from actual quotes of a politician. The fact that a small percentage were only used by "plenty of newspaper articles" and a large scale commercially released book, with I will note no rebuttal from anyone claiming misquotation, makes it a much more accurate piece than most political commentary. And again, let me reiterate that the poem is just that, a creative work, not a reporting. It's prevalence and noteriety as a political humor piece would make it notable enough for inclusion even if it wasn't composed entirely of actual quotes, IMHO. The quest to suppress this seems to me to be imposing POV on the encyclopedia as the article makes no value judgements on Bush, his presidency, or the motives behind the poem, it merely records the existence of a creative work.WAvegetarian 19:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Abstain, but if kept then Rename to not all caps -- also check out the copyright situation? gren グレン 10:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MapSport

non-noteable and blatant advertizing Vsmith 02:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. - Vsmith 02:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete blatant advertising CanadianCaesar 02:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - advert. CLW 14:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert --Rogerd 06:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marius gheorghe

Non-notable, vanity NymphadoraTonks 03:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. - NymphadoraTonks 03:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. freshgavin ^TALK 05:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom CLW 15:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was Speedy keep - obviously notable topic, no legitimate rationale put forth for deletion. BD2412 ^talk 16:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mass murder

What about the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I think it was the greatest mass murder ever. --Haham hanuka 10:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep Notable article, and no reason for deletion given. bjelleklang 11:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Gilgamesh he 16:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep I fail to see where this qualifies for deletion. The given point is best discussed on the talk page.G worroll G worroll 03:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. This looks like a bad faith nomination. I suggest that the afd notice be removed immediately for it dents the appearance of the article. -- Natalinasmpf 14:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Speedy keep, trolling. —Cryptic (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Kappa 16:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] McKay Hall

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Delete, article about a dormitory that doesn't assert notability. —Cryptic (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete schoolcruft gone too far. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Of or related to a school, therefore it must be kept! Delete. Schoolcruft. --Carnildo 23:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Insignificant trivia. jni 08:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meanwood F.C.

Non-notable football club -DDerby-(talk) 20:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete non notable amateur youth team chowells 20:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non notable. However- in fairness some of the above comments are wrong as in "amateur youth team", my inside info tells me it's actually a semi-pro mens team (although the majority of the team is between 18 and 20 with the exception of one who is 26) that has been invited to a tournement in Amsterdam. Also won numerous mens league titles etc etc. However, not greatly notable although received some media coverage, thus delete. englishrose 9:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mecke

I believe this is a hoax. If it's not, it's original research - no sources are provided and with Google, no mention of this monkey can be found anywhere else. -- JoanneB 11:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This is Original Reaserch the book is being currently published, if you dont believe me then you can email me @ benweddel@rogers.com

If you are interested in more reaserch on these marvelous species then i can email you my reaserch and if you are interested in web design then you can make a web page, if you contribute and are a high school student then i will gladly email or fax you school explaining the work you have contributed on the fund for these great and noble creatures as i know you require a certain amount of volenteer hours to get your deploma.
Sencerly Benjamin Weddel, Mecke reasercher
Delete. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is unable to use original research in its articles. After the book is published, reviewed by peers in the biological sciences, and receives some public notice, perhaps this can be revisited. Presumably, also, the book itself cites some primary sources.
Delete for a ridiculous attempt at a hoax, and for wasting my time. --Agamemnon2 21:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Im thinkking that someboddy who has enoufh inteligents to write a book ought to be a much better speller than this and shold also know how to end a sentense with a period hear and their. Holycow, can you say hoacks? Oh and deleat. Denni ☯ 00:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - The user hath partaken of too much Monkey perhaps? This article fails the Mecke test. --Cactus.man ✍ 05:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-verifiable. Haeleth 13:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Mecke and Monkey are both imprint and slang for MDMA

Comment ~~these votes~~ the above two votes were removed by User:38.116.192.13 who has today vandalised a large number of pages, reinstating the votes [30]. chowells 17:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete obviously a hoax, creator vandalised a large number of pages today and also vandalised this AfD page. chowells 17:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metalgearliquid

Article is obviously a parody of a video game without stating so. While a few sources have used "Metal gear liquid" as a joke, no consistent meme or hoax exists that validates a page describing said joke. X1cygnus 14:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

delete/speedy. Mmmbeer 15:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Hoax. freshgavin ^TALK 23:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 21:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Highland

Not notable. Thue | talk 22:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unless he had accomplished something more notable than producing a film about himself --Amxitsa 22:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - not notable. Twthmoses 23:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete a vanity article about vanity. I almost speedied this for not asserting notability. However, there is this which I presume is a student newspaper at his university, so hardly a reliable source. However, it helpfully reveals that the film which is the real topic of this article failed to win an award. Anyone can fail. -Splash^talk 23:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge & redirect to Gag name. --Stormie 05:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Rotch

This is a name that Bart Simpson uses to prank call Moe. His name does not appear in CNN list of victims which were compiled from AP list. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-name/page86.html

The name of parents does not appear on List of Confirmed Dead in OKC Bombing. http://www.cpb.ouhsc.edu/okc_bomb/dead.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.28.250.23 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC).

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete per nom or speedy as vandalism; transparent hoax. —Cryptic (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, here's what I propose. Make an article on Gag names, then redirect every conceivable name of this sort (Mike Hunt, Ben Dover, Amanda Huggenkiss, etc.) to said article, and protect 'em all. BD2412 ^talk 16:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hmmm... two of the three randomly picked joke names I came up with have legit articles already. I'm floored. BD2412 ^talk 16:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Ummm... I think that Mike Hunt ought to be AfD too... and/or very strongly fixed. Mmmbeer 17:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete and/or redirect per BD2412. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Mmmbeer 17:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per BD2412 with the proviso that some gag names are actually used legitimately and they need seperate articles - Falerin 17:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Note: I've started the Gag name article, and have noted that some gag names are indeed used as stage names. I was pleasantly surprised to discover that we have an article on Biggus Dickus. BD2412 ^talk 18:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  - In the words of Pilate in life of Brian "... I too find this wesonabull ..." Sadly I must confess I acually knew kids who's parents without thinking named their child Micheal Hawk and Micheal Hunt respectively. Hawk and Hunt were friends. I have to suspect the parents knew well what they did though because Hawk's sisters name was Bobbi Joe. I Also knew a Kandy Kane. Though none of these individuals is in fact notable other then having been stuck with a gag name by unthinking parents - Falerin
Redirect per BD2412 (ingenious!) and Falerin. Wow, I learn something new on AfD every day! --Jacquelyn Marie 19:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mina's

My speedy got pulled by the author so I'm nominating it on AFd. Mina's makes "lackluster but inexpensive pizza" and may be popular with the kids at Stonehill college. Does that make it notable? Because there are a lot of pizza shops worldwide. JJay 01:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Maybe we need a "lackluster but inexpensive" restaurant list. --JJay 01:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless someone provides evidence that Mina's pizza place is world famous. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 01:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- No need for it to be world famous, but at least well-known on a national level wouldn't hurt. - 131.211.51.34 09:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I even doubt its well known townwide --JAranda | watz sup 19:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. See also Kyle Mina. Flower party■ 02:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- As per nomination, although I could go for a lackluster and inexpensive sandwich at the moment. Ben D. 06:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - as per nom. Alex.tan 09:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 14:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn pizza shop WP:NOT an ad --JAranda | watz sup 19:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Offhand I can think of a maximum of two pizza shops in the Boston area that might qualify as notable enough for Wikipedia (Santarpio's and Caffe Avventura), and Caffe A doesn't exist anymore. Haikupoet 00:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modulis

Advertising. --202.156.6.59 18:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete obvious advert, not a speedy though. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MotherLAN

Article about a LAN party, containing patent nonsense like "Multiplyers will come into local shops maybe in the year 6500 ± 2000 years" and the bulk of the article is an entire quoted "controversial essay" which appears to be a copyvio. Apart from the the patent nonsense and lengthy copyvio, what remains appears to be advertising. Delete: Wikipedia is not a web directory or an advertising medium; may well also fail the notability test. -- The Anome 07:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Advertisment, copyvio, POV essay, forumcruft, FAQ guide, is there anything this article can't do?! "Mother of all LANs"? Mother of all DELETEs!. Saberwyn 08:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per above. Alex.tan 09:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete for blatant misuse of the word LAN. — JIP | Talk 10:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete essay, nonsense, non-notable, OR, adcruft... this one hits 'em all.--Isotope23 15:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. I'm a little reluctant to delete this, but is very much like advertising copy as it stands, so I'll let the deleters have their way. Numerically, the first unsigned comment is discounted since it's an anon, the second is included since the newbie has about enough edits in relevant areas that this looks good-faith to me. I think it'd be better to rewrite this than list at Deletion Review. -Splash^talk 21:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motorola Mobile Devices

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As it stands right now, delete, but it looks like it could be the foundation of a decent article. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Please don't delete it
I think this page has too much potential to be deleted. Either that or merge the article along with Motorola_Networks into Motorola
Delete, as for now, it just looks like advertisement. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 10:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neleh Dennis

This article was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neleh Dennis, and has been speedy deleted a few times as recreations. However these speedies were disputed and a request to undelete it was made, and it succeeded. This is a procedural AFD debate. Article is about a Survivor contestant, I am not entirely sure about the notability of such people so no vote from me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep - For being on hit national/international TV show for almost all of one season, which would qualify her if she had been an actress with comparable air time. She got a reasonable amount stories about her during her appearance, so there's ample independent sources available. --rob 08:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Neleh was not only a Survivor runner-up, she was a reporter for a Utah news station for several years. --JamesB3 09:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete reality show contestants are the equivalent of game-show contestants, and are not generally notable unless they achieve more fame later. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Being on a game show is hardly enough for notability. — JIP | Talk 10:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- We're not talking about being on the Price-is-right for 10 minutes. We're talking about almost an entire season of a hit prime-time TV show. Now, you're entitled to think that's minor, but please don't lump together different things. This is like being a lead actor of TV show for about the same time. We're not deciding if somebody should be notable, but if *others* have found them to be. This person was written about a fair bit, and followed. Perhaps you don't think they should have been, but they were. Hence, they are notable for our purposes. --rob 10:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  - I was actually talking about the Survivor thing. Sorry for being unclear. I don't think being on Survivor is enough for notability either. — JIP | Talk 11:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    - OK, thanks for clarifying. Can I ask which variant of notability you're using. Here's some different ones I've seen used around here (usually not explicitly stated). Does one of these fit you, or do you have a different approach:
      1. Notability means somebody is *worthy* of notice. You don't think she's worthy. Wikipedia shouldn't follow others, but decide for itself who is worthy and who is not. Since being a "survivor" doesn't require talent or substantial contribution to humanity, she's not worthy. By this logic, an unnoticed person worthy of notice is a better article than anybody unworthy, regardless how much attention has been paid.
      2. Notability means other respected authorities in the area have noticed her. She has been found notable by others, but they are not "respectable authorities", and don't count.
      3. Notability means she has been widely found to be worthy of notice, by many sources, and those sources include reliable sources of information which could make a verifiable article. Wikipedia must be a follower, and not a leader. By this, I think she qualifies. --rob 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm sure she's a nice person but she fails to meet my understanding of the recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies. Reality shows, in my opinion, are mere game shows and contestants are not automatically notable. Being one of the cast is a long way from being the "lead actor" of a TV show. The fact that she was a news reporter is also unpersuasive. Reporters are an important profession but no more deserving of an encyclopedia entry than any other profession. We would not, for example, argue that she would deserve an encyclopedia article if she had been a doctor for a few years. Rossami (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, survivor contestents and news reporters are in the public eye, unlike doctors. Kappa 14:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per ~~Kappa~~ Rossami. Sandstein 14:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- What? Kappa voted "keep" and you are saying "delete per Kappa"? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I was about to correct that, but you were faster; I meant delete as per Rossami.
  - Thanks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as much as I dislike the show its contestants do indeed have notability especially when the contestant in question is the Runner up in the competition. This person like Richard Hatch or Ken Jennings is considered newsworthy enough that national news would respond if something happened to her and that seems a valid establishment of notability to me.
Keep, despite how boring Survivor is.Gateman1997 19:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as a non-entity whose 15 minutes are up. DV8 2XL 20:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per JamesB3, rob, and Kappa; this figure has been repeatedly televised to an audience of 5,000 or more and it is entirely conceivable that people may want to learn more about this person from Wikipedia. Hall Monitor 23:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable. Grue 16:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Notable only to those who spend an inordinate amount of time watching television. Denni ☯ 00:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Rossami. -- Corvus 04:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Apparently, she was the runner-up on this show. Runners-up are notable enough for me. Xoloz 08:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
keep please people who spend an inordinate amount of time watching television might want to learn more about this person here so erasing it does not make sense Yuckfoo 17:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasDelete Karmafist 05:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)See this afd's talk page for explanation

[edit] Nipple-Touch Mini

A weird and presumably sexual "car game"; the phrase gets no google hits. Nonverifiable. -- Creidieki 02:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Shame really. Playing this game does not involve inflicting pain on the other player (such as pinching or twisting); I hope it goes far. Flower party■ 02:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I recognise that it's a silly premise. Yes, I had a hard time writing the article because it is indeed goofy, and yes, the Google test comes up negative (which is actually the reason I decided to write this article; why hadn't anyone before me?). Please give it a chance, or, if you've heard of it, please vouch for it to keep the article alive. --Dana 02:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delight ... er, I mean Delete. BD2412 ^talk 02:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm from Massachusetts and I play this game all the time, even out of the car/ by myself. It's actually quite fun and addicting. It's totally safe and immature, but appropriate, just like most car games. I play with the rule that if driving with girls, they are hands off unless they do it first, then it's fair game. I'm so glad somebody finally wrote about this, I hope it goes a long way. ---Transit.letum Keep. Down here in Texas, at least in my city, this game is fairly popular, and i introduce new people to the game all the time. It's a very friendly game, and it really brings the car together. It makes the car ride more enjoyable and light-hearted. To delete this entry and deny the masses access to this game would be a crime against humanity. ---Johnny

delete. And as if anyone needed me to say, transit, johnnyb and dana all only have a single contribution... to this AfD Mmmbeer 03:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Ugh. I was just about to say that I didn't write those. I do know the first person, though. I asked him to help me out. (Can you look at the IP addresses or something? I don't know Johnny...) Sorry guys. Just trying to keep this afloat... --Dana 01:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't Delete! I can't beleive I'm seeing this on Wikipedia! My friends and I used to play this all the time (in the suburbs of Chicago) I had no idea it was so wide spread. This game is great, it creates a great bond between the participants (or a release of sexual tension, depending on who you're playing with). Just because Google hasn't picked it up yet doesn't mean that people aren't playing it. ---Molly

Comment: I'm terribly sorry that my contribution is the same as Transit and Dana, but there's not much else to contribute. It's a game, pure and simple. If you'd like a long and mostly made up essay on the deep philosophy and spirituality surrounding the game, then fine. I'll write one up and e-mail it too you. But honestly, it’s a game, and the only real reason you play car games is to alleviate some of the tediousness of driving, especially long distances. Nipple touch mini, in conjunction with Punch Buggy and Yellow car I win (and The Game where applicable) accomplishes this. There is a severe lack of car games, barring the few you played as a kid, such as the license plate game, or some billboard game, but I honestly feel as though I’ve outgrown those games. I need a game with competition, with several people fighting to get the nipple-touch. It's competitive. Try it, i can almost guarantee you'll love it. NTM is fairly new to my community, probably imported by some college kid on a road trip, but it's a blast. I am honestly astounded that it's so widespread that it's on Wikipedia, it made my day. Even if it is a little too obscure for your tastes, if you leave this up on Wiki, I’m positive that many more people will learn of NTM and fall in love with it's silly, immature charms. After all, isn't this how things grow? Something fun gets posted somewhere. People read it and implement it into their everyday lives, then tells friends. This could become huge, and I think it would be a crying shame to kill it now. After all, it's a lot bigger than either Molly or I thought. Don't stifle a car gaming revolution. ---Johnny
Delete O.R. as per Johnny the Sockpuppet --Anetode 04:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete despite apparent popularity in sockpuppet community. Very little verifiable evidence that this has achieved any notability as indicated by no Google hits. Capitalistroadster 05:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, before the clones multiply anymore. freshgavin ^TALK 05:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: My main concern with this article is verifiability. If this game is played by a small number of people, and no written records of it exist, we don't have any way of knowing that the article is correct, or finding errors. That kind of content isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. There are a lot of places on the internet where you can tell people about something new and try to raise its popularity, but Wikipedia is trying very hard not to be a promoter so much as a recorder.

It can be difficult for us to tell whether something like this is popular. I hadn't personally heard of it, and I couldn't find any google hits. If you can find internet references or other textual references (perhaps they were using a different name), or some other records of its popularity and existence, that would be a major help in keeping the article. Barring that, there may be more specialized internet sites which have more lenient inclusion requirements. -- Creidieki 06:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unverifiable, puppetfest. MCB 06:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as opposed to punch buggy, this is unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per MCB. Sandstein 14:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I drive a Mini Cooper myself. As "Johnny" points out, people will "read it and implement it into their everyday lives", and I can't live with the responsibility of encouraging such wanton behaviour... CLW 14:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-verifiable. If we get any more puppets I'll be able to start my own Muppet Show.--Isotope23 14:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Close to nonsense. Touching nipples is non-sexual? Logophile 15:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete and BJAODN this discussion. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete or possibly merge into Punch Buggy if independent existance can be verified at all... I have not found any evidence anywhere though and I researched it heavily... it does seem to be a good BJAODN entry actually. - Falerin 17:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I found a Google hit, dated April 2004 here. Since this clearly depends on a couple of fringe pop-culture foundations (the website appears to be related to Howard Stern, & the link refers to The Surreal Life), on one hand I'm not surprised this exists under the radar; on the other hand, I am surprised that, because the stereotype Internet nerd tends to hyperfocus on trivia like this, there aren't a number of Google hits about this odd passtime. Has anyone watched TSL & can verify that the "Nipple-Touch Mini" game was played on this particular episode? If so, then it's a definite keep; if not, then it's either a hoax or clearly not-notable. (And given the attention Wikipedia gets, I'm willing to bet money that in 6 months that this will be a real game unless this article is deleted.) -- llywrch
- The Google hit Llywrch found does not appear to be about this game; the "mini" referred to is not the Mini automobile, but Verne Troyer, the actor who plays "Mini Me" in the Austin Powers movies. Delete the game as unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 00:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment. You're right: the link above is incorrect (thanks for trying, Llywrch; and why didn't anyone else notice this?). It is not, however, unverifiable. There are several people that have verified its existance both above and below this comment. People from both inside the United States (I'm from New Hampshire) and in the United Kingdom have verified the reality this game or its variants. (Which is a good point; I'll add a section on mini-pinch as outlined by Kilo-Lima below.)
Comment. Ah ha! Thank you, Llywrch. Even if we get over-ruled, you're really right about everything else. I hope this gets to at least have a chance... Or maybe keeping it afloat on a BJAODN page would help it last long enough to be undeleted... --Dana 01:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Punch & Judy votes nonwithstanding. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 08:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete all sock-puppets. Oh, and delete this article. Marskell 10:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Similarly, in the United Kingdom, it is called Mini-pinch: When one person sees a Mini, they pinch the other person. Alternations: Mini-punch. - Kilo-Lima 13:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: what about Mini-Judy? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above. Grue 16:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 06:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep oh give me a break, if you want a deletion give an actual reason. the amount of things on wikipedia is rediculous and this article, according to the couple people who have mentioned it, is relevant to them. Just because its not to you doesnt mean anything. so give a reason or dont write delete, all the people who voted to keep have valid reasons and don't cite "sock puppets" repeatedly. So I vote to keep it based on the fact that there now is a google hit, and that it is relevant to multiple users as well as their pools of friends. I also would like to state that the person who started this deletion probably did not read the article, because they think that the game is sexual, when it is stated differently in the article. In short you dont delete something just because you think its stupid, if its well written and relevant then let it slide. --Aaron 16:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Aaron, careful not to be too biting with your opinions. I recognize the importance of keeping Wikipedia clean, and I feel that people do an excellent job with it. I do understand the opinions of many of the people that wrote to delete this article. The first user to respond, Creidieki, did read the article and his comment showed me that I needed to be implicit in stating that the game is not sexual (which I did). This user even came back later to support his claims, which is admirable. I also understand why one would think so without playing the game. Since I published this article, I have read up on "sock puppets" and "vanity articles," and now regret asking my friend (transit.letum) to help in our cause. I realize that doing that is against the traditional wiki rules and I didn't mean do start that. Other than that, however, I am not a... sock-puppeteer? This article is real and many people unrelated to me have come to show it. Please take that into consideration, everyone.--Dana 18:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Just thought it was kind of interesting to point out that two of the "keep" votes are from a deletionist and from and admin. --Dana 17:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Octopus Dog Man

Nonnotable injoke with no google hits and no incoming links. Creidieki 03:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Injoke? Ridiculous! A comic character cannot be documented? Pietak 23:00, 18 October 2005

Don't tell me that this article joins the ranks of this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_From_Life . Vandalism? Pietak 19:26, 19 October 2005

Delete not notable, vandalism. Cleduc 04:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Anetode 04:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "Cult underground legend" indeed? Hhmmm... NN. But adding a picture of a random dog to illustrate what the "Dog" part of the name means is cute... CLW 14:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 06:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 21:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Omar Superstars

Non notable amateur football club with a handful of google hits chowells 22:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unless anyone is willing to explain why the team are notable --Amxitsa 22:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - not notable. Twthmoses 23:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Zero impact outside the 11 or so kids who play for them. And their opponents, I suppose. -Splash^talk 00:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Copyvio, deleted under CSD A8. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 01:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orange Jam Conspiracy

First-person account of the band's history. Does not appear to meet notability criteria established at WP:MUSIC. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
{{db-a8}}: copied from band's web site: http://www.orangejamconspiracy.com/AboutUs/TheHistory.html. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was merge & redirect to The Moors Murders. --Stormie 05:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pauline Reade

I don't believe that being a murder victim is neccessarily enough to make one notable, and in this case all the information belongs in the main moors murderers articles. ymmv... Spankthecrumpet 01:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. - Spankthecrumpet 12:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge into The Moors Murders. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete - but feel free to continue to make a new one Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Per Strömberg

Nonnotable adjunct associate professor who can't claim even as much notability as an average professor. Caerwine 04:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete Makes no assertion of notability--CastAStone 05:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep Does not assert notability but publications at [31]

show that he actually is at least as notabile as an average professor. Straight Googling shows he is a research fellow of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a research affiliate of the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) and has served on the SNS advisory committee on Swedish bankruptcy reform. Dlyons493 Talk 16:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter_Power

Vanity Bio? 24.208.155.223 01:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete - This article appears to be a bio page on a minor blogger; Only a couple of hits on a websearch, nothing consistent or major. This is my first delete nomination, so if I did it wrong, I know it'll get wiped out. - 24.208.155.223 01:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete-Per nomination Davidpdx 01:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
This can be speedied as a copyvio here[[32]]. --JJay 02:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity --Rogerd 06:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Stormie 05:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phage (comics)

Contextless article on an apparent comic book character... User:Purplefeltangel/sig 23:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Molotov (talk)
23:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, unanimous delete. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 01:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] President Bush Cleaning Glasses on Womans Blouse

Subtrivial, pointless, has no potential for expansion. Should an article like this remain on Wikipedia? Saberwyn 23:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination. Saberwyn 00:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete and wash that blouse! Pointless trivia that is hopelessly unencyclopaedic. Eddie.willers 00:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Seriously. --JJay 00:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic and doesn't even say which President Bush. Capitalistroadster 01:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Completely unencyclopedic. Probably this article was created solely to provide a link to that web page. ♠DanMS 01:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. ~~Unsourced,~~ no indication of why this should be significant. Do not merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Cactus.man ✍ 06:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO RESULT. There are no articles listed for deletion and none tagged to this debate. Moreover, this is a policy decision that belongs at WP:CSD talk, not in the confines of an AfD discussion. In any case, there's obviously no consensus here. -Splash^talk 21:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Random phobias

We have to decide this once and for all. You may

take any noun or verb,
translate into (1) Greek or (2) latin or (3) partially translate or (4) do not translate at all
append a '-phobia' and voila! a new article is ready.

Example: hamster ->Mesocricetophobia = "fear of midsize hamsters". Now tell me that there are no people who irrationally hate or fear hamsters!

I suggest to decide right now that any such phobias must be speedily deleted on the spot, unless a reputable source with medical histories is presented. Various unscrupulous websites that sell snake oil for phobias, described in the -phobia article do not count. mikka (t) 20:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per submitter. Tempshill 20:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Isn't this a policy discussion, rather than an afd? Anyway, Mesocricetophobia gets no Google Hits, [33] while the aricles you submitted today do. If there is a decent merge target, then that would be good. Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it is a real life: a midcase between a policy and an individual case. I doubt that "pseudophobias" require the whole special policy".
- "No hits" is a matter of my persistency. Let me post it into a couple of blogs, with a tragic story how I had three dead hamsters in a row on me so that I started really hating them: my kids cried; I had to carry these sick rodents to a clinic, then lie children that they run away there, &c&c, and I could not stand it any more. And the problem turned out to be in bad gas heater, but it was too late for me... In 2-3 weeks I will get 1,350 google hits.
- You miss the point: the decent target is wiktionary. Basta. mikka (t) 21:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
There is an excellent article at -phobia, with a suitable list at its end. Could we not ~~redirect~~ the individual articles to there, adding to the list if necessary? (It appears common from my rapid, random and unscientific sampling of blue links in the list...) Sliggy 21:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- - Please see Talk:-phobia. A nonnotable is nonnotable is nonnotable. The same happens with many lists, such as List of webcomics: an entry there is allowed only if the webcomic is notable enough to survive VfD. mikka (t) 21:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  - I hadn't thought through the huge number of articles that could be created. I can certainly see a case for the deletion of an article named, say, chukkaphobia, that solely consists of "Chukkaphobia is fear of chukkas" (with or without an image of a chukka). Can WP:CSD A3 (specifically rephrasing) include this? In the worst case the rephrasing is from the Greek or Latin in the article title, to English in the page itself. Sliggy 22:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rhubarb Smith

nn high school band Gator1 20:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. - Gator1 20:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's all just fluff and bother about some high-school set of drums. Barely a one of the claims in the article can be verified from any reliable, third-party source. And, incidentally, Google finds squat which makes verification the harder. -Splash^talk 00:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that the author just removed the fact that the members of the band were in 8th grade in 2003 (as well as putting the band now in Baltimore). This is important as it goes to the fact that this is nn hs band. Don't let the author fool you. Reaffirm Delete vote.Gator1 19:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was redirected, as the article has been replaced with a redirect anyway. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ro Sham Bo

Nn South Park game User:Purplefeltangel/sig 23:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge with South Park. Hitting people in the balls is not encyclopedic. Molotov (talk)
23:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete and replace with a redirect to Rock, Paper, Scissors (as this is an old-fashioned name for that game). Roshambo is not kicking people in the balls except on South Park. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
redirect to rock, paper, scissors as above. This is a very common name for that game, and presumably the source of the joke in south park. — brighterorange (talk) 03:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per brighterorange. BD2412 ^talk 03:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong Redirect It was also a joke event at this years World Series of Poker mentioned on the ESPN and Poker player coverage. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 05:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as redirect. Grue 16:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Note to admins I don't know what the policy is on this, but the redirect has been created so it may be a good idea to close this VfD and remove the notice. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 01:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
- There's really no policy that I'm aware of, but consensus is more than clear and it has already been redirected anyway, so I'll close it. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 21:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roque Jnrs

Non notable amateur football club with a handful of google hits chowells 22:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Delete, unless anyone is willing to explain why the team are notable--Amxitsa 22:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete - not notable. Twthmoses 23:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Sports club vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Sjakkalle. — JIP | Talk 12:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Salamis Glory

NN ship. Article sounds like someone's review of his cruise. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 21:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Individual cruise ships are notable since they are among the largest mving objects in the world, and are usually distinguishable from one another. The original article did look like a review of a cruise so I have rewritten the article to something more neutral along with the history of the ship. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/MS Sea Breeze for precedent on cruise ships. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep after Sjakkalle's rewrite. I hereby withdraw my AFD nomination. Nice job. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 15:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten. Nice save! MCB 21:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Stormie 05:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scott harlan

Does not meet guidelines set in WP:NMG. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 21:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Undecided re notability - The article itself is rather poor but there is a lot more information on the biography page of the link provided, depends how much of the information can be objectively verified. Delete unless anyone is willing to make the article much better as unverified at the moment --Amxitsa 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment Article does not establish notability. Has two records on Name Brand records which may or may not meet WP:music: neither of them have charted in his homeland in the US see [34] Capitalistroadster 01:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per above. -- Kjkolb 11:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete - this page was started so that others may come in a fill in the blanks. It is intended to be a start and was written by an adult student of this bass player (Harlan) so all info is 100% accurate. The significance is that this person is maybe the only instructor in the DC area who can teach Victor Wooten's double thumb technique. Harlan has indicated that he may soon collaborate with Michael Manring on a CD. Just because Cheng doesn't live in DC doesn't justify the criticism. If Janet Jackson/Backstreet boys/Milli Vanilli grade popularity is the criteria for Wikipedia then good luck!!

Substance always trumps form.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.22.185.151 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC).

Comment: I have no ill will towards Mr Harlan or yourself. Unfortunately, every Tom, Dick, and Harry who is a guitarist or part of a band tries to create an article about themselves on Wikipedia, so we have guidelines as to who gets to stay. Mr Harlan doesn't seem to meet these guidelines, and as such, does not merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 00:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE and thanks go to User:GraemeL for the note. — JIP | Talk 12:39, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Piotrowski

"His blog is noted.." but has only gotten 20,000 visitors. Blogger vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep --Frankjc2 20:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable chowells 20:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep --SeannyFunco 20:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Claim to notability is that he runs a web site with no Alexa ranking. Closing admin be aware of new users/sockpuppets. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, only 277 google hits (my name gets 578, all relevant :) ). Thue | talk 22:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete quickly as per nominator. Hall Monitor 22:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --JJay 23:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete blogcruft. Grue 16:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. It has been expanded very substantially since the nomination and to delete on the basis of a wafer-thin debate is therefore reasonable. That does not preclude a renomination (even an immediate one), of course. -Splash^talk 21:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sergio Canali

Not encyclopedic, and barely notable. Molotov (talk)
23:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete not notable by the lights of the article. Interestingly his IMDB entry says he was in only one adult movies three years after he died. Remind me not to watch that movie :P --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 05:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as stub. This was nominated for deletion one minute after it was posted. Congratulations. That must be a record. Give this article a chance to grow. I will work on it over the next couple of weeks. Zeromacnoo 13:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Zeromacnoo - Can you sketch how it will grow? I would be happy to vote keep if I had some (verified) idea of how this article, in the end, would be worth keeping. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  - It will be like other articles on porn stars. See List of porn stars. It will have a videography, a non-pornographic picture if possible, and whatever tidbits of information I can find. Zeromacnoo 11:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have taken a first run at converting this from a stub. Zeromacnoo 12:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SKILLS IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY: UK MANUFACTURING'S IMAGE AS A CAREER

Original research essay with a terrible title. -- RHaworth 11:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

DELETE AND PLEASE DO NOT WRITE IN ALL CAPS. — JIP | Talk 11:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
(In all fairness: only the title is all-caps.) Delete per WP:NOR. Lupo 11:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. All the titles are in caps ;) Mmmbeer 15:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete essay appears to violate WP:NOR.--Isotope23 17:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as OR, POV essay. MCB 20:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as linkspam. Friday (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slarp

Gives only web links. --202.156.6.61 16:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy as CSD:A3, per nom (and tagged as such)--Isotope23 17:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smooty

Vanity page Ritchy 19:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, delete Molotov (talk)
19:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as vanity. Eddie.willers 21:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fails to meet guidelines in WP:NMG. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SolarCore Legal Services - Nhat Tam Luat

Keep. I don't think it's rational to delete this page. Show me how deleters know it's non-notable(?)!

SolarCore Legal Services - Nhat Tam Luat does not seem notable. nom&vote delete —Gaff ^ταλκ 06:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-notable and possibly advertising. Saberwyn 08:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I already speedily deleted it. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 23:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone recreated this. Someone else attempted to speedy deleted it as a recreatiopn of deleted content (that is WP:CSD G4). But G4 doesn't apply to things previously speedy deleted, adn IMO this is not a valid speedy delete candidate. I removed the speedy tag. DES ^(talk) 21:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete It may not be a speedy candidate, but I see no evidence of notability. Less than 10 google hist, excluding wikipedia and mirrors. None of them indicate any partidualr notability to my mins, and there seesm no evidence for notability in the articel as it now stands. DES ^(talk) 21:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. There are some voices to merge this, but that discussion I will leave to the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Solkope

Island is of low noteablity and is being used for the sole purpose of promoting DOM.Davidpdx 02:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

A real island with real associated mythology and features (research turns up Gordon MacGregor's notes on tamura and the tupua' Leplafeke). Keep. Uncle G 02:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete-per nomination Davidpdx 04:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep since it is a real island. The DOM stuff on Wikipedia needs some serious work, though. -- Kjkolb 06:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep: as it is only a stub and noteworthy from the news media's references to it, etc. I hope that Kjkolb helps with the DOM article.Johnski 06:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand of island of some notability as per Uncle G. Capitalistroadster 06:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep I did a quick rewrite. Not really all that much you can say about an unihabited island that is "claimed" by a fraudulent micronation... I did add the association to the parent island of Rotuma though.--Isotope23 14:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
KeepLogophile 15:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep A named island seems a straight forward keep. Marskell 10:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Merging with Rotuma seems called for; but this does not require AfD. Septentrionalis 16:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep but remove the irrelevant DOM part. Pavel Vozenilek 16:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Rotuma as it is a real island but of minor importance Shocktm (Talk * Contributions) 20:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep - and expand with the DOM "claim". --Cactus.man ✍ 05:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete How many quaint little spots with a trivial local legend are there?Dejvid 18:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Template:Votedelete: Not enough material. Myth could be in an article about the lore tellers or where they live, rather than the little rock. (SEWilco 03:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC))

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Rob e rt 00:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic spar

No notability defined, google gives 6 hits [35]. feydey 11:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable music experiment thingy. — JIP | Talk 12:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete bandcruft with no evidence of notability Haeleth 13:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Seabhcan as nonsense. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sons of Alexander

Cannot find any reference to any such author or novels Stephenb (Talk) 11:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as non-verifiable. And the "unofficial Internet fanclub" seems to be even more reclusive than the author. Haeleth 13:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soundmurderer

Delete. Not notable, no assertion of meeting any one criterion in WP:MUSIC, or at least none that I could make out. I speedied a previous incarnation of this article with less content. android 79 23:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Molotov (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 .mikka (t) 18:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spheksophobia

del nonnnotable dicdef. mikka (t) 20:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

See Arachibutyrophobia above for discussion. mikka (t) 21:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to -phobia as above. Tonywalton | Talk 16:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge to -phobia. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 21:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strahil Christov

Not one Google hit on this person, nor on the apparently world-dominating B-Net. Unverifiable and with a strong smell of self-promoting hoaxiness about it Tonywalton | Talk 22:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Molotov (talk)
22:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - not notable. Twthmoses 23:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Rob e rt 00:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Studiomuscle

Non-notable band. --202.156.6.61 16:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nominator. Totally non-notable project. Eddie.willers 21:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 21:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Votes saying "Don't Delete" have been ignored without reading or investigating. If you're going to be a sock puppet, at least put some effort into it. (The proper term is "keep", right?) — JIP | Talk 12:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tatuism

Neologism, seems to be only used in the comersial site www.tatuism.com abakharev 05:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be a propaganda. May be it should be cleaned up. Brandmeister 09:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Bullsh*tism at its best. KNewman 11:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete I think it is an excellent idea which many people have already embraced.--Mark 11:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The article describes a purported religion based upon adulation of T.A.T.u.. The web site mentioned is currently inaccessible, and there is no evidence independent of it that such a religion exists or has been accepted as such by the world at large. The article cites no sources, of course. Both unverifiable and original research. Delete. Uncle G 11:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This link shows people are still trying to convert people to their "religion" with flyers and the like. As an official religion this is original research at best. Also, Wikipedia is not an FAQ. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per KNewman, as I couldn't have put it better myself Keresaspa 14:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as said by KNewman Cool3 23:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete - I reckon its cool. You shouldn't delete it. --220.237.100.52 10:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete- Excuse me! there is no evidence that the world has accepted this religion at large!?! Just look at the number of members of www.tatu.ru or the ticket sales for t.A.T.u's concerts!!!

The URL www.tatuism.com is not connected to the Tatuism movment. this domain is not in the control of the people who gave birth to this idea. It was said earlier "people are still trying to convert people to their "religion" with flyers and the like." this is not the case. Tatuism is not a religeon yet. Yes our message is being spread but we do not force ourselve upon anyone, we let you decide if you suport the idea. With this said, I think it shouldn't be deleted.

Delete- The debate isn't about the merits or lack thereof of this self-described religion, but its notability and merit as a Wikipedia page. Aside from references to www.tatuism.com, the only Google results I get for a "tatuism" search are references to tatuism.com and these two pages, which have the text of this Wikipedia page almost verbatim. This a clearly a joke from some forum. Send to BJAODN if you want. —Josiah Rowe 23:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete-They just bought the domain tatuism.com so they're really serious about this. Give it time, Google doesn't pick up links that fast.

Ok all very valid points, but i dont think it should be deleted, Wikipedia is supposed to be a place you can find information on everything, even the obscure. Yes intitally this was just a bit of fun, but to my supprise poeple are taking it to heart. I think it should have its page, and not be deleted simply down to the fact google only comes back with a few references. After all whole thing is just over a week old. and was released to the world via a post on the tatu.ru fourm on the 12th of October 2005. Give it time.

Don't delete...give the idea a chance...as was said before...it's not a religion forced on you...if u like it take it...if you don't then flip the page and walk away...if it's not going to reach the world via wikipedia then i assure you it will find it's way to the world somehow...not only will it have a place here but also it'll earn it...so i say DON'T DELETE

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Tetherball. — JIP | Talk 12:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teatherball

Basically an exact duplicate of tetherball Pak21 08:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination Pak21 08:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to tetherball. That seems like a reasonable misspelling. Al 13:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. billybobfred 13:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. --Ashenai (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. Speedy. Punkmorten 21:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to tetherball. the iBook of the Revolution 00:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. Duh. Penelope D 01:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (A8) from http://thaxtonward.com/v2/ - thanks to JJay for pointing it out Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thaxton ward

Non-notable band. Al 17:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a Speedy Delete. Entire piece is copied off band website- see Band history[[36]]. --JJay 18:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was disambiguated by 23skidoo. Rob e rt 00:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Christmas Story

Problem: NOt in encyclopedic form, and a very vague article presenting info largely covered in Wikipedia already. Molotov (talk)
19:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment:This article is the very best I have ever read on this website. It is precise, to the point, and informative. It is written so that people can understand it. It is brillaint and anyone who deletes it is very wrong in the head.^{unsigned by article author 62.137.135.93}

~~Delete~~Keep, Non encyclopedic article that is covered better elsewhere on wikipedia... notably Nativity. Alternately to deletion, this could redirect to Nativity or A Christmas Story. I could conceivably see someone getting the name of that movie wrong. I'll leave the religious vs secular arguments of such redirects to anyone who wants to advocate one or the other (I don't... thus the delete).--Isotope23 19:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Changed vote per 23skidoo's changes. Nice work.--Isotope23 11:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the person who created this article must have not known the word for nativity, and that's why the article was created in the first place. ~~Would it be too out of line to suggest a disambiguation page here leading to both places?~~ I now second Andrew's idea -- redirect to Christmas because of past precedent. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
redirect to nativity. I'm guessing the term isn't linked/searched enough to warrant a dab page. — brighterorange (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per others. I do like the parenthetical "Mary did the giving birth part", though. One of the better laughs I've had today. ^_^ Haeleth 23:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect not to Nativity but to Christmas, which is where Christmas stories redirects. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I would say that anyone looking for information on this would search for Christmas. If it was to be a redirect my preference would be that it go to Christmas as per Andrew Lenahan. Capitalistroadster 01:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Disambiguate with links to Christmas and the motion picture A Christmas Story. I've taken the liberty of doing this myself. 23skidoo 02:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Stormie 05:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Empire of Thrashia

Apparently a hoax, ~~"Emptire of Thrashia"~~"Empire of Thrashia" turns up 4 google hits all of which are on a gaming forum chowells 20:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. NationStates fancruft. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Why delete it, from my experiance there was something similar to this from NSwiki...or something. It seemed like the person who wrote it took some time, so why delete it? He even gave an explination as to what it was, and what it pertained to; just because it doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it merrits deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.17.163.130 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC).

Comment: Just because someone took time to write it doesn't mean that it's encyclopedic. By that logic, I could spend hours writing a long screed about any random topic and you would argue that it should be kept, even though hardly anyone would be interested. This article is of interest only to those playing NationStates. It belongs in NSwiki, not Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Fancruft for more information. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 04:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The tonalites

Non-notable, non-recording local band. Demi ^T/_C 23:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. Demi ^T/_C 23:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, their own website says they fail WP:MUSIC --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, subject of article fails WP:MUSIC and article itself fails WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Alphax ^τεχ 17:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Fastfission as nonsense. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Theanswertoyourquestion

Delete Thsi article swears, uses slang abriviations, has no content but junk, is one word long, and has no spaces in the title. I'm pretty sure that any administrator who would see this would delete it on the spot. Tobyk777 19:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete article is not encyclopedic. Molotov (talk)
19:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Note:Speedied

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TheWard

Blog vanity. WP:NOT a web or blog directory. (Alexa rank 3million+) — brighterorange (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vanity, non notable chowells 19:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep I disagree. TheWard was a popular blog geared for college aged males in the early 2000s. Its contributions in humor, writing, and graphic design were what made it popular with students accross the country. Please note as well that this is a historical reference as TheWard no longer exists in the fashion that is referred to in this article. --SeannyFunco 20:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, blogcruft that no longer exists.--Isotope23 20:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep--Frankjc2 20:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete blogcruft backed by sockpuppets. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Alexa rank of over 3.5 million and only 17 inbound links would seem to disagree with assertions of notbility. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Does not meet proposed guidelines in WP:WEB. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per GraemeL's arguments. Thue | talk 22:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unknown blog. --JJay 23:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to The Trojan Women. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trojan War women

No content worth merging to Iliad. Alr 20:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, although it hurts to vote that way on an ancient mythology article. It looks like a joke of some kind. CanadianCaesar 03:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to The Trojan Women. Penelope D 01:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per Peneope... gren グレン 10:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Truthiness

Votes for deletion:

Delete self-admitted neologism coined on TV show on day article was written. MCB 07:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologistic dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Neologism... Though I did laugh at the line about not deleting this for being "not notable enough". Did the author see this coming? Maybe we have a new Kreskin among us.--Isotope23 15:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Answered my own question... article was speedied earlier today and recreated by author (thus the text about not deleting). Can't remember if there is a speedy for recreates of a deleted page...--Isotope23 15:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is. CSD G4, and the templates are {{db-repost}} or {{db-g4}}. But this wasn't an exact recreation. Punkmorten 21:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Guess it can go AfD then... no harm in it sitting for 5 days.--Isotope23 13:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as above. KeithD (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for that pseudo-philosophical whine at the bottom. --Agamemnon2 21:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete becuase first off, what's the harm in having it, it's just as relevant as having a page on The God Machine, a machine which only exists on the Daily Show and only affects its viewers. Come on. We're trying to start up a whole little set of Colbert Report Pages...give us some slack. --Carl

But the God Machine was used weekly on TDS. As far as I can recall, the word truthiness has been used just once. It's too soon for any running jokes to have appeared on the Colbert Report. KeithD (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't Delete : This article should not be deleted because one considres it "not notable enough" for being from a TV show. Words are symbols, definitions are arbitrary. TV shapes culture. - 24.17.167.103( Moved from the article aka see article history )
Don't Delete We have hundreds of thousands of pages and it is likely that this word could be referenced in the future, the article really just needs to be cleaned up. Behun 09:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete The phrase isnt common language on the show, so for the time being its not relevant enough to make an article. If the phrase kept being used on the show it might be worth keeping. Remy B 09:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - It's not important enough for a standalone entry. Like Remy B wrote, if it were constantly used, the perception would be different. Neier 11:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete I agree, it is silly to have a page for a one-time joke. -- MicahMN | μ 17:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if the show is a hit and this becomes a major running joke, than it can be re-added. Until then, this is not notable. Andrew Levine 00:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, one-time neologism. --Interiot 23:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment How about we start one wikipedia entry that lists and defines all of his word of the days? The only problem is that it would fill up quickly, as the show is on four nights per week. --Sean WI 01:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- More filled up than... say... the MythBusters episodes? --Interiot 01:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete EdwinHJ | Talk 05:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turd Pool Language

While this does not appear to be patent nonsense, or qualify under any other speedy delete criteria, it does not appear to be a believable encyclopedia entry either. Delete if no sources are provided to verify the material in this article. --Allen3 ^talk 13:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Sounds like a silly joke, and a quick Google search didn't confirm it either. Delete as unverifiable unless legitimate references are provided. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Looks like Speedy Delete nonsense to me. --JJay 14:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:V.--Isotope23 16:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable unless quickly shown otherwise. I wonder if this is by the same anon that brought us Yopu? Dpbsmith (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ulf Axelson

Nonnotable instructor who can't claim even as much notability as an average professor. Caerwine 04:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Makes no assertion of notability. --CastAStone 05:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
delete being a professor is a kind of notability claim, but this falls short of encyclopedic notability. — brighterorange (talk) 17:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy as NN student // Fred-Chess 16:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 22:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] University Park Creek

Non-notable (almost non-place) of purely local interest. It has almost no content other than there are some culverts and storm drains somewhere. RJFJR 01:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 01:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-encyclopedic. If it actually exists, a short encyclopedic mention in the town's article is enough.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -feydey 12:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete -Falerin 17:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 06:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - absolutely no assertion of notability. -- RHaworth 21:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vicki Lee Dillard

Delete. This article is a direct copy of the contributor’s user page. ♠DanMS 20:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as the article contains no assertion of notability (WP:CSD A7); I've added the relevant tag. The (cute) photo should go too. Sliggy 21:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ville Mönkkönen

nominated before but no consensus. appears nn bio —Gaff ^ταλκ 05:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep. I originally both nominated this article for deletion and closed the debate as "no consensus", but a subsequent Googling found enough hits. — JIP | Talk 10:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep It survived Afd in September - this is far too soon to put it up again whatever its failings may be. Dlyons493 Talk 16:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Kappa 16:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, not an nn-bio. Moreover, his games are notable. Punkmorten 21:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable. Grue 16:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by The Anome as nonsense. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wakies

Neologism? Reads like nonsense. freshgavin ^TALK 06:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleting as per policy -- reason: patent nonsense. -- The Anome 07:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, and I find it strange this was ever AfD'd in the first place. — JIP | Talk 18:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wanker

Not encyclopaedic (should be in Wiktionary) Just zis Guy, you know? 20:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep there is far more information than would be appropriate for wiktionary. chowells 20:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Please keep this excellent comprehensive definition in here.... it is NOT offensive in any way.

Not arguing that it's offensive or insufficient, just that it is a dicdef. It's also a magnet for vandalism... -Just zis Guy, you know? 21:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush is a magnet for vandalism too. Punkmorten 21:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, that one's a dick def :o) - Just zis Guy, you know? 09:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep Yes it is somewhat of a dicdef but whether we like it or not its a widespread thing.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. More than a dicdef. Punkmorten 21:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is more than a dicdef as Punkmorten said. I personally volunteer to watch for vandals and do reverts to save the integrity of this encyclopedic article, if being a "magnet for vandalism" is your concern. George W. Bush, Harriet Miers, abortion and nigger are all "magnets for vandalism" too. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I don't see how this is any more than a dicdef. It seems by keeping this article you're promoting inconsistency in the relationship between 'pedia and 'tionary entries. freshgavin ^TALK 05:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Not enough room in a dic entry to fit all this info. -Andrew 06:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Teh Keep. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It is already distinctly more than a dicdef. A bit of copyediting will be able to make it encyclopedic enough. --BorgQueen 14:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect with masturbation or list of sexual slang. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 20:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Looking at some of the stuff in Category:Sexual slang I see no reason for those to remain if this doesn't. Keresaspa 17:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Borderline keep. It certainly needs some work (for example, it almost never means "one who masturbates"! it's just an insult, not to be taken literally) but there is possibly enough to say about this word, and there are entries for similar obscene words. Flapdragon 00:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. ~⌈Mar ka ci⌋ 2005-10-21 T 03:07:42 Z

Keep.
Wank --SPUI (talk) 09:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Just leave it! I had too much delight in finding it was there to support otherwise. ana

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White Rose Movement

A newly formed band that appears to have released just one single; doesn't meet any notability criterion. Hoary 03:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Notability is not a criterion for deletion. Please read the deletion policy. Keep this article. Grace Note 07:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: And non-notability isn't a criterion for deletion either. Yes, I've reread the deletion policy, and I've also read Notability and Music Guidelines. This band doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria listed there. Now, these are of course "merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion". I'm one of these editors. Perhaps you aren't. If you aren't, what rules of thumb do you use? Or to put it another way, what's your reason for a "keep" vote? -- Hoary 08:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  - What's my reason for a "keep" vote? I don't think the article should be deleted. It's verifiable and about a real subject. That's enough to be included in the "sum of all human knowledge" in my books. -- Grace Note.
  - And by the way, don't snidely correct my English. If I meant to write "non-notability" I would have done. -- Grace Note.
- Comment: Lack of any assertion of notability is already a speedy deletion criterion where people are concerned, so it's only logical to apply it to groups of people (in this case bands). Instead of arguing notability isn't a criterion, it's better to argue why this particular band should be kept based on its own merits. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure why exactly you feel justified in haranguing me. I clearly don't agree that it's better to argue the merits of this particular band, because I think all verifiable bands should be included in Wikipedia. I think "notability" means no more, no less than "I do or don't value this subject" and your valuation is meaningless to me if I do not share your system of value (and you cannot expect all of your potential readers to share it), whereas an objective standard, represented by verifiability, is meaningful.--Grace Note.
    - That seems a reasonable enough point of view, but: (i) I disagree with your interpretation of "notability", as for example I don't value (let's say) Paris Hilton but acknowledge that the media do and for this reason (as well perhaps as others) think that she's notable; (ii) there seems no incompatibility between a demand for verifiability and a demand for notability; and (iii) Notability and Music Guidelines are, well, guidelines for decisions about the worthiness of articles on bands -- guidelines that may be wrong (and that can be challenged by you) but that nevertheless exist. -- Hoary 10:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as, well, non-notable. Dottore So 10:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Please give a reason that accords with the deletion policy.--Grace Note.

Delete - nn (sorry, Grace...) CLW 15:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Normally, saying that an article should be deleted because it's "non-notable" would elicit a keep vote from me -- but the idea that someone is trying to ride to fame on the coattails of the White Rose Society repulses me. Hate me for being a sentimental hypocrite, but please Delete. -- llywrch 00:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: names are now so silly, and sensationalism is so crass and pervasive, that while I appreciate your PoV I actually find it slightly refreshing that a band would name itself after an anti-Nazi group. Or anyway it beats "New Order", in my very jaded and perhaps underinformed opinion. -- Hoary 02:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete and create a redirect to White Rose to discourage future band vanity. Youngamerican 02:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 06:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mon francais, c'est tres mauvais, mais j'a compri le message du User:DV8 2XL en "delete". — JIP | Talk 19:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilaw

This website isn't notable enought to have an a article in an encyclopedia. A Google search with phrase Wikilaw -"wikipedia" (to avoid Wikipedia copies) produces no results showing notability, like a special page in MeatBall wiki or discussion about it somewhere. Almost all internal links in Wikilaw front page are green, which means that no-one has written about them yet. No-one has edited the website during the last 30 days [37]. Many wiki special pages don't work, so I couldn't get the list of registered members or all pages. So no-one is even actively maintaining the website. -Hapsiainen 20:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per myself. -Hapsiainen 20:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Effacement un projet personel d'utilisateur Rjolly DV8 2XL 22:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are billions of moribund websites and although this article is strictly factual, it is content-free. -Splash^talk 00:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Willeekinz

Obviously. Molotov (talk)
19:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete joke article... per nom.--Isotope23 19:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator - joke article. Eddie.willers 21:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 14:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wryyyyy (2nd nomination)

Non-notable neologism. Was previously speedy deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wryyyyy). The current contents are no more encyclopedic than the original. Delete. — JIP | Talk 12:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. I was actually in the process of nominating this myself. Al 12:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Growing in popularity, so why delete it? Google hits and more hits.

Speedy delete nonsense. --JJay 13:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedied as nonsense (article excerpt: "The ultimate place for shouting out Wryyyyy is on a large modern yellow steamroller.") and based on the overwhelming consensus formed in the previous VfD that this just isn't article-worthy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yang Mingzhi

This may be a bio for non-notable Mingzhi Daisy Yang but it is rambling and incoherent. -- RHaworth 00:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Unsalvageable. Jkelly 01:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
This doesn't resemble an encyclopedia article in any way or form, and has no potential to ever become one simply because it's nonsense. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 01:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Completely useless. ♠DanMS 01:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete unencylopedic stream-of-consciousness rant --Anetode 02:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It's an essay, not an article. freshgavin ^TALK 05:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete due to the long ass sockpuppet rant that I didn't bother to read because Wikipedia is Not A Propaganda Machine. Anyone advocating for their article that poorly couldn't have made a decent wikified article. Karmafist 06:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unencyclopedic nonsense, incoherent, OR, POV essay, what else? MCB 06:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this kind of thing ruins Wikipedia, multiple rule violations, please delete --202.7.166.168 09:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no original research, unencyclopedic, sheesh ... Alex.tan 09:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Opinion. Guidance would have been a good medium. Next time.

Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. Feel free to recreate with actual encyclopedic content. --Ashenai (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete incoherent rant about ... ??? Dottore So 10:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete either patent nonsense or very, very close to it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Current version is little more than patent nonsense with no context and a weblink to a website. I'd say speedy, but for due dilligence I combed the history and read the article that previously occupied this space. That article is apparently original research and thus deletable. (per "This story is easily verifiable - names, dates, places - everything. True credibility. I am the researcher.") Based on the earlier article (the version when the AfD was added) I still say delete... and in fact I'm reverting back to that article even though it appears the author is the one who changed it, just so voters are at least looking at a version with content.--Isotope23 13:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - unintelligible. CLW 14:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Rambling essay, not an article. Probably original research as well, but who can really be bothered trawling through that much dense, incomprehensible prose? Cut it short, and cut the comments short, if you want an article. This is an encyclopedia, not an exercise for obscurantist sesquipedalianism. Average Earthman 15:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Del Dlyons493 Talk 15:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Ugh! Delete. I don't know what it is, but it's not encyclopedic. --Optichan 16:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete ??? --pgk^(talk) 18:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Mindless ranting, incoherent and inchoate, that can never make any kind of rational sense. Eddie.willers 00:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

REMOVE - Immediately - Copyright violations and infringement of protected works. "Unauthorized use" of my name in Public Forum. Thank you. R. Renda - Karmafist, see email to you.

~~Keep.~~ Just kidding. Delete.—Gaff ^ταλκ 02:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Anon Comments
I've moved all of the random anon ranting down here since he can't vote anyway due to his newbie status and is disrupting the process with his longwinded jabbering. I've also blocked him until this AfD is over so his disruptive behavior here won't continue.Karmafist 16:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you please reconsider about the block? I believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt, and it's quite normal to get upset about an AfD process. The cleanup is useful, and much appreciated, but I feel the block is a bit much. Nominating a person's article for deletion and then silencing him seems a bit unfriendly to me. He's done nothing wrong, after all. --Ashenai (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As far as I can tell, he hasn't done anything truly disruptive like removing the AfD notice or changing anyone's votes. Blocking is rather extreme in this case. I have no objection to having the long essays moved to a seperate section, however. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Karmafist about the move. Good idea. Support Ashenai and Starblind about the block, though. AndyJones 16:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I'll unblock him now. All I want is this page to be free of nonsense, although to clarify, I didn't nominate this article for deletion, even though it's pretty obvious that it should be deleted. Hopefully by now he'll understand that his rants won't be tolerated on here. Karmafist 21:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Remain appreciate the comment about an essay, not an article freshgavin. The input was worthy of something. Maybe can figure it out since am in the newspaper and mag biz and the difference can be important - notable. Then again to be here may not. We'll have an editor try turn it to an Article over the week and see what happens. To "conform." Maybe more a Media Alert than an essay, in short. maybe. But the stockpuppet comment really did prove a point about what this so called "discussion" was / is about. Maybe that fool instead of using the word "ass" in what is supposed to be (thought to be) a credibile arena should do as said in the first Remain response -- go either learn to read or sit back and just keep re-reading Jack and Jill. They would get off on Jack and Jill more. Well at least the Jack part. This is so good. And that person confirmed the credibility of the "remain" response. Those like KF who comment without knowing content. As their own admission of stupidty. Funny if all this becomes music to someone else's eyes somewhere else. Could be a good story here in itself. If it were A Propaganda who would waste their time here. That Karma ... "fist" (nice, wonder where it has been - the fist that is) should surely learn what The Word - karma means. And they just did. About a time and a place. It comes. Now KF can go sit on Swaggart's lap to get the good feel better - or maybe find a Catholic Priest, for little boys - to sit on. Incoherent, hummm MCB can it be the world in fogged glasses they live in is just ... more nonsense. May be. But who is to Judge, right ? Nonsense is not the article in question. But the fogged glassed would explain every thing. Article or essay may be just about POV. A truth in there somewhere. Oh right - I did not see anything in the rules that said when an author or researcher comments in response - they are called stockpuppets. No less other names. And what, the rules said ... don't take it personal ? All must be fooling / kidding one's self. A good example. Another "good read." Was an interesting exchange though. Entertaining. More like instead of a stockpuppet - it was the editor author taking responsibility. Instead of showing yourselves for what you really are you should just edit the page blank except for the 2 words - cover up, and save everyone else lot of trouble. And then like it was said ... those others can go back to reading Jack and Jill. Anyway, "freshgavin" thanks for the intelligent response. Appreciate it. it said ... not everyone learned that AIDS kills from just listening to what their mommy tells them while growing up as there mom was wiping their "ass" for them. Thanks. This was all very interesting. When I see this pedia come up on an engine we'll remember the world's blogs serve the international communities with more. Until we meet again. And of course, we will. Maybe some people should go back to gossip with their schoolmates - would serve themselves in a self serving manner better that way. At least after 20 or 30 years they may learn to read (or use what little between their ears life gave them). Has nothing to do with doing something good for any international community. Oh btw - we have been news people for over 25 years. And History has been written. Right here. Date noted. Well earned. At least gets the blood moving. The brain working. Researcher2 : )
Remain - Opinion - carefully reviewing the rules of participation it states both author and others may comment on the discussion. Reasons for delete are noted to be discussed. If it were title of the article in discussion then it may hold merit to be changed. That is not what we see here above. I would note "non-notable Mingzhi Daisy Yang." Which I do not think the article is about simply just one person. There seems to be many. But the subject in first comment is "non notable". Yet I would ask is that coming - and please do not take this personal -- does that come from one who has done no research regarding facts as they too speak and make comment. The person Yang Mingzhi (asian culture reverses first and last name when addressed outside of America - if you did not know that too) Yang mingzhi does come out of a community as an on air person to a viewership of only 100 million people plus. But is it that since those people are of a different culture and then they need to be discounted into the bin of "non notable". of course, what is a mere 100 million people or a 1.3 billion people or someone involved with that - as a notable person ? Also all the people involved cited in the article, are well known press people in the circles of the elite from one side of the world to the other. If I worked on a farm what would I know ? And these non notables may not be known as you know them as your neighbor next door. Yet maybe they are the neighbor next door that you should know the names of and do not ? Do you know the name of every neighbor on your block or around you block ? One could be Barry Diller but would you know ? Or do you even know who he is ? Just surely another non notable (in real life - modern history and culture, TV culture that in). But no one watches TV right. People who earned a standing in "modern day" human affairs should not be discounted. Based on what was just said, someone might say this opinion is a rant. Especially seeing length. Oh why -- because it takes time to read ? Like a magazine. That is why a magazine comes out monthly -- because it heavy in content -- to be Digested. WHo created Rolling Stone Magazine's Fashion section and department or Spin Magazine's Fashion sectin ans department do you know that ? Another of no merit just a 400 billion dolar industry in America alone, that's all. Maybe I missed the definition of an encyclopedia in Webster's dictionary. Yet again it, the article in question and this opinion is set down with facts, places, dates, people by name, and merit. Is that a rant or just something that does not meet someone's approval or time schedule to ... really ... look into ? Another comment "unsalvagable." It is strange that facts and events of real Human history are unsalvagable, at anytime. Why is that so when what is written are again facts that have been and are happening - also note: with happenings that include over distances of time. As one issue -- of course, not the main issue, is Immigration Marriage fraud, punishable in America by 5 years in jail and/or $250,000 find (according to law set in stone by Congress, Senate, and the Legislature). But you all knew that. Where in this encyclopedia is there made mention that marriage fraud is how "5" of the Atta clan acommplished taking down the world trade center buildings ? Is it when you learn about one history does it not lend light to how it could effect many others ? The comment open to discussion call "nonsense". Since when are facts - real events reduced to someone's opinion of "nonsense" ? How did YOU yourself find out AIDS kills everyone. Did someone's mother tell them ? Just another passing thought. It was that 4 page CDC flyer that was sent into every mailbox in the country spring of 1986. And how do you think it got there, Reagen just gave it up willingly ? We have done a lot of research. What is in the article are "secrets", historical secret - that are only being allow to come to surface in: this millennium , not the last. And you do not live in the last millennium, or do you ? Again is it because it does not meet someone's approval of what knowledge the world should have -- or to take away something that has a possible point it should remain. I never have consided historical facts to be nonsense. Wouldn't you really like to know who killed JFK ? Or a article on that revelation with names and places would be nonsense too. Please do not take this personal or let the hairs stand up on the back of anyone's neck. And when listening to the audio cited in the article, the "wicked page", since when is what someone has said by their own verbal voice (especially a press rep of this proportion) become nonsense again verses a fact of happening and when credibilty in human beings are the overall question. Maybe there is something to be learned from the facts, dates, and places in the article. Maybe something to be learned by many around the world. Oh I guess this response of opinion would be considered still just a "rant" by the commenters because it is not in agreement with the community opinions and is responding. Or just that it is too long to read and take serious. We know many hard working people who like to read - even simply lay people. And take the time to do it. If the story -the article in question- had no merit someone would have just posted it and gone away. Not caring whether it remained or not. Or worse yet - just have it again posted by others - not spammed - but reposted and reposted again and again by people who look to see it remain. Of course this response may be too long for some to read. Again just bushed off as a rant. I wonder how many of the commenters actually went and researched the what was cited in the article before making comment. If they did then they would be able to tell us what the depth of obligations were or what the "I am a Fraud" statement on the Wicked page means in the value of America. Or how an issue can effect millions overall. Unless we have no value. Or socially connected human beings or human events have no value. Or the told sharing of mystery in life has no valuse. IF that is the case then it should be deleted. And to prove the point - others can paste and post the same article. As they would posted it from all over the country. I would not want to have to think this (what some consider honored) community is so narrow in mind that is discounts so many others in the world who see beyond the horizons of a backyard. And since it, the article, is about two known controversial figures - even if seen (by some) as (only) underground figures or under current figures - one would question how events that include Jimmy Swaggart and media giants like SMG can be seen as history non notable - or even underground for that matter. Like I said if the issue was title of article then maybe it should read "Matter of History" - "TheWordofGod.com" "The Travels of." To consider "The Word of God" itself in Book of Revelation and in other written works have been serious business to billions of people for thousands of years. Maybe thousands of years is as we can quickly bush it off as nonnotable too. There are a number of reasons to argue the article should remain -- intellectual reasons also -- but none of them are as short as the one line opinions as those stated (posted) by the "community" above. Not wanting to take up too much of your time because others may enjoy the read, a matter of History is an unencylopedic entry to any page of daily life. Or is it ? And I would argue the article remain. Even if refined. Or then just delete and others can just as easily enter it again and again until this community does see its true merit or does the research to see the merit in full. I worked on this project with others and do not hide behind the cloak of what may be seen as the cloak of others. Anytime anyone wants to question the facts or merit of the actual article -- unless they are merely protecting some political agenda as well as motive - then I can be reached. As others too will raise there voice if it need to be heard over time, which we all have years of. The Researcher 2. MsBarbaraQin@yahoo.com Well, anyway, thanks for listening even if you dismiss this response as a rant. As for a handy excuse. Could have just left it -this discussion - unresponsed to and simply as it was said - reposted the article upon delete. We could go back to first grade and just read "Jack and Jill." That would resolve everything. Or would it ? Researcher2

remain - we could just call the article "Puzzle Pieces" and leave it alone.

Response - of course the author deleted it. One of the authors anyway. Well, not quite deleted - edited most of the body. Would not want anyone unhappy. Would have deleted all but the notice said do not leave "blank", quote: "please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." If it was unwanted there, why put it back ? Since according to the uhumm experts it is so "unsavagable." But I see you put it back. So thanks anyway. Funny. (if for nothing else it has made for brisk discussion. As it was said before. Seems to have gotten blood moving.) Maybe there is what LIFE intended ... and that is why it wound up there in the first place. Something in The Word - destiny. Ironic. Maybe those here who created the Universe can say otherwise. Of course. But you'd have to be able to read first. : ) "funny." Strange funny. Not laughing funny. Anyway thanks for putting it back. Looks better there than not. I'll have to tell "him" what is happening later in the day. Sure it will be appreciated. Also funny said "unintelligible." People in the real world (outside of this one) call it "intense" amongst other heavier things. Should we show "input" email received from Canada or somewhere on the other side of the world. Not necessary. The China Press link shows something like that about half way down where the pictures start. We have plenty. Mostly bigtime positive. People don't like people who do bad or fake things to good people. Especially with legs not crossed (as Anne would say). Many have found it clearly intelligible. What do you think, this is the only place it appears ? It is not just on the web you know. Can't be that full of yourself now can you. "Intelligible." Not my opinion. Others have their own mind. We think it is even more. Nice discussion. Does look pretty good being back there in full body, doesn't it -- And it is only day 1 or 2 ? Very interesting. Researcher2

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rob e rt 00:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yoweri Museveni/Media

It's just an orphaned image gallery containing fair use images. Presumably there was no room in the main article, so they have been stashed on this "secret" subpage. If fair use images are not used in an actual article they should be deleted, not dumped on subpages like this. So I say delete this subpage per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. --Sherool 13:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. --Carnildo 22:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Denni ☯ 00:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom and speedy the images that aren't used elsewhere. —Cryptic (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zenegra

Spam. Nothing more than an ad for the link at the bottom. CambridgeBayWeather 12:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, advertising. — JIP | Talk 12:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The web site claims to sell generic Sildenafil Citrate, but Pfizer holds the patent on it and there is no such thing as a legal generic version. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2005_October_18_1e44.html"

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] October 18

[edit] 6th density

[edit] Acuvue

[edit] Adoration (band)

[edit] Affect heuristic

[edit] Aircraft weapon

[edit] Alex Paurine

[edit] Alkhemi

[edit] American Nero

[edit] Andakataham

[edit] Anders dahl monsen

[edit] Arachibutyrophobia

[edit] Argoth

[edit] Army of Freshmen

[edit] Army of One

[edit] Arthriga

[edit] Asheri

[edit] Assyrian Future in Iraq

[edit] B-net

[edit] B-NET

[edit] Balwyn High School

[edit] Barron's-Auxier, Inc

[edit] Benjmin Dodd

[edit] Bill Stott

[edit] Blackholepit

[edit] Blue tit's

[edit] Body parts slang

[edit] Brazillion

[edit] Buck Broadway

[edit] BZPower

[edit] Carlos gaitan

[edit] Cassiopaeans

[edit] Ciara of Emerald Isle

[edit] Comparison of C Sharp to Java

[edit] Counter-Strike surfing

[edit] Criticism of Wikipedia

[edit] Previous

[edit] Rename

[edit] Keep as is

[edit] Delete entirely

[edit] Redirect (please list where)

[edit] Merge and redirect (please list where)

[edit] Comments

[edit] Cultural identity

[edit] Daniel Lince

[edit] David E. Auxier, CFPIM,

[edit] David Even Pedley

[edit] Dead Men Don't Leave Tips: Adventures X Africa

[edit] Deuce Gang

[edit] "dirty thirty"

[edit] Domobot

[edit] Douchecunt

[edit] Downfallout

[edit] E-reaming

[edit] Eastern Lenape Nation of Pennsylvania

[edit] Egg gun

[edit] Emayatzy

[edit] Enigma Group

[edit] Ethiopian folklore from a structuralist narrative perspective

[edit] EWA

[edit] False Alarm (Disambiguation)

[edit] Farrokh B. Malihi

[edit] Flecko.net

[edit] Garbage Compactor 3263827

[edit] Gay pubs in Leeds

[edit] Gephyrophobia

[edit] Glen Melendez

[edit] Gocke

[edit] Google's law

[edit] Greg Coleman

[edit] Greg Frampton

[edit] Habboparadise

[edit] Had Verheijen Painter

[edit] Hisham Sliti

[edit] InfiniTEE

[edit] Intense addiction

[edit] Italian paper clips