Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< September 30 October 2 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] October 1

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. — JIP | Talk 13:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bushhitler

Possible Hoax But defenaly hopeless POV Delete --JAranda | yeah 23:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Cleanup I was thinking about an Afd nomination but marked it for POV and cleanup because it gets some 10,000 Googles (many, although not all, for this term) and it's not hopelessly POV and reasonably well-written. Dlyons493 Talk 00:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it still is something that can't be conceived as NPOV. Titoxd 00:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. BS. -- BD2412 talk 01:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the way political debate is going in this country everyone is "just like Hitler" at sometime in their political life. None of them deserve their own articles. This seems like the sort of neologism that will disappear in 4 years and will not produce anything of note. Unless, of course, Bush becomes dictator... --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It would be interesting to see an article on the Bush-hating phenomenon in the United States since 2000. I could not find one but maybe it exists somewhere. If there were such an article, this term could be added to that article. ♠DanMS 01:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Republican president likened to Hitler, film at 11. Gazpacho 02:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anti-George Bush POV article. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it was widespread, it could be included at List of pejorative political puns, which also includes epithets; but it isn't. --Aquillion 04:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Any article that proves Godwin's Law should be deleted. Joaquin Murietta 05:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV --Rogerd 08:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom, hopelessly POV. Roodog2k (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- it's just a political attack, surely? Inherently PoV. Phronima 14:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Better use of Wikipedian resources than to dedicated space to a partisan political attack.----Keetoowah 18:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral -- I find this type of rhetoric repugnant, but this particular is actually pretty widespread: I know because I've gotten in a lot of arguments with people who undercut the effectiveness of anti-war demonstrations with signs like this. I think there could be a good article on this particular piece of rhetoric, just like there could be on "Cripple in the White House" (FDR), but I don't particularly expect a contentious place like Wikipedia to produce that worthwhile article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Neutral article on an inherently POV word. Nothing wrong with that. Could use a clean up though. --Miborovsky 21:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If every conceivable political pejorative deserves its own article, then we've all got a lot of writing to do. (I call dibs on "Chimpy McChimperson.") --PHenry 23:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is extremely OFFENSIVE and does not belong on Wikipedia. To compare George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler is just disgusting. Misterrick 00:33, 02 October 2005 (UTC).
    • Then delete shit, fuck, mofo and a plethora of other articles that could offend people. The comparison of Bush to Hitler is a phenomenon. It exists regardless whether this page does or not. --Miborovsky 00:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete per PHenry Derex 04:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the contents can be proved notable by more than one source, that is, and not just a crackpot idea. The Wookieepedian 20:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    A source? Well, any significant anti-war protest has signs with this theme [1][2]. But as I noted, it's been a feature of US left-wing politics for the past 40 years to equate conservatives with Hitler, Nazis, the Klan, etc. Gazpacho
    • I think you'll find that it's a trait of extremist politics in general, Gazpacho, left and right. The Republicans in the House of Representatives recently got called out for their hypocrisy on this point just last year, for example. As for the article: Delete, unless someone can demonstrate it to be anything other than slang. Justin Bacon 00:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (But definitely clean up) It is irrelevent whether the viewpoint is accurate, popular, or offensive. The fact is, it is an idea that is held by many people. Deleting it because you don't like the idea would in and of itself violate the NPOV standard. Cpaliga 04:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean, expand, and link to outside sources more credible.--Guitarist6987876 04:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I can't imagine anybody arguing we need a John Kerry is a U.N. pussy article, so I'm not sure this particular insult hurled at Bush really needs its own article either. Sherurcij 09:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.  Grue  16:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • comment Comparisons of Bush and Hitler are fairly widespread (as a quick Google search will confirm). While Wikipedia should definitely not have an article actually comparing Bush to Hitler, and should probably not have an article under this particular title, an acknowledgement of the existence of such comparisons (without endorsing them) would be appropriate and could probably, with some effort, be made NPOV. -- Avocado 23:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • strong delete I do not see how this could be made POV --Isolani 06:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - this article is biased, and completely pointless, and it could easily be made part of another article. XYaAsehShalomX 12:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - An encyclopidia is about facts...since you really can't compare anyone to Hitler this shouldn't belong. Would you find it Brittania? World Book? that is why it should be deleted.Flying Canuck 03:09, 8 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 13:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lackorzynski

NN & vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 00:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, unverifiable nonsense. Titoxd 00:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Cnwb 03:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity page. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joaquin Murietta 05:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 08:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is just stupidity at its worst. Misterrick 00:37, 01 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ALREADY USERFIED, so I'll remove the cross-namespace redirect. -Splashtalk 01:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polyparadigm/honeycomb

Delete. (Possibly speedy?) This appears to be a user subpage mistakenly (assume good faith) posted as an article. The contributor’s user name is Polyparadigm (see article history). ♠DanMS 00:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Wait. I've notified User:Polyparadigm, and I'm hoping for a response. Titoxd 00:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy or move to correct title, depending on his response. - Mgm|(talk) 08:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and/or Userfy Its a new person. Looks like a valid and honest attempt at creating an article. We have to be careful abount nominating these for AfD.... don't want to scare anyone away. Roodog2k (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Joaquin Murietta 15:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and figure out what its proper name should be. It needs to be moved, not deleted. -- Reinyday, 17:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Move to Composite sandwich panel and delete redirect. -- Reinyday, 18:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Wait. According to the creator's userpage, work on this and similar articles is in progress. I would be tempted to move it temporarily, if that's possible, to Composite sandwich panel so as not to lose the information, but I wouldn't want to muck up what this obviously capable user is doing. Denni☯ 01:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response, everyone. And thanks for the attention...I'm happy to do whatever, even to delete it. I'll try to "userfy" it myself, now that I (seem to) understand the problem properly.--Joel 20:48, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nannan

This dicdef has already been transwikied to Wiktionary and can never grow beyond a dicdef. Delete. Angr/tɔk tə mi 00:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unexpandable dictionary definition. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Cnwb 03:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unexpandable dicdef, already transwikied. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:15, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. This doesn't preclude a merge. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OGS

Acronym + advertisment ≈ jossi ≈ 00:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 00:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Just a comment...what is it advertising? It's an important scholarship if you're a grad student at a university in Ontario. So I guess it is of limited appeal, but that does cover thousands or tens of thousands of people. (I don't know about everyone else, but I have to go through the tedious process of applying for one every year...) Adam Bishop 00:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge but DO NOT Redirect with Ontario. "OGS" is a common acronym for "Office of Graduate Studies" or some such thing at many universities. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
A complete merge requires the article to be redirected. If the title is inappropriate, please move it to a more appropriate one before the merge. - Mgm|(talk) 08:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Can you merge and then make OGS a disambig page that refers to the common use of the acronym? Otherwise I suggest a move and merge with OSAP. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Adam Bishop. Needs to be cleaned up and expanded. -- Spinboy 03:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into a larger article about graduate scholarships in Ontario and how to apply for them, and so forth. This way we don't have an article on every scholarship. -- Spinboy 03:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It could be merged with the OSAP article. (I don't think it would be necessary to have a page about graduate scholarships in general...) Adam Bishop 05:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable scholarship (there are lots of them, and they are not notable enough to merge with Ontario (a general page covering a province with ~11.5 million people). Andrew pmk | Talk 03:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Spinboy into OSAP as per Adam Bishop, and DO NOT merge into Ontario. Completely inappropriate suggestion, that. Bearcat 03:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 08:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. We don't need an article about every funding source. Dottore So 17:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, at its new name and turn OGS into a disambig. - SimonP 01:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What makes this scholarship notable and encylopedic? I did not see anything in that article or OSAP. Maybe this information could be included somewhere but do they really need articles? Category:Financial aid is not very large, but what's there are major scholarships. Vegaswikian 06:06, 2 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 merge and redirect to Sliver - The Best of the Box (already done). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sliver (album)

Duplicate article see Sliver - The Best of the Box Case 00:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Case 00:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Sliver - The Best of the Box --JAranda | yeah 00:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy merge. Duplicate article? Name is a likely search term? -- BD2412 talk 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy merge This sort of thing doesn't need to be at AfD, does it? Just merge and redirect yourself. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sliver - The Best of the Box. Cnwb 03:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect --Rogerd 08:28, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Obidala

More slash fancruft. Didn't we just have a spate of those? The name gets about 2,000 Google hits (but many do not refer to this) and the site that it flogs has an Alexa page rank around 3.1 million. MCB 00:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Ob-la-di, Obidala? Yeah, delete this fanfictioncruft. Lord Bob 01:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-canon fanfic per WP:FICT. -Splashtalk 03:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Numa numa iei (you won't take me, and I won't take it -- delete.) ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 03:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pretty much all fanfic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete from all known galaxies. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agreed with Starblind this seems to be more or less fan fiction and is really not qualified.
  • Delete. Fanfiction fails WP:FICT. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Personally, I feel fanfiction has to be as notable as or more notable than The Very Secret Diaries to merit an article. This emphatically does not meet that standard. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft, and boring noncanon-able fancruft at that. --Maru (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Begone with thee - Dr Haggis - Talk 17:17, 4 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 19:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Stone (porn star)

Not a encyclopedia article --Mosesofmason 14:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep but rewrite. The current contents read like an advertisement. Was this written by Lee Stone himself? — JIP | Talk 14:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. advertising. may also be copyvio --Inteloutside 15:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio. I've marked it as such. Pburka 17:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and Keep as there are plenty of other porn stars on Wikipedia why delete just this one? CambridgeBayWeather 05:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As this article currently stands, it's a mess -- but a fixable mess. This version is the copyright violation -- which should be promptly handled with a delete & replace by a later version. (Let's get that information out of the history logs.) However, this later version is nothing more than a list of Stone's vital statistics & some of the movies he's appeared in -- although the photo may be a copyvio, that's another topic. Assuming this vote concerns the later version, I believe it should be labelled {{cleanup}}, & the information put into grammatical sentences. -- llywrch 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per llywrch. Copyvio problems appear to be resolved. Article is now legit and just needs to be cleaned up and wikified. Psy guy (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per llywrch. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-5 T 01:20:50 Z
  • Keep per Llywrch. CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:45, 6 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kontera

Advertising, Non-notable. See also DynamiContext™ and AdLink. Sean 21:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This entry has been transwikied to Yellowikis by User:Uncle_G's bot --Payo 12:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It has been transwikied, but we need to decide whether we still want it or not. Relisting for another 5 days. -Splashtalk 00:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — non-notable advertising which belongs on and which has already been transwikied to Yellowikis. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Andrew pmk Dlyons493 Talk 09:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely and without question delete this horrible spam-generating advertisement. Dottore So 18:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete drek. Denni☯ 01:44, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International Animal Hall of Fame

Delete as Probable hoax article. No hits on Google besides those linked back to Wikipedia. If deleted, needs some fixes as I think it has propagated to a few articles. khaosworks (talk • contribs) 00:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Clearly a hoax. I gave the anon who's been spreading this stuff a message, but probably needs more. Beyond that, anything that has zero Google hits goes in the rubbish bin.--Sean Jelly Baby? 01:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • That's a little harsh. There are obscure things that are perfectly good for articles but non-Googleable. -Splashtalk 03:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • You're right, it is too harsh. Basically, I was trying to say what you said below, because this is supposed to be an Internet thing.--Sean Jelly Baby? 04:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: this describes an online thing, so Google would find it if it were true. Or, more precisely it would find it if it were true and not completely new. So it is either new, and not-yet-notable, or non-existent. That was tortuous phrasing. Oh, and Whatlinkshere for the article doesn't suggest propagation yet: to what does the nominator refer? -Splashtalk 03:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The've since been removed as unsourced. I was going to do it myself, but thought that I'd play it safe. For examples, see the histories of Mickey Mouse, Huey, Dewey, and Louie and Barney and Friends. --Sean Jelly Baby? 04:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Mea culpa. I decided to remove the links, but I was jumping the gun a bit. Strictly speaking I shouldn't have, really, until the AfD was decided. I'll restore them if anyone wants. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. unverifiable, probably hoax. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Merge A strong argument can be made in favor of keeping, but merging this thorough yet amusing article. Here are the reasons -
  • In the alternative, we could change this from an article to a list or category.

Joaquin Murietta 05:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

But this isn't a list - it's allegedly a real organization, like the Baseball Hall of Fame or the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Categories are there to list animated characters, and if this is supposed to say which characters are worthy of a particular standard of fame, that's POV. And merge with what, precisely? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax unless referenced. If it describes a website that doesn't google, it should probably be deleted as NN too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree there is no such Hall of Fame, but why not rename to List of famous fictional animals and merge to the Fictional animals subsection of Fictional character Joaquin Murietta 15:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The difficulty there is by what criteria do you consider an animal "famous" enough to warrant inclusion? The lists listed in Fictional character make no assertion of fame, and that's correctly NPOV. To have a list of "famous" fictional animals would be POV because that can be a matter of opinion. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 15:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I see your point. How about List of fictional animals? Joaquin Murietta 15:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Just Delete it. Dottore So 18:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and POV. FCYTravis 18:53, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 19:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rochester Community Schools

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of imformation →Journalist >>talk<< 00:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom ad --JAranda | yeah 00:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT. I presume the schools are categorized somehow or other, and that's plenty. -Splashtalk 03:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Yellowikis, which is a repository of precisely this sort of information (addresses and phone numbers). Andrew pmk | Talk 03:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, or better still split into separate stubs for each school and allow for organic growth. Kappa 03:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a first! I'm voting keep on a school-related article! Lousy as this article is, I'd much rather have an article on a school district than each clone school therein. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It was the deletionists who called for school district articles in the first place, and now this one is up for deletion! Obviously this needs cleanup not deletion, and I have marked it as such which didn't take as long as must have been spent nominating it for deletion. CalJW 06:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep seems notable. 129.10.244.240 17:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if someone wants to restart it with some real info that would be a fine, but just addresses and phone numbers are not encylopedic. -Greg Asche (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, hopefully it will be expanded with maps showing the district and links to the schools will be wikified and completed. --ShaunMacPherson 07:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepEvil Eye 08:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Yellow Wikis if our licenses are compatible (otherwise Delete). Wikipedia is not a repository of addresses. This is not a article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • They are not merely compatible. They are identical. Yellowikis is GFDL. Uncle G 13:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've transwikified this directory of names, addresses, and telephone numbers to Yellowikis, the Yellow Pages wiki. Please note that other editors have, since the nomination, removed the telephone numbers from the article. Uncle G 13:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't know if an individual school is notable (usually not, I'd say), but I think a school district is. If there's enough information, there's perfectly good reason to let it have its own article. --Jacquelyn Marie 14:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and let the article evolve. Tag it for clean up. Articles tend to improve over time and we want to encourage participation by newcomers. Joaquin Murietta 15:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup - for heaven's sake, do not arbitrarily create substubs for each school. This organization makes more sense when there isn't more than a paragraph of useful information about any of the parts. ESkog 16:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep echoing Wahoofive's point that one bad article about a school district is far preferable to a spate of bad articles about wholly inconsequential tubs of mortar. Dottore So 18:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - per the idea that school district articles are acceptable compromises instead of having subsubsubstubs on every single elementary school on Earth. FCYTravis 18:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and grab the first person saying it can 'organically grow' and insist they organically add the numbers of students and age grades. Average Earthman 18:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hard to believe a list of schools has been nominated when this very sort of article is one of the compromise ideas put forward by those wishing to delete school articles. Agree with Kappa that the article should be split.--Nicodemus75 18:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It would only be "hard to believe" if →Journalist was one of those who support such a compromise. Does he? My guess would be he does not. David D. (Talk) 15:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please journalist why are you doing this it does not make any sense Yuckfoo 19:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep only because it's preferrable to having a whole slew of articles on individual schools which contain no more information than is here. Denni☯ 01:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep although the individual school entries part (about 95% of the article) needs cleanup. I disagree with that the schools should be split out to form separate articles, preferably school stubs, if kept, should be merged into articles like this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you do the math, this is much more favorable than the alternative: 20+ worthless sub-stubs. [edit] 03:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Can be broken out as school articles are made. Silensor 18:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This will link up the school articles. --Vsion 23:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- DS1953 02:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Just say no to school substubs!!!! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • comment It is a copyvio[3].Geni 14:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It's just a list of addresses, not a creative work. Kappa 14:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
claimed © 2005 Rochester Community School. We tried the it's just a list of X, not a creative work aproach with the britanica articles list. The lawers consulted were not impressed. The problem is it isn't just a list there has been some slection involved.Geni 14:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
What lawyers? Rich Farmbrough 19:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Britannica articles are selected, but this is a complete list of the schools. Kappa 14:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
No it isn't. It is a complete list of schools that fufill a certain criteria. The data has then be organised in a certian way which has been coppied exactly.Geni 14:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A certain obvious criterion of being in the district, not a judgement-related criteria of being the most important information to fit in a paper encyclopedia. I rearranged the data, I guess if you want I could add some random schools from other districts, LOL. Kappa 16:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Kappa flippant responses don't help here. It is a valid point. However, and sorry to harp on this topic again, but wikipedia could have a very good niche with respect to schools if these school district lists made some attempt to clarify hierarchy. In other words, which elementary schools feed into which middle schools into which high schools. Even on the school district official web pages this information is often missing (are hard to find). If wikipedia wants to do something very constructive with regard to schools this type of hierarchy would be excellent and non copy vio. While I'm at it, if these lists are not linked to the pages for the relevant communities and visa versa they are not that useful in wikipedia. The first clean up response on these school pages needs to be creating this type of context. Actually you did a very good job with this regard here. David D. (Talk) 16:06, 7 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 01:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crichton Park

Non notable? Abstain. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 00:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Suburbs are valid wiki entires. Cnwb 01:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename, keep and expand. --Centauri 02:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Spinboy 03:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — non-notable + stub = delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: is this "suburb" as in a defined and named city neighbourhood (comparable to Rexdale, Ontario), or is it "suburb" as in a housing subdivision (comparable to the recently deleted Creditvalley, Mississauga, Ontario? My vote may differ based on which of these it is. Bearcat 03:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone expands it soon, it is NN and needs to go--Rogerd 08:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep else merge to Dartmouth, Nova Scotia.Roodog2k (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it is proven this is shown to be a true neighbourhood or municipality. Google seems to indicate its just a sub-division tho the Dartmouth page lists it as an "area." Marskell 15:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is most likely an article started by students at Crichton Park Elementary. They are listed on Yahooligans too. So, let's encourage these young newcomers. I took the liberty of cleaning up the article. There are other articles for unincorporated neighborhoods, such as Westwood, Los Angeles, California, andHancock Park, Los Angeles, California. Let's keep the article, and allow a new generation of Wikipedians, albeit Canadians, join us. ALSO I JUST NOTICED THAT THIS ARTICLE WAS STARTED TODAY and the AfD was entered 6 minutes after the article was started. See Revision History Gee Whiz!!!! Why not let the article evolve? Sorry to shout, but 6 minutes????Joaquin Murietta 16:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Calm down. I think it's impressive that at least some of the crap that gets entered every day is so quickly flagged for richly deserved elimination. Delete as nn, inconsequential. Dottore So 18:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • OK I will be calm...and I thought about your post, Dottore So, but as a newcomer, my take on this is that a. this article is not crap, it is someone's home town. b. the author is probably a young person c. there are similar articles about unincorporated communities, this one needs time to emerge, and c. to put all this in Wiki Lingo -- Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Welcome anonymous editing. Stuff like delete messages and merger messages are very intimidating to a newcomer. To have them appear in 6 hours, before these kids have a chance to upload their photos and other text, will scare them off.
      • No, it's not someone's hometown. This is not a separate community; it's either a neighbourhood or a housing subdivision within their hometown, which is a city called Dartmouth. Bearcat 19:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Dartmouth, Nova Scotia unless it can be shown that the area is a recognized, bounded neighborhood area like the Los Angeles "neighborhoods" and not just a "subdivision." FCYTravis 18:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay. The article on Dartmouth has a list of neighbourhoods within the city. Crichton Park has been sitting redlinked on that list for months, equivalent to unquestionably valid articles like Cole Harbour and Eastern Passage. So that means that it's a legitimate neighbourhood. Accordingly, I'm down with the keep side of this, with the proviso that it needs some cleanup. I've already created a temporary redirect from Crichton Park, Nova Scotia to this title; if the article is kept, it needs to be moved to the disambiguated title since I can virtually guarantee that there are other Crichton Parks in the world. Bearcat 19:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. This article needs more context. The original article gave little but subsequent edits have provided a better understanding. It looks like it is a small neighbourhood in the former municipality of Dartmouth, and now the Halifax Regional Municipality. If the article can expand beyond a paragraph then I'd say keep, if not it probably belongs in the Dartmouth article. --maclean25 19:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy to expand. Again, the article was started less than 13 hours ago. Joaquin Murietta
  • Keep, we have thousands of articles on neighbourhoods. - SimonP 01:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per User:Bearcat's comments. Legitimate neighbourhood.

Luigizanasi 03:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, as per above, by the way Dartmouth, Nova Scotia is a nice looking article. --Cloveious 05:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The "history" section could stand to be wikified a bit, but I agree -- it's nicely done, and has some great photographs. Bearcat 05:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with the city. Neighborhoods are as a rule worthy of inclusion, but if there is not much to say about them they probably don't deserve their own article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (5 votes to delete, 3 to keep, 4 to merge into a list); therefore, I have boldly listified this entry into List of minor Biblical figures, and invite anyone interested to add names to the article as appropriate.  BD2412 talk 00:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uel

Delete. No assertion of notability. The article provides nothing more than his genealogy. Very minor Biblical character. ♠DanMS 00:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Biblical figures, no matter how minor, are valid entries. Cnwb 03:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. In Bible = notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as I can determine, he is not a Biblical “figure.” He is just a name in list of genealogies. Do we want a separate article in the Wikipedia for every name that happens to occur in the Bible? If anyone can come up with some significance, I’ll be glad to change my vote. ♠DanMS 06:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there is more than the one mention. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He was a priest who had married a foreign woman. His father was named Bani. He's mentioned in the bible. More information about this person will never be available. FJG 08:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I've misread the section; sorry. He wasn't a priest. Also, I should have mentioned that his name appears in a list of (by my count) 111 people who had married foreign women. FJG 17:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unexpandable. Biblical characters are indeed notable, but they need more than just a single mention to get an entire article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Mgm. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    I'd also go along with  BD2412's idea (below). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Listify, if there are enough others like him. Can we not list such minor Biblical characters? -- BD2412 talk 14:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per User:FJG, then stop. The article will do its job just fine. Kappa 14:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Listify as per BDA above. If all we can ever hope to say about him is what FJG has above, that shouldn't merit a standalone article. ESkog 16:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Listify per BDA. Ilmari Karonen 23:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into a List. As this article stands, it's a sub-stub, & could easily be expanded into a decent paragraph: a minute's glance of Ezra 10 shows he was one of a group of Isrealites who apparently returned to Jerusalem, & foreswore taking non-Jewish wife. I'm sure some research in the secondary literature would shed more light on the signifcance of this episode. On the other hand, only one other article (a list) links to this article, which argues that Uel is not worth his own article. -- llywrch 23:57, 3 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect with either bisexual or bicurious · Katefan0(scribble) 19:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heteroflexible

It was suggested on this article's discussion page that the entry be either deleted or merged with bisexual. I've therefore brought this here - if kept, I'll make the POV changes I previously proposed on the article's discussion page. CLW 11:42, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting for more involvement. -Splashtalk 00:52, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Urban praise

Non-notable radio show. --fvw* 16:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Not notable. Local radio shows come and go, and no one remembers them. From the description, this one seems no different. Besides, it reads like a vanity or promotional page. — Cory Maylett 18:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote as I don't know about listener figures. However, if this is kept, it needs to be renamed Urban Praise (with a capital P). CLW 18:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Relisting for more involvement. -Splashtalk 00:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Google search for "Urban Praise" radio show throws up 2,550 results, only a few of which appear to be related to the subject at hand. Rob Church Talk 01:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until it gets syndicated. -- Kjkolb 02:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — non-notable local radio show. (Although if there were an article on WMBI, it would be best to merge it there, as radio stations are notable.) Andrew pmk | Talk 03:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Rogerd 08:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per arguments above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:57, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Functionability

DicDef, or neologism as none of the online dictionaries I consulted referenced the word. Anyway, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia Outlander 17:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

  • delete for lack of context. Such a list of terms could be encyclopedic if in the context of the endeavour in which they are used! — brighterorange (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Relisting for more involvement. -Splashtalk 00:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — neologism. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Reads like somebody's PowerPoint presentation. Delete neologism —Wahoofive (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--Rogerd 08:33, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --JAranda | yeah 04:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Hoey

Reason why the page should be deleted

This evidently never got...completed...since the nomination was created, I figure we should at least give it a hearing. -Splashtalk 00:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (1) He has an entry in allmusic.com; (2) He was the winner of a song-writing contest for the San Diego Padres; (3) 55,000+ hits on Google. ♠DanMS 01:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Google search for "Gary Hoey" yields 53,500 results. Rob Church Talk 01:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--Rogerd 08:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per DanMS. Nominator didn't give a valid reason to start with, anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep seems to pass WP:MUSIC Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Clear keep. Dottore So 18:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep in light of this aborted/invalid nomination. Hall Monitor 19:36, 3 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac(talk) 01:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Outsiders (gang)

no notability assertion, just another teen gang. Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn gang. Interesting reading, though, the way the author treated the topic encyclopedically. MCB 02:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN gang. Cnwb 03:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn and, more importantly, probably not verifiable. --Aquillion 04:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Fuck Y'als! You keep fucking with the outsiders page, we may just have to come back. 152.163.100.71 08:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 08:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, well-written article about a non-notable topic. Sliggy 12:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speedy, if possible. NN wannabe gang. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Dottore So 18:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Speedy if possible. Marcus22 19:29, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Dragonrock Episodes

Complete nonsense. The show does not exist. The user who created this also modified [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Dragon_Ball_Episodes&diff=23802095&oldid=23740149 -- RattleMan 01:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Rattleman seems to have gotten confused in trying to complete this AfD, so I tidied it up for him. --GraemeL (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-existent show. The only hits I got for "Dragonrock" were for some Counter-Strike playing group. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable, probably because it doesn't exist. --Aquillion 04:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 08:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Not even funny enough for BJAODN. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax or nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:59, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rocky the Dog

Delete as this is non-encyclopedic matter about an non-notable underground comic book. [edit] 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Couldn't find it on Google and no external link provided. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--Rogerd 08:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone. By the way, that's some fascinating sig you've got there. --Jacquelyn Marie 14:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-verifiable self-promotion. -- Corvus 18:15, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 01:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New chronology fomenko

Not enough votes. Relisting. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This page is mainly the personal opinion of the user Franck ver Stut on a topic already covered at New Chronology (Fomenko). The text is rambling, unencyclopedic and POV. The page was previously blanked and redirect to the main page on the New Chronology, but Franck ver Stut reestablished the page, calling the other one 'subversive'. As the page title is unlikely to be accidently linked to, it is better that this page is deleted Oswax 06:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. The topic is covered adequately at New Chronology (Fomenko). TheMadBaron 12:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to New Chronology (Fomenko). Not having to guess the parentheses can only be helpful, until MediaWiki gets a decent 'Go' button. -Splashtalk 23:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It was formerly redirected, but Franck ver Stut reinstated the page. Nothing links to it so there is no harm in it being wholly removed. Oswax 09:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The more reasonable redirects the better ··gracefool |☺ 19:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete The anti-Fomenko article is but a massive damage control machination staged by history undergraduates in search of credits. Most of the counterarguments advanced thereof are non-scientific hearsay albeit orderly structured. Franck ver Stut --(preceding unsigned comment by 83.195.168.26 (talk • contribs) )

  • Delete, protect, admonish user. No opinion on the redirect. MCB 02:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article pales in comparison to New Chronology (Fomenko), though I'm not saying it's at Featured Article-level. There's no hope in rewriting the article, it's a poorly-made duplicate of an existing article, and there are no pages that link to it, so there would be no use in redirecting. I would suggest protecting the page if/when it is deleted, as it is likely to be brought back. -Nameneko 05:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, see first vote. Choess 01:42, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --JAranda | yeah 04:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Shuster

An ordinary broadcast journalist. Does not appear to be remarkable in any way.

  • Keep and expand, the organization which he works for (NPR) is notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep NPR rules! --Rogerd 08:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, legimate journalist, like Cyrus Farivar. Kappa 14:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep easily. He's not just a local journalist, his reports are broadcast nationally, and he's travelled internationally to do stories. --rob 17:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep legitimate and well-known journalist, completely and wholly UNLIKE Cyrus Farivar whose entry should be renominated for deletion until it's eliminated with extreme and well-deserved prejudice. Dottore So 18:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you miss Jimbo's take on Cyrus? He's undeletable. [4] . I think the best thing is to split WP into different levels, so Cyrus can be demoted along with Pokemons and elementary schools. Kappa 00:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 05:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as this is an aborted/invalid nomination. Hall Monitor 19:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Having backgrounds for existing media personalities to understand who is reporting what is a great aspect of Wikipedia. Thumbs down to those users who would socially stratify Wikipedia or turn it into a Best-of-the-Best site rather than a site that's as comprehensive as possible. Jsnell 22:55, 3 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kwmn

This article is an ad for a "non-profit community wireless metropolitan network locateted in Karditsa, Hellas." Even if it is cleaned up, it is not notable enough. -- Kjkolb 08:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete (though if there's something notable about the project I can be swayed to a Keep if someone demonstrates so). Community wireless MANs are somewhat on the bubble of notability because they represent a newish, technologically driven social phenomenon, but for precisely that reason they have to be taken case-by-case. Haikupoet 02:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Relisting for 5 more days to get more input. -Splashtalk 01:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No indication that this (an initiative to provide free hotspots) is notable. Many similar projects exist. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • weak delete vanity? Roodog2k (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete nn Pete.Hurd 21:14, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac(talk) 01:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vital arch

Unverifiable. --Jasonuhl 19:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. All the relevant google hits I found were to copies of one opinion-piece-style article, where this codename was used in passing. Bunchofgrapes 21:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Relisting for 5 more days to get more input. -Splashtalk 01:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark)|My RfA 01:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. -- Kjkolb 02:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Cnwb 03:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. non-notable, unverifiable. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Could be an article about conspiracy theories related to the codename, but there don't seem to be any. --Aquillion 04:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 08:42, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Well, the numbers are 7d-3k which is above the two-thirds level. The debate itself is pretty standard AfD stuff, and there's nothing presented to suggest that a higher bar than usual is needed here. -Splashtalk 01:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph G. Stephens

fail to meet WP:music -- WCFrancis 21:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • WP:MUSIC doesn't really apply to composers. Need to apply more general standards of notability. Weak delete, not particularly notable within his own field. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Relisting for 5 more days to get more input. -Splashtalk 01:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Wahoofive. -- Kjkolb 02:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. CD is available via Amazon, and works have been performed by university choirs. Cnwb 03:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anybody can get anything listed on Amazon. I found an incomplete listing on Allmusic, but that doesn't seem to establish notability. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - per above. --Celestianpower hablamé 12:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. If it's not on your local Clear Channel top 40 station, that means it's unnotable to you, not everyone. --Jacquelyn Marie 14:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete falls below the bar of notability. Dottore So 18:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/promo, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn composer --JAranda | yeah 00:04, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Thomas Smith

nn company, little evidence he owned it, no other notability claimed. Few, if any, Google hits. Dlyons493 21:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - appears to be nn --MacRusgail 17:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Relisting for 5 more days to get more input. -Splashtalk 01:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, open for two years and now defunct. -- Kjkolb 02:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN record label owner. Cnwb 03:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN company. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:37, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Academic Challenge

Doesn't seem to exist any more. No claim that it was ever more notable than any quiz. Dlyons493 22:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting for 5 more days to get more input. -Splashtalk 01:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Dlyons493. -- Kjkolb 02:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete In ample experience with activities in my youth, not too long ago, never heard it. No obviously related Googles either. Xoloz 08:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sabine's Sunbird 16:23, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Infamous

Non notable keenspace comic, found here. Google search shows up nothing notable for this comic, Alexa does not mention it in the keenspace traffic report. Article makes no assertion of notability. Already exists at comixPedia. - Hahnchen 01:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable webcomic, already on comixpedia. Ilmari Karonen 15:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey hold on a sec, am the original arthor of this article. Am still a bit new to the site but I found the webcomic list and, being a cartoonist, added mine onto it. The thing said "Webcomic without an article would be deleted". I added an article, updated it and am now keeping watch over it. Yeah it hard to search for, but many Comic Genesis comics don't have search links, aren't picked up by other search engines, or you have to go direct (i.e: use the whole address, not just the name) to look for it. You can't delete the article just for that. C'mon.
  • Reply - There is a problem with the inclusion criteria for webcomics, being that it is too lax. If the webcomic is not popular, has no real influence within the webcomic community and the outside community, it should be deleted. This website will probably be deleted, even though it has had some mention in the outside press and is probably a lot popular than this comic. That's because it's a website, and people are judging it as so. Because of overly slack guidelines at WP:COMIC, many non notable comics have been left on Wikipedia, and I believe this to be one of them. - Hahnchen 15:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Dragonfiend 21:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there anything I can do to keep the page from begin deleted?
    • Have you checked out the comixPedia entry? The entry belongs there for the time being. If it picks up a lot of readers and gains some sort of influence/notoriety within the webcomic and or wider community, then you could always copy it back over. - Hahnchen 12:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  •  :( Peachy. Two questions: 1.What do you guys mean by notability?

and 2. Will it still remain on the webcomic list despite the article being over in comiPedia?

    • Reply, it will not be in the wikipedia List of Comics. Some aspects of notability - Is it extremely popular/well known? Has it received critical reviews from respected webcomic journals? the wider press? Generally, what has this webcomic done, which would lift it over the others. - Hahnchen 15:02, 10 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anthros and Dungeons

Webcomic, which I can't find online. Google shows up nothing to suggest notability. The link in the article sends me to furnation, where I'm guessing this comic must have originated from. - Hahnchen 02:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents, the normal standard for a webcomic is "frequent (weekly or better) updates for over a year"; although Furnation is currently down, it doesn't look like this meets that. --Aquillion 04:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, or transwiki to comixpedia if they want it. Ilmari Karonen 15:31, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Googl Research & Development Dictionary of Pseudowords

Rambling essay about chat room game, neologism, etc. — Mateo SA | talk 02:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as OR, gamecruft, POV essay, whatever. MCB 02:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete utter nonsense. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly the article is about something that the author found highly interesting, but it has no meaningful content for readers in general (that is, the subject of the article is not notable). Sliggy 13:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unimaginative OR. Denni☯ 02:04, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AP Math

non-notable, unverifiable, original research, and/or nonsense - no Google hits - GTBacchus 02:12, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Super Mario World Episode 13: Mama Luigi

Synopsis of non-notable episode of Saturday morning cartoon from 1991. FuriousFreddy 02:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Stomp that Goomba into oblivion. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 03:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Episode of notable TV show. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keepp, Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 03:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to cleanup, though it's already been sent to cleanup. -Nameneko 05:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; show not notable enough for every episode to have an article. tregoweth 06:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
What do you base that statement on? - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
The fact that the show isn't on the air anymore in reruns is a good one. Another is its obscurity, the fact taht it only ran for one season, the fact that nothing notable happened in any of its episodes...need I go on? I suppose we should start making articles for every episode of Scooby-Doo as well? --FuriousFreddy 05:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and send to clean up. Instead of trying to delete it, make one change to improve it then it'll be good enough to keep ;).--ShaunMacPherson 07:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep In general, if WP has an article on a television show, articles on episodes of that show are worthwhile, whenever someone bothers to write anything close to reasonable. Xoloz 08:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all articles about all episodes of all TV shows, unless they contain something other than statistical information and a plot synopsis. — FJG 09:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
A plot synopsis is essential to an episode article, what else do want to see included? - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Anything but an unreflected summary of fictonal events. Beer Bad (Buffy episode) is an interesting article because it discusses the episode's simplistic moralising, for example. Plato's Stepchildren is an extremely interesing Star Trek episode because it showed the first interracial kiss ever depicted on (American?) television (although the article fails to discuss this properly). Articles about a show's plot arcs would be interesting too, because they'd represent collation of information.
(To clarify: A plot synopsis is fine. But I think just a plot synopsis isn't. Sorry for not being clear.)
— FJG 10:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Trust me, Super Mario World has no plot arcs. I saw every episode of it when I was a kid, I can honestly tell you that the series was not impactful enough for much more than a passing mention. --FuriousFreddy 05:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup and possibly merge in a list of episodes to avoid fragmentation. If there's an article on a serialized show, episodes are a reasonable expansion of the subject (unless it's something like Top of the Pops.- Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if Buffy (et al.) get episode guides, I don't see why this shouldn't too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sure Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which ran several season, was a top-rated show. Super Mario World was a thirteen episode Saturday morning cartoon, and is hardly as notable. The "they did it, so we can too" reasoning is not a valid defense of the existence of this article, especially since the other twelve episodes aren't covered. Why not , if plot synopses are desired, mae on article with all of them. They'll certainly all fit. --FuriousFreddy 05:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with FJG. And execrable content created by fanatics of various tv shows is not grounds to retain more execrable content. Dottore So 18:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Like someone said, Buffy has episode guides, so can this. OmegaWikipedia 20:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft. "There's a lot of useless crap in Wikipedia" isn't an argument for keeping this article. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge with List of Super Mario World Episodes nn tv episode on nn Tv show that didn't that last long compare to Buffy and The Simpsons --JAranda | yeah 00:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I do not believe that because some television shows have articles for their individual episodes, therefore all of them are entitled to have articles for individual episodes. I am not convinced that Super Mario World is a show that needs articles for every episode (it ran for 13 episodes in 1991, and has not been seen in syndication for years), and this article as written tends to suggest otherwise. --Metropolitan90 04:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, episodes of fairly large TV series deserve some mention, although I would support merging this into a bigger list of episodes if there are more of these articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. The precedent is just about set for TV episodes. I'm going to vote in accordance with stare decisis on this. — Phil Welch 04:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Show me another instance where someone wrote an article for an episode of a short-lived Saturday morning cartoon and it was kept, and I'll agree with you. --FuriousFreddy 05:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • You might be surprised. Have a look at List of Drake and Josh episodes, which links to 22 seperate episode articles. We also have articles for (nearly) every SpongeBob episode, as well as Strange Days at Blake Holsey High, Grounded for Life, and many others. There's definitely an emerging precedent for TV episodes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        • "Holy Moley." That is surprising. Although, truthfully speaking, Spongebob is far more notable a series than Super Mario World. I've never heard of the other shows, so I don't know what to make of the fact taht they have full episode guides. --FuriousFreddy 22:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Spongebob is certainly popular, but one could easily argue that this is at least as important, being part of the Mario phenomenon which has been going strong for more than 20 years now and with no end in sight. One could make a very convincing case that Mario is the most consistently-popular character of the past quarter-century. Have a look at List of best selling computer and video games and note that 4 of the top 5 bestselling games for all platforms are Mario titles. Who knows where Spongebob will be in 20 years? This is why I tend to be very inclusionist with pop-culture stuff... oftentimes, notability is in the eye of the beholder. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • True, Buffy is much more notable than this short lived cartoon show, so comparing the two is maybe not the best argument, but I'm going to vote keep anyway. Millions of kids must have watched this episode, so to me that makes it notable. Everyking 07:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy redirected --Doc (?) 09:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ottoman Poetry

was tagged for speedy, but it's not Abstain. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:24, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vai que é Mole

tagged as speedy, probabaly not speediable Abstain. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment I have cleaned up the article slightly, and added a reference to its IMDB page [5] --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid film entry. Cnwb 03:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a valid film entry. Carioca 20:59, 6 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no votes, so defaulting to keep). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Halim

somebody tagged as speediable, probably it's not, so sent to afd Abstain. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Answers.com thinks it's misspelled, and Google thinks it refers to "Abdel Halim Hafiz" (an Arab singer). Andrew pmk | Talk 03:43, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was BJAODN and DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edd Egg

None notable webcomic, found here along with its empty forums here. Alexa ranks the URL of which it is hosted at 1 million+. The article gives no assertion of notability and Google gives 25 results for "Edd Egg". The webcomic author is listed directly below. - Hahnchen 02:31, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eddache

Webcomic author, see directly above. - Hahnchen 02:32, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MOVE to Wikipedia:List of TLA disambiguation pages. -Splashtalk 01:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of TLA-Dabs

Could use more votes. Relisting. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

This page seems to be made redundant by Category:3-letter acronym disambiguations. The only article in the main namespace that currently links here is TLA, and that link should probably point to the category instead. If kept, this page should at least be moved out of the main namespace. Ilmari Karonen 19:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete and point the link from TLA to the category cited by IK. Probably not a common way of referring to the concept, so no need to keep a redirect for either usability or GFDL history. Barno 20:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Can an article page redirect to a category? -- BD2412 talk 20:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Technically speaking, yes, but it's a bad idea.—Wahoofive (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and changed the link at TLA. There are now no more links from the main namespace. --Ilmari Karonen 21:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Update: 132.205.45.110 added a move template to Talk:List of TLA-Dabs yesterday, but did not list the page at WP:RM. I have added the listing, and will add a note to the talk page pointing the discussion to here. Since the consensus currently seems to be in favor of a move, I'll go ahead and move the page if no opposing votes appear within a few days. Ilmari Karonen 11:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and move to Wikipedia namespace: this should have been moved when the other TLA pages were. -- Francs2000 20:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to WP namespace as per 132.205.94.190. Nabla 23:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Move as per above. —Phil | Talk 13:45, 10 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Who's your daddy?. — JIP | Talk 15:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who's Your Papi

Tagged for speedy without a reason (though the talk page refers to needing cleaning). Since I don't think it's a speedy, it comes here instead. -Splashtalk 02:38, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE and tell the sock puppets that "abstain" means "neutral vote", not "save from deletion". — JIP | Talk 15:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capa City 711

was tagged as speedy, probably not Abstain. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Has no context and makes no sense (to me at least). A google search for "Capa City 711" returns 0 results, so doesn't seem there's anything notable to write about anyway. --W.marsh 03:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research/essay. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain Its very needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.82.225.15 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-01 03:50:23 UTC.
  • A group of schoolchildren had a vague idea to make something called "Capa City". They couldn't settle on whether they were going to make a game, a comic, or a film. It doesn't exist, and this article is an outline of their idea, apparently written by them, along with a request for people to contact the group if they are interested. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. It is not a vehicle that people may use for hawking their ideas for games and films to the rest of the world. It's an encyclopaedia. This sort of thing belongs on the authors' own web site. Delete. Uncle G 13:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G. It's skirting close to several speedy categories, but probably isn't quite speediable. Ilmari Karonen 15:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete seems like somebody is using wikipedia as a free web server for personal use to me. --rob 17:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G. --Metropolitan90 04:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Uncle G. I can't tell if these people are brilliant or crazy, or both, but this is not a Wikipedia article. MCB 06:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain This is the greatest idea since the Colliseum and chicken fingers, it belongs on Wikipedia because Nishant is a genius and must be praised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.196.171.108 (talk • contribs).
  • Abstain While this hasn't been completed, it's a real cool ida that should at least be finished before it's deleted! --67.81.222.84 22:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain This was a project which if realized would influence generations to come. This does not seem to be a 'vanity project.' The Title refers to many things it seems like however abstract they are. There might be some ambiguous statements, but that does not constitue deletion. Let these free spirits continue for Wikipedia should in the bowels of all its knowledge in future years hold this concept, and it does seem as a concept, exist for the future generations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).
  • Abstain SAVE FROM DELETION!!! This article falls under a category that shouldn't be deleted. --67.81.215.131 01:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC) ~~note--67.81.222.84 01:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC): I fixed this because this person didn't comment correctly and added more then one Abstain67.81.222.84
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 01:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] StreamlineNet

Advertising for an random hosting company. AaronSw 02:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or transwiki to Yellowikis. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per nomination Pete.Hurd 21:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • do not delete StreamlineNet are not a random hosting company, they are around the 8th largest in the UK (Disclamer: I do work at StreamlineNet (10th October 2005).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, thus keep (but still marked as a copyvio). Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CJ Muere

The ultimate example of vanity. Delete-- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • The CJ Muere article is needed. It should not be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Footzyxxx21 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 1 October 2005. which seems to be the author of the entry
  • Move to proper name of subject, give it some NPOV, and add references. Alphax τεχ 03:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Drini Anetode 03:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio, actually. Marking as such.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 05:00, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Celestianpower hablamé 12:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wesism

It's a page about sayings from "Wes," the person who probably created the page. Ben D. 03:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Ben D. 03:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's not about one person named Wes. Perhaps maybe it was made as a page for people in general, hoping that words by one person might make a whole bunch of people laugh. AlR. 23:20, 30 September, 2005 (EST)

  • Don't Delete per nomination. - AlR 23:22, 30 September 2005 (EST) (this is AIR's first logged-in edit)
  • Delete per nomination --Scott Davis Talk 03:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nonsense Anetode 03:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy To paraphrase the article, this is C|R|U|F|T. Karmafist 04:15, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Power City

non-notable imaginary city Cnwb 03:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I took out an external link to an online shop. Kappa 03:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Can it be speedied as nonsense? --Scott Davis Talk 03:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no context. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately it does make sense. I doubt if anyone would complain if it got speedied though. Kappa 03:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Can't we speedy this as A1, then? Doesn't provide much context to me... If not, delete anyway. Ilmari Karonen 16:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Google for '"Teri Hiatt" "power city"' turns up zero hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:50, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Chevrolet SS - note that a number of the votes appear to be sockpuppets, and that there does not appear to be any salvagable material in the article that is not in Chevrolet SS. – ABCD✉ 08:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chevrolet SS396

The article's fundamental premise and whole reason for existing is incorrect. The false idea is that that the "SS396" is a separate model and not just an option on models such as the Chevrolet Chevelle or Chevrolet El Camino. Deletion is also recommended because the article also has incorrect statements and does not add useful information that isn't already repeated elsewhere.

  • Delete per nomination. - Novasource 03:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge & Redirect to Chevrolet SS Anetode 03:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per anetode --Mysidia (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Ayocee 16:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Brossow 17:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination.
  • Delete per nomination. 69.148.137.131 17:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. BBUSSE 17:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. 66.219.231.18 18:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. 67.167.216.89 02:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. 209.235.165.4 14:17, 15 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied as CSD A7 candidate. FCYTravis 19:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Gosenca

Vanity, non-notable band member. Quale 03:12, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Chevrolet SS. The article SS396 used to be a redirect to Chevrolet SS396, which was redirected as Chevrolet SS per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chevrolet SS396. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SS396

This page only serves as a redirect to a page which is recommended for deletion. Novasource 03:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Novasource 03:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Chevrolet SS Anetode 03:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Delist -- Articles for deletion isn't appropriate for a redirect. If the outcome of the deletion debate for the article is to delete, then the redirect may be diverted to another article or listed at WP:RFD --Mysidia (talk) 05:55, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep! --Phroziac(talk) 01:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Perishers (band)

By own admission, not notable Jwissick(t)(c) 03:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Their songs have appeared on popular TV series, and they have collaborated with Sarah McLachlan. Cnwb 03:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No "major commercial breakthrough," but still notable. Ben D. 10:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Have an allmusic [6] page, in accordance with WP:MUSIC--CastAStone 18:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, apparently they qualify under WP:MUSIC criterion #2 (national/international concert tour). --Metropolitan90 03:59, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] La docte Antiquite dans toute sa duree

Delete. This article consists of someone asking a question about the meaning of a French phrase. “Please tell me what's the English for "La docte ... ” The question was answered. Now let's delete it. ♠DanMS 04:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete WP is not a reference desk. --Rschen7754 05:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, attempt to communicate. Kappa 14:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipedia's reference desk. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, the question should have been sent to the reference desk, but it was asked and answered, so it's not needed now. --Metropolitan90 03:53, 2 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 speedy delete - author requested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Highbreed. But please continue the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User:MMORPG research. -- RHaworth 03:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Highbreed

Looks like original research. What is "Highbreed"--the word doesn't appear in the text of the article? Any chance of salvaging or merging? Paul Hope 04:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The title is the author User:Highbreed. -- RHaworth 02:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Eng4 reseacrh paper.". User:Zoe|(talk) 07:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all "Eng4 reseacrh paper"s Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for research papers. Sliggy 12:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. This is simply a copy of User:MMORPG research. -- RHaworth 02:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hey please don't delete my page. Here are the this needed to be done:
  1. Disambiguation
  2. Split and merge with computer game series MMORPG. It's more than 30kb long
  3. Move or redirect the definition of terms to wikiionary. Rename the article to MMORPG afters research completion.
I need help please I am just a new user in wikipedia. Those that complain about my page being bad you can help edit my page. -- Highbreed 10:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry Highbreed, but I'll have to vote delete. First of all, I don't think that a disambig for Highbreed is necessary..the word Highbreed refers to nothing except your username. Merging the bit about MMORPGs to MMORPG wouldn't also be a really good idea in my opinion, since your opinion doesn't really add new information to the article. I assume that most of the words which you want to move to Wiktionary already have articles, but we could add those entries. We can't however move that whole section to Wiktionary, since that would be violating the Guides of Style on Wiktionary. And don't forget to mark your posts using four tildes ~~~~; it makes things less confusing for both of us :P -- SoothingR 11:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey I did not mean that I am gonna move the whole page to wikitionary. I mean just some of the definition of terms. That's why I said I am going to rename it because It isn't really supposedly to be highbreed. Okay I will reopened it by the name of MMORPG

hey this is me again. Just wanted to remind you people that you can help edit my page since I already gave my username and passwrod. Okay

  • Another comment: we don't need your password to edit a page -- SoothingR 05:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I vote undelete because the information quite interesting although, the page sure needs a lot of work from the experts.

Keep Hey the page is worthy. It's just that it needs more restructuring and editing. Keep Cursed user talk zoe for starting the deletion page. Grrrrrr

If you don't need a password to edit the page then why not do it then. It's your choice. However marijuana is everywhere.

1 What Wikipedia is not 1.1 Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia My article is not an encylopedia. Ahehehe 1.2 Wikipedia is not a dictionary Definiton of term can be relocated to wikitionary 1.3 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought This is not my thought I don't even agree with soem of it. 1.4 Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine I am not an ad man 1.5 Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files I don't even have pics 1.6 Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider Hey I am the one paying here and contributing 1.7 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Well it sure looks liek one. Ahehehe 1.8 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Hey, who will win in the election. Place your bets now! 1.9 Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors Then why did you censor my username and password. Hypocrites! 1.10 Wikipedia is not an instruction manual They should write idiots guide to wkipedia. 2 What the Wikipedia community is not 2.1 Wikipedia is not a battleground It is a cemetery 2.2 Wikipedia is not an anarchy It is dictatorship 2.3 Wikipedia is not a democracy It is corrupt 2.4 Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy We have no money to pay for bureaucrats! 2.5 Wikipedia is not a blog I agree. Anti - blog 2.6 Wikipedia is not a chatroom. Then why did you put a discussion room. arrggHH.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. — JIP | Talk 17:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ask-it-here

Non-notable website NeilN 04:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • DELETE Page is obviously a vanity page. also QnA that could mean anything to anyone User:Redconverse
  • delete --Rschen7754 05:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - Ad/Vanity page. dosn't even appear on the first page of google hits for its own name. CastAStone 18:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only non-notable people are speedy deletable. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:23, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by [User:Petaholmes] as an A7 --Doc (?) 12:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aethyr clans

Gaming clan vanity. Quale 04:41, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clan of the Dead Goat

nn community vanity, and they even mention that they're not well known in the article. Delete with an AWP headshot.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete MONGO 10:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - 11,900 google hits, is good enough. It seems to be a notable group and website Its parent site, www.csnation.net seems to be what may be notable, and the fact that these customization communities exist would be more encyclopedic/should be mentioned somewhere, so perhaps merge with another article... --Mysidia (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Only 85 of those hits are actually unique. Happens a lot with forums. --Icelight 12:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Wrote the article, so I won't vote, but its like Mysdia said, it is a large community. Also, the forums are not well know in the ENTIRE CS community (which could easily consist of 1 billion+ people) but are very well known in the CS customization community. Hope you guys will take this into consideration. --Banana! 01:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • You're allowed to vote; it's when floods of people with an interest in the article but no interest in Wikipedia as a whole that votes start getting disregarded.
      I admit, I'm not a CS buff of any kind, but I've never heard of CotDG despite being fairly well-informed about computer/video gaming in general. Has it had any mentions in press, either gaming press or mainstream? How has it influenced the modding community as a whole? The answers to these sorts of questions help establish notability, and it seems like this is a borderline case. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. There are lots of Counter-Strike communities out there and most of them are not notable. Nevertheless, appears to have an OK Alexa rating (13,327). Andrew pmk | Talk 02:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment This is actually the Alexa rank for the entire CSNation site, a much larger group which only hosts the CDG forums. (csnation.net has exactly the same Alexa ranking. It's like trying to figure out the traffic for a blogspot blog.) --Icelight 12:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment -- On the other hand, due to their use of multiple domains including gunshop.clandeadgoat.net and www.clandeadgoat.net, it seems to be impossible to figure out what their overall Alexa ranking would be. --Mysidia (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable CS forum and skin designers. The article itself confirms this, and the 85 unique hits for "Clan of the Dead Goat" confirms that it doesn't have a wide presence. The Alexa rank is because it is hosted on CSNation, a much larger site. --Icelight 12:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I think Icelight has it about right on this. I'll change my vote if convinced otherwise. Marcus22 19:42, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Mossrockets

Apparently non-notable band. No all music entry, limited Google results and has only released one album according to the article. -- Kjkolb 05:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Also Bent St. Jam and Spud Gun (band) --Scott Davis Talk 11:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The second album was in preproduction last December according to the article. If this article is deleted (or anyway), the two that link to it Bent St. Jam and Spud Gun (band) should probably go too. --Scott Davis Talk 14:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity. User contributions show that Peter Gray created all three articles. --Scott Davis Talk 14:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. If claims in the article could be verified, might barely scrape past WP:MUSIC. Ilmari Karonen 16:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Ambi 09:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I have added {{afd1}} to both Bent St. Jam and Spud Gun (band) redirecting to here. --Scott Davis Talk 11:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and related forks as unverifible--nixie 02:35, 4 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sanat Va Honar

Small, non-notable brake manufacturer. -- Kjkolb 05:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep if the # of employees part is true, they're probably notable enough for an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. —Cryptic (talk) 07:33, 9 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. – Rich Farmbrough 19:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thangata

I don't know if it can be expanded beyond a dicdef. Weak Delete Titoxd 05:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • My comments only: I found [7] that it is also the name of a place in Kenya. Someone knowing more may please comment further. In case, it is the name of a place, deletion is not appropriate, changes will have to made in the contents. --Bhadani 14:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- because it is a good stub, and there is a good possibility someone may expand it beyond a dicdef. --Mysidia (talk) 18:03, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 22:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TRANGO real-time embedded hypervisor

Advertisement and non-notable technology. (TRANGO and hypervisor) gets only a handful of Google results excluding Wikipedia mirrors and spam sites. -- Kjkolb 05:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Advert. CastAStone 18:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as above. Pete.Hurd 21:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, NPOV, cleanup and remove the diagram (probably copyvio). Hypervisor links to it. Should probably be moved to TRANGO. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:29, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert 01:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Megan McCauley

Rep of the singer gave permission for use (they didn't specifcy if that permission was compatible with the GFDL), but artist does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines, delete.--nixie 05:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. That's the second-scariest picture I've seen on WP recently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "up and coming" is future speculation --Mysidia (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The Elektra Soundtrack page on Amazon [8]- read the comments - I think up and coming is legit. Also between the Elektra soundtrack and the Fantastic Four soundtracks, isn't that 2 major releases? Still, I won't be heartbroken if she goes... --CastAStone 18:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Except for one edit to The College of Wooster Greeks , all of this user's edits have been to afd pages. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • So What? I'm new to the underworld part of wiki, but I've been around long enough to tell good from bad...--CastAStone 07:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the major soundtracks she's on. Copyright issues are gone along with most of the original text of the article. Even that awful picture is gone (hopefully somebody can put in a CD cover). --rob 18:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. She has pages at artistdirect and allmusic, though they are mostly blank, and lots of Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep fails the letter of WP:Music but that's just a rough guideline. The 2 songs on notable movie soundtracks, the AMG page, the google results... seems likely to cleanly pass WP:Music before too long. If not this could be revisited in my opinion. --W.marsh 00:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per rob, appears to be a notable soundtrack singer-songwriter. Hall Monitor 20:01, 3 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 18:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Obsessive Wonkacruft minutiae; nonencyclopedic. tregoweth 05:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and Merge The first encyclopedia was written by obsessives. Merge to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film) Joaquin Murietta 05:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- obsessive Wonkacruft? ..maybe. Interesting? definitely. --Mysidia (talk) 05:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Good article about a major book and two major films. CalJW 06:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge important differences to movie articles. This is an excellent, detailed, and interesting list, but I think many of the differences are too minor to note here. Eric119 06:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, OR. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I assume the "OR" means "Original Research". From Wikipedia:No original research:
      • Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.
    • That means we're welcome to take info from primary sources (aka the book and films), put it together, and organize it. --rob 18:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting comparison, and I haven't seen or read either work ;). --ShaunMacPherson 07:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Strangely compelling reading while I'm supposed to be at work. CambridgeBayWeather 08:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I found this incredibly useful and interesting. Cnwb 08:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Joaquin Murietta. Who's going to look up a title like that? Dlyons493 Talk 10:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Joaquin Murietta. An interesting article that deserves a far more accessible title! Sliggy 12:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep or merge as per above. Roodog2k (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, aids readers to understand how the work has been reinterpreted. Kappa 14:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong merge. --Jacquelyn Marie 14:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but retitle. 23skidoo 16:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but transwiki to Wikibooks or somewhere, because this isn't necessarily something you find in an encyclopedia. Titoxd 19:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and retitle. Useful and too large to merge with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly suggest transwiki to Wikibooks, beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Summarize a few of the major points, and provide a link. --FuriousFreddy 04:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cool article. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 05:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (film). Such lists don't deserve their own article, but the info is valid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I really think this deserves its own page. It's too big to be on the movie pages. Also, definitely needs to be renamed.- JustPhil 17:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all of this verifiable information about famous works. Do not merge as this information applies equally to three different articles (the book, and 2 movies). Merging it into another article, would inevitably mean the comparison information would become redundant in each of the three articles. The suggestion of the merging it into the article about the 2005 film is especiallly bad. The 2005 film is a re-adapatation of the book, *not* a sequel to the 1971 film. Hence comparisons of the 1971 film to the book, would not belong in an article about the 2005 film. Information in this table is simply beyond the scope of any of the three other articles. --rob 18:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this on its own page please even though it was many years ago we discussed this as a class once and this could be helpful for teachers now and later who read this to their students and want to talk about these difference so why erase it or move it really it is fine where it is Yuckfoo 20:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a very interesting article. Carioca 23:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting, but possibly convert into an image format? --Sb2k4 15:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-5 T 01:47:21 Z
  • Keep. --BMF81 10:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (Ibaranoff24 23:48, 6 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yowza

Non-notable website. 53 Google hits, most of which are pages on the site itself or blog ads. Reads like an advertisement. Quicksandish 05:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Ad for the website, non-notable, article is copied text from homepage of site. Ben D. 05:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I have just had a look at this page I cant see what the problem is. I remember a guy on my local radio station saying yowza. I think the page should stay. Steve Canterbury UK (preceding unsigned comment by 82.34.171.149 (talk • contribs) )
  • Great to see some infomation on Yowza, I agree with steve that this entry should stay. Yowza was used at the station which I work at. It is defenitly something I feel other people should have infomation on.

Regards Jon --JonMax1 20:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC) (user's first edit)

  • Delete as non-notable. MCB 07:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic, could be added to Wiktionary. -- Corvus 17:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete At best a dicdef. Not worth the non-paper it's not printed on! Marcus22 19:46, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stachnikov's triflexian quantum multiplex theorem

Page is made up. "Stachnikov" gives only 2 (unrelated) google hits, no record of book on Amazon. See also listing of Stachnikov below. -- SCZenz 05:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Searching arXiv and Google show that terms biflexian, triflexian and quantum multiplex are unknown to physics. If this is not a hoax article, it appears to concern a very cranky 'theory' [sic] unknown to science. So delete as patent nonsense.---CH (talk) 06:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • patent nonsense is content that is irredemably incomprehensible, which this is not. (Note that hoax articles are explicitly excluded from the definition.) The phrase that describes what you are talking about is either "original research" or "unverifiable". Uncle G 14:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • An admin should perhaps compare User:Lionosmom with 155.198.78.191 since the latter IP addy has just been used to make very similar edits to the articles in question, but previously was used to vandalize National Science Foundation; check the contribs of this anon! A Google search on Lionosmom is also suggestive regarding this persons reasons for coming to Wikipedia. Admins should probably monitor this user and this IP addie for further problems and possible blocking---CH (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Only developers can check whether an IP address is associated with a pseudonym. Administrators have just comparison of the contributions histories to go by, just like everyone else. The edit from the anonymous account was 6 months ago, and is not necessarily the same person, especially as the IP address belongs to a University. Uncle G 17:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
That is a good point, UncleG, but do a Google search on Lionosmom.---CH (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like a good example of nonsense to me. — Laura Scudder | Talk 07:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It is not, however, patent nonsense. Uncle G 14:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, as above William M. Connolley 09:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC).
  • Comment, I haven't had time to fully evaluate this, but the ISBN is incorrect, according to http://www.isbn-check.de/checkisbn.pl?isbn=5529476913 . -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The article cites no sources (The article lists a book, but Albrecht Folsing has written no such book according to five book sources.), and research turns up nothing. The claim in the article that "Stachnikov" wrote "a paper a year" is belied by the fact that no-one seems to be able to find any papers at all. This and Stachnikov (AfD discussion) appear to be part of a pattern of hoax articles, with the link to Albrecht Folsing an attempt to make them plausible. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 14:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ejrrjs | What? 17:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete linas 18:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. Peter Grey 02:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Karol 11:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable --Kgf0 17:19, 3 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stachnikov

Page is made up. "Stachnikov" gives only 2 unrelated google hits, no record of book on Amazon. -- SCZenz 05:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • comment Can anyone verify or debunk the claim about the placque in Red Square? I have to agree that as far as I can see, if he even existed at all, this Stakhnikov was at best a very very obscure crank, but did he have some other claim to fame in the former Soviet Union? If not, the article should be deleted.---CH (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete: this is why I am changing my vote: I left a query addressed to User:Lionosmon on the talk page of the article in question, which was 'answered' by an 'anonymous' editor using IP address 155.198.78.191, which has been previously used to vandalize National Science Foundation. The anon simply asserts the placque is real, but his credibility has pretty much vanished, I think, in light of prior vandalism activity.---CH (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can confirm the Red Square claim and find a biographical reference. — Laura Scudder | Talk 07:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as above. William M. Connolley 09:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete. I can't find reference to him in any of the major academic/science electronic resources. I see no signs of verfiability, and the user who posted the information has only provided un-useful lines like "For cross checking this article I recommend using subscription eJournals of any notable physics publication, Stachnikovs influence isn't too hard to find!", which does not seem to be true. I searched for his Russian spelling in Google and came up with nothing as well -- one would expect that someone with a plaque in Red Square would have had at least one reference to it online. I think this is nonsense. --Fastfission 13:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • For the reasons given in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stachnikov's triflexian quantum multiplex theorem, Delete. Uncle G 14:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ejrrjs | What? 17:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete linas 18:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Karol 11:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ISBN of reference is malformed; no record in Lithuanian, Polish, Czech searches --Kgf0 16:35, 3 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 No Votes, No Consensus Karmafist 14:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Zaidlin

I have been unable to verify that this writer or his works exist throught Google, but that might be because they are in Arabic/Hebrew. -- Kjkolb 05:54, 1 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 wasSpeedy delete as single-person vanity

[edit] Dallas dowdy

NN / Vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 06:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete NN. Jwissick(t)(c) 06:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Going bye-bye as a speedy. Complete vanity. - Lucky 6.9 06:09, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 07:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about disasters

Disaster has rather flexible nomenclature. Thereby rendering this list unmaintainable.

  • Delete lists of disaster. --SuperDude 06:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- flexible nomenclature will mean the list gets large, eventually, yes, but at such point it can be split, too. --Mysidia (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - yet another unencyclopaedic, unlikely-to-be-maintained list. --Daveb 13:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, users should be able to find examples of songs about disasters. Can be refined if necessary. Kappa 14:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and refine. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I am starting to think about some of the subtopics that could be included... songs about natural disasters could be one, songs about environmental disasters could be another, and so on. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - worthy topic. Can be split up when number of listings warrant. 23skidoo 16:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable list OmegaWikipedia 18:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the word Disaster isn't even clearly defined. If I broke up with my lover, I might consider that a disaster. Unverifiable and unmaintainable list. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful and interesting list. --Centauri 06:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. List of songs on a subject which is not too broad, nor too trivial. I think most people will interpret "disaster" as "major fatal catastrophe" and not a wrecked love relationship. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an encyclopædia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep a useful crosslinking of related songs...dave souza 22:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorize Lists should be used instead of categories only if there is a definable set of members that can reasonably be expected to have every member listed. This list is by its nature uncompletable, so a category, with appropriate subcategories is the way to go. Caerwine 00:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete More useless listcruft --JAranda | yeah 04:12, 7 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autobiographical songs

Any song can be autobiographical to a certain degree.

  • Delete. This could be every song ever made (excluding instrumentals). --SuperDude 06:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Verification of this list would be nearly impossible. Quale 07:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Surprise here... weak keep iff the list is revised to include only songs with sources that substantiate claims to their autobiographical nature. This is a list I support as valuable, when it appropriately scholarly. Xoloz 08:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, per Xoloz, but the sources better be pretty darn strong (e.g. the artist himself says that it's an autobio song, like Loretta Lynn's Coal Miner's Daughter.) -- BD2412 talk 14:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Xoloz. Kappa 14:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Xoloz. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Xoloz though sometimes the songs themselves will qualify as sources. 23skidoo 16:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Xoloz OmegaWikipedia 20:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as the criterion specified by Xoloz is not in the article and will be routinely violated. But at least this has potential to be verifiable, unlike some other lists.—Wahoofive (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as preposterous listcruft. MCB 07:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an encyclopædia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mel Etitis --JAranda | yeah 04:11, 7 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 Delete Karmafist 21:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lessthanthree

Non-notable internet slang, WP:NOT / Wikipedia is not .. a usage guide --Mysidia (talk) 06:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete a/a. --Daveb 13:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, already described under emoticon. Ilmari Karonen 23:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep popular internet slang, like pwn and teh.  Grue  16:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Would anyone actually search for "lessthanthree", given that "<3" is not a valid name for a Wikipedia article? If yes, my suggestion would be to redirect to emoticon, but I find that somewhat hard to believe. I could be wrong, of course. Ilmari Karonen 19:10, 4 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs whose title includes geographical names

According to the article size, this list renders unmaintainable.

  • Delete. Subtrivial listcruft. --SuperDude 06:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. Xoloz 08:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unmaintainable. Dlyons493 Talk 10:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but subdivide into different articles. Hundreds of edits by different users, seems a shame to waste all that effort. The talk page is 95k for instance Astrokey44 10:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unecyclopedic. — mark ✎ 10:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unecyclopedic. Ben D. 10:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another unencyclopaedic list. --Daveb 13:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep as per Astrokey44. Roodog2k (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep. Pretty useless and very hard to maintain but it seems some people find this interesting enough to contribute to (and, presumably, read) so it seems a shame to throw the work away. It's unencyclopedic in the traditional sense but is it unwikipedic? We seem to have a lot of listcruft and I'm not sure where to draw the line on that. The high amount of activity this page has got seems to be an indication that there is some interest in the topic. - Haukurth 14:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The number of contributed edits suggests this list is being maintained. Subdivision is needed, though. Sliggy 14:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, wikipedic and useful to anyone interested in which locations inspire songwriters. Kappa 14:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, though if the list gets long enough, it will need to be subdivided into continents or nations or so on, and made into those separate pages. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Useful list OmegaWikipedia 20:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete How can this outright trivia be considered encyclopedic even by the extraordinarily low standards of inclusionists? Dottore So 18:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Valid list. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is beneath trivial. No more encyclopedic than List of songs whose title includes the letter x. Quale 23:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful and interesting information. --Centauri 06:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as preposterous and unmaintainable listcruft. MCB 07:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful list for music lovers. Not too trivial. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - unmaintainable --MacRusgail 13:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it wouldn't have been created and maintained if it wasn't of interest. - SimonP 13:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an encyclopædia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, -DePiep 20:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the list has been maintained by myself and others for months now and the large number of edits by the large number of users testifies to the desire for such a list within Wikipedia. Thanks to DePiep for the heads-up. Thryduulf 20:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am a DJ on Omar's Dance Party on KLDK lpfm, 96.5 FM, in Dixon New Mexico and have been both a contributer and a USER of this article and another of the song title lists. I have done two shows thus far, one using all songs with American states names and another with American city names. I have also used the Nonsense title song list for a show. As an aside, I find it interesting that it is the "delete" folks, the "Nay Sayers" if you will, voting here who seem to need to justify their vote by writing mean, insulting and/or derogatory comments. Carptrash 01:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ditto. Very useful for radio station DJs, as are many of the other song lists (as a DJ on Radio One (New Zealand) I can vouch for that fact). Also, as Thryduulf says, the sheer number of editors to this page indicates that there are a lot of Wikipedians willing to expend time on this article. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorize Lists should be used instead of categories only if there is a definable set of members that can reasonably be expected to have every member listed. This list is by its nature uncompletable, so a category, with appropriate subcategories is the way to go. We have a category system, use it! Caerwine 02:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Haukurth and others.-gadfium 03:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Listcruft --JAranda | yeah 04:10, 7 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about laziness

The term laziness obviously has variable nomenclature; rendering this list unmaintainable.

  • Delete as subtrivial listcruft. --SuperDude 06:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ambiguity renders it unverifiable; if a list like this could exist, it would need a more exact title and almost wholly new content. Xoloz 08:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- such vague reasoning for deletion. --Mysidia (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, criteria can be refined as neccessary. Kappa 00:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful and interesting information. --Centauri 06:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as preposterous listcruft. Shall we create an article for every possible topic that a song might be about? MCB 07:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - why bother? --MacRusgail 13:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is an encyclopædia, not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see any problem with laziness as a term for inclusion in a list. --Apyule 01:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    You're quite right, of course — but that isn't the reason that many of us want to delete the list (see SuperDude, MCB, MacRusgail, and me, above). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I can see where you are coming from, but I don't feel that this is an indiscriminate collection of information, or even that difficult to maintain. Lists like this do pose some problems, but I think they are worth it in the end. --Apyule 12:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This list might be useful to some music and song lovers. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorize Lists should be used instead of categories only if there is a definable set of members for which it would ever be possible to have every member listed. This list is by its nature uncompletable, so a category, with appropriate subcategories, is the way to go. We have a category system, we should use it for collections like these! Caerwine 02:19, 7 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 20:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] April Severin

From the article, it appears that she has only written self-published books, websites and greeting cards. Kjkolb 06:28, 1 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 Single-person vanity.

[edit] Jordan DiBona

NN/Vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 06:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC) Say bye-bye to Jordan. Vanity article. - Lucky 6.9 06:34, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (socks disregarded) · Katefan0(scribble) 19:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DoubleSign Astrology

The creator of this article, WalterJKin (talk • contribs), is also mentioned in the article as the inventor of the "DoubleSign Compatibility Calculator" at doublesign.com. It seems that this is an article about a particular company or website rather than about a distinct branch of astrology (and the capital letters in "DoubleSign Astrology" indicate a proper name rather than a generic term). This company or website might not be sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Google gives confusing results: a number of hits, but possible use of multiple domain names by the same organization or syndicated content? Needs further investigation. -- Curps 06:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Note this Google Search for "DoubleSign Astrology". When I run the search for 100 hits per page, I get "Results 1 - 76 of about 4,910 for "DoubleSign Astrology", indicating a lot of mirrors (4910 pages, but only 76 distinct pages). Some pages indicate a registered trademark: "DoubleSign® Astrology".

Similarly, a Google search for "double sign astrology" gets only 31 distinct pages out of 551 pages. -- Curps 06:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Combining Chinese zodiac signs with Western ones? Come on, astrologers should be more inventive than that in their endless quest to tax the gullible. This isn't nearly as stylish as that Russian woman who tried to sue NASA for impacting a comet. . . Anville 12:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE, PLEASE

DoubleSign Astrology is a branch of Astrology Hey guys... I'm Walter J. Kin, who happened to be founder of DoubleSign.com which uses DoubleSign Astrology as its main basis for matching people. DoubleSign.com, by the way, has more than 55,000 registered members. But I'd rather talk about DoubleSign (or New) Astrology. It's not my invention and is very popular among readers. Inventor of DoubleSign Astrology Suzanne White published her first book "The New Astrology" in 1985 and this book (along with 3 others that discuss DoubleSigns) sold in millions in 15 languages. You can check www.SuzanneWhite.com and Yahoo News about her.

    • I did removed my name from the article if it seems to be unacceptable for any reason.


I also mentioned 5 other astrology experts, bestselling authors that wrote books about combined DoubleSign tradition in DoubleSign Astrology. As you can see on Google search for "DoubleSign" produces 14,600 results, search for Suzanne White, returns 38,000 pages. When I search for The New Astrology" I get 16,200 pages. Another search for phrase "New Astrology" returns 35,800 pages. In case it still seems as not enough to recognize DoubleSign Astrology as a branch - here are more Google results for this expression "Combination of Chinese and Western Astrology" returning 152,000 pages.

  • "Suzanne White has written COSMOPOLITAN'S annual 50-page horoscope pamphlet in French each year for the past ten years. She has written columns for major publications in both the US and France and in the past few years, has regularly forecasted the future in Chinese Astrology for both Tarot.com and AOL.com."

Source SuzanneWhite.com

  • "1986 THE NEW ASTROLOGY - first published in French as LA DOUBLE ASTROLOGIE by Robert Laffont Publishers Paris. In the same year, THE NEW ASTROLOGY was published by both St. Martins Press (USA) and Macmillan (London). This book still is a long time best seller. It sells over 20,000 per year in the US alone. THE NEW ASTROLOGY also exists and sells well in British English, French, German, Dutch, Spanish, Polish and Czech. This book's concept is unique. White blended Chinese Astrology with Western Astrology thus inventing 144 "NEW" astrological signs. (12 animal signs combined with 12 sun signs makes 144 "new" character types). It's amazingly accurate. Suzanne White actually created 144 NEW character types."

Source AstroSoftware.com

  • DELETE, This is simply masked advertising to provide legitimacy to a contrivance. WP should not be used to legitimate such cruft. Dottore So 18:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and 24-hr block the author for cluttering up the VfD page. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 19:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I found my husband according to DoubleSign Astrology and we are happy for more than 8 years
    • That's pretty good since, according to the article, DoubleSign is a compound word first used in 2000 to describe "The New Astrology". User:Zoe|(talk) 23:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Keep - although the term DoubleSign pretty new, the DoubleSign Astrology books exist for many years. They call it "The New Astrology" or something else - but it's the same combination of Chinese and Western horoscopes and really good advice to choose a husband.
  • delete This is an advertisement. The article contains next to no information, opaque allusions to celebrities and vague handwave towards related astrological systems. Note also, entry above, that an anonymous product endorsement is a poor reason to argue for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Pete.Hurd 21:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This kind of commercialism is what gets the astrology a bad name. - BorgQueen 21:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising, spam, vanity. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. See related AFD at DoubleSign -- PhilipO 23:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert, vanity, and unencyclopedic. MCB 07:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but prune severely. Remove long list of celebrity signs, and commercial advertising. --MacRusgail 13:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. While I don't believe in anything to do with astrology, this appears to be verifiable (its existance, not its efficacy) and noteworthy. I attempted a cleanup, per MacRusgail's comments. --GraemeL (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your support. Thank you for voices of support. Although I apparently had a bad start, constant work on the article which I intend to continue, hopefully will make it a useful and clean of advertisement piece that people can enjoy and benefit from. I took a liberty to paste back information about 144 celebrities and their DoubleSigns, which I think is very enetertaining - it took me long hours within many months to compile it - gathering information from respected sources and checking celebritys' signs against DoubleSign calculator. I totally agree with clean up that removes anything that is against Wikepedia policy, especially vanity and advertisement. I'm happy to continue to work on building Wikipedia knowledge base and appreciate your cooperation. --WalterJKin 14:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, WP:ISNOT a undiscriminate collection of information. The celebrity lists must go if the article wants to even have any chance at staying. Restrict that information to your website and keep the article about DoubleSign Astrology itself. I will not change my vote, but some people may if you do this. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 00:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment : Please notice the writer simply refuses the cleanup done by User:GraemeL and pasted back the celebrity signs for its entertainment value. My vote remains at Delete. --BorgQueen 15:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Move GraemeL's version seems a reasonable and encyclopedic article, but I'm extremely leary about keeping the article under its current name due to the inherent advertising value of using one trademark for one version of the basic idea in the article name when the Wikipedia article (and its clones) show up in search engines. Suggest moving to Chinese and Western astrology (or a better neutral name) and leaving DoubleSign Astrology as a redirect to the general article. Caerwine 02:32, 7 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pavle lukin

Lukin is a muay thai fighter, according to the article. I have been unable to verify the article through Google. (Pavle lukin muay thai) doesn't get any relevant results and neither does "Pavle lukin". Also, I don't know if the accomplishments in the article would merit an article. -- Kjkolb 06:36, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Peoples Host

Non-notable web host. -- Kjkolb 06:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

so please don't put your fingers in something u have no clue about first learn about it and it's not that everything is on the internet well if u wan to see the proof why don't you call BRANKO CIKATIC OR PRESIDENT OF IAMTF FEDERATION AND ASK? so learn something now "IF IT'S NOT IN THE GOOGLE IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT REAL"

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sdrg

Not notable DarbyAsh 06:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - DarbyAsh 06:50, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agim Coma

Non-notable actor. The "article" is just four links to movies on IMDB and amazon.com. IMDB shows only three of these, the other link is to amazon.com. The roles are non-notable (hotel clerk, bailiff, unnamed) as are the movies themselves. IMDB has no bio info for Coma, so there seems little hope of expansion. All of the google hits appear to be unrelated or else wikipedia or IMDB mirrors. The page is linked from List of Albanians, so that entry should probably be removed if this article is deleted. Quale 07:05, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep · Katefan0(scribble) 19:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doug Alker

Not notable and will date DarbyAsh 07:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - DarbyAsh 07:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Published author[9], seems to be a notable public figure. His willingness to date Darby is no reason to delete this article. Pburka 19:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Self-published. I added the information about the book into the article. I'd like to know if there is any way to get enough verifiable information on him to expand the article further. Jkelly 22:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I suggest that the info in Alkerism should be merged into this article, and Alkerism changed to a redirect. Pburka 01:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment There's no reference listed for any of the material at Alkerism. Is any of it verifiable? Jkelly 02:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, chair of the British Deaf Association. Kappa 00:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am Tomato, the writer of the article on 'Alkerism'. I would be happy to see 'Alkerism' and 'Doug Alker' merged, with a link to 'Deaf Culture' - an excellent article. I am new to wikipedia so forgive me if my articles are not perfect. If you want to contact me, please email me: tomato (circle-a) spc (dot) org. References are:
  • Keep - chair of the British Deaf Association. --Celestianpower hablamé 11:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Prominent figure in deaf community (BDA & RNID) Mrdini
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Free trade. Robert 20:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freetrade

Not notable DarbyAsh 07:28, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Profaynes

I was unable to verify that this group, or one of its more famous members, DJWatchman, existed through All Music and Google. They didn't tour over a wide area. Also, they only released a few singles. -- Kjkolb 07:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable is written all over the article.--SoothingR 07:55, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TRIPODS

Not notable. Jwissick(t)(c) 08:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable unless somebody can make a good case that it is really notable. Thue | talk 09:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and redirect to The Tripods. 23skidoo 16:11, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U Dae-keong

nn bio. 202.156.6.60 08:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, doesn't currently assert notability. Thue | talk 09:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No vote; with the addition to the article of his exhibition in Germany it isn't so clear he is non-notable, and I don't feel competent in pottery to judge. Thue | talk 11:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Retain: He is a regionally shown artist.
I have since discovered that he was shown in Europe as well (see entry). (Kdammers: I don't know why four tildes don't record my name regardless of where I place them:Kdammers 12:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete or Speedy under A7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, regionally shown artist. Kappa 12:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Dottore So 18:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not make any assertion of notability. Denni☯ 02:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. per Thue and Denni. Gamaliel 03:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Being a native Korean myself, I tried to search his alleged name "우대겅" (which is a very unusual name in local standard, by the way) in a widely-used korean search engine www.naver.com, and I got zero result. I tried Yahoo Korea and again, zero. Google Korea, zero. I am beginning to suspect his name has been wrongly typed in or he is utterly non-notable. --BorgQueen 22:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
First, thank You for calling attention to my spelling error. The name should be 우 대갱 / Thus U Dae-Kyeong. I have moved the article. Second, a negative search of the Internet is hardly adequate basis for non-notability - especially in creative, noncommercial areas. If You live in Korea, You could call the Nonsan Culture and Arts Center at 041-734-0815, since they just had a showing of U's works, and ask them about his notability. Third, where is notability (i.e., that it is relevant and what constitutes it) discussed: I searched http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy and the word is not used.

Fourth, invitational international showing would seem to me to be at least prima facie evidence of notability in the visual arts. Kdammers 03:26, 5 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted and redirected to Gang. — JIP | Talk 08:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnamese Boyz Gang

This has no references and no meaningful google hits. If deleted, also remember to remove from List of street gangs. Thue | talk 09:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to speedy this, not least because it is being continually vandalised - but I can't see a WP:CSD that it obviosly falls under. (delete, btw) --Doc (?) 13:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Cnwb 11:45, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CURNOACKS

Not verifiable, no Google hits. Wrong name or possibly hoax. --Vsion 09:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete--Exir KamalabadiEsperanza 13:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Isn't a windward blowing wind an oxymoron? Or at least a tornado. Pburka 19:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - "Curnoack" is the Cornish for Cornish person (also spelt Kernewek) or Cornish language. It could be renamed "Curnoacks". --MacRusgail 13:07, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indulgeo Primus Syndrome

This term has no google hits. Thue | talk 09:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete nn, though I did notice its linked to by Kicker bird Astrokey44 10:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete creative nonsense. Kicker bird is by the same user. CambridgeBayWeather 10:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per nomination. Ben D. 10:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Pete.Hurd 21:33, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP and MOVE to Zenith Data Systems. Robert 21:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zenith data systems

non notable. its link to zenith is actually something else 202.156.6.59 10:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep notable name in computers from that time period Fg2 11:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for their historical importaence. Dlyons493 Talk 14:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to Zenith Data Systems. I used to have a Zenith 386 laptop. Pburka 17:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I used one tabletop PC of theirs. Ejrrjs | What? 17:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm ok. I withdraw my nomination. Keep --202.156.6.54 17:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep and redirect of course this does not even need to be here at all Yuckfoo 19:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The joy of having two three-fingered salutes to use (Ctrl-Alt-Del in addition to the usual Ctrl-Alt-Ins) is something I remember still. Caerwine 02:40, 7 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Highway Casanovas

Non-notable band. they only released one demo album 202.156.6.59 10:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nomination, we should also delete the article for their demo album. Ben D. 10:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN band vanity. Cnwb 11:47, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was} DELETE. The first keep vote is by a user who has only four contributions, the second seems to be by the article's author. — JIP | Talk 08:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disfunctional Generation

non-notable gaming clan. 202.156.6.59 10:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete As per nomination. Ben D. 10:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and this should have been speedy. CambridgeBayWeather 10:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I have heard of this clan, they are well known in the Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force community. There is no reason to delete this. P4computerguy 10:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'd love to speedy this, but I can't think of a WP:CSD I can stretch that far. --Doc (?) 11:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Doc's point illustrates the need to expand the basis for speedy deleting, since this really ought to be speediable. Dottore So 18:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Vanity page. -- Corvus 17:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Too many compulsive voters here! (unsigned comment by User:24.220.160.193)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 speedy delete as a non-notable biography (WP:CSD A7). Hall Monitor 20:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sandy Scragg

Unencyclopedic; personal info that would be better on a user page. Nach0king 10:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete As per nomination. Ben D. 10:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity / user page. Cnwb 11:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Userpage created in main namespace. No need to userfy, as the article's contents are already in the userspace. Jkelly 22:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete CSD:A7, no assertion of notability. MCB 07:26, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One for the Road

An alleged demo album of a non-notable band. 202.156.6.59 10:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. NN release from NN band. Cnwb 11:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Kjkolb 03:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- As per nomination. Ben D. 13:56, 3 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doom 4

Covers a single interview mentioning a hypothetical future game that is "[not] in production" and for which there are "[no] imminent plans of starting something". Fredrik | talk 10:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Doom. Extraordinary Machine 11:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Please, no. The same information was added to that article and I removed it. If anything, it could be added to an article about the Doom series. But I think even that is a bad idea since the interview does not reveal that a Doom 4 is in production or even planned, only that if it were, it wouldn't be developed by id Software. Fredrik | talk 11:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral I'm torn betweek keep and merge on this one, and if merged, I'm not sure where. However, I would like to say that the quote referenced is completely correct, as I read that article too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball, and even if it were, the game won't probably ever be made. — JIP | Talk 14:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - too crystal ball, although there will most likely be a Doom 4 let's wait till such a game is actually announced, rather than build a stub around a magazine quote. 23skidoo 16:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If there is no game and there are no plans, then there should be no article. Denni☯ 02:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This entire article is based on one offhand comment by someone who by his own admission would not be involved in making the game. Not everything John Carmack says merits an article, particularly when it's just a statement of the obvious. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:52, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macroculture - small scale social interchange

Non-notable concept, but perhaps someone could prove otherwise? 202.156.6.59 10:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC) Should be a term definition. The construction is logic as to "macro" just specifies the relative size to a micro- and subculture.

  • Delete. Writer seems to have gotten a little mixed up in terminology. Information presented here is in conflict with that contained in reference materials. Denni☯ 02:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as confused original research. MCB 07:31, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 12:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opposite day

Almost all of the article, including the term's supposed origin in Calvin and Hobbes, is unverifiable. Anville 12:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not unverifiable, but unverified. An OR essay is not research, and is the only link. Not encyclopedic. Having been here since August and not having improved much makes the eventualist it theory unlikely to come true here. (Incidentally, I played this when I was a kid). --Blackcap | talk 12:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you played this as a kid it seems likely to be notable enough to have an article. Lots of Google hits. Verifiable information on the term's origin. Give it some more time. - Haukurth 14:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a very common feature of schoolyard culture. Having gone to elementary school before Calvin & Hobbes, I'm pretty sure the origin predates Watterson. Whitejay251 14:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I remember as a kid when friends would do things that they were not supposed to, and when confronted, would raise Opposite Day as a defense and demand a reward. -- BD2412 talk 14:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. notable cultural phenomenon. If the article needs research and citations, then so be it. — brighterorange (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep interesting cultural aspect. Though I, too, doubt that it really originated with Calvin and Hobbes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs to be further researched and well substantiated though. The fact (?!) that this predates Waterman shd atleast go into its talk page if not the main page. --Gurubrahma 17:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep interesting phenom. Dottore So 18:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep unless it is opposite day today, then I would have to say delete. It is a part of children's culture, just like the snipe hunt Dominick 18:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with List of school pranks. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 19:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please opposite day has been around for a long time anyway
    • (unsigned vote by User:Yuckfoo but we already knew that because he always says "please." Would that all editors were so polite. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment see Children's games. Almost all of these suffer from a similar verifiability problem, but I wouldn't advocate deleting them all. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:39, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zainal Shah Alam

NN Vanity. 202.156.6.60 12:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity. See also Nofingers. --Blackcap | talk 12:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Waste of space. CambridgeBayWeather 12:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Cnwb 14:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Closing admin: don't forget to delete the picture, too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I listed them on IfD a few days ago. --Blackcap | talk 06:29, 6 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mohamed Syam

NN vanity page. 202.156.6.60 12:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity. See also Nofingers. --Blackcap | talk 12:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Waste of space. CambridgeBayWeather 12:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Cnwb 14:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Closing admin: don't forget to delete the picture, too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Already on IfD. --Blackcap | talk 06:29, 6 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Salary-celery merger

Possible hoax, unverified. Google turns up two hits, both of them forums. --Blackcap | talk 12:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Nom removed now that sources are cited. Keep. --Blackcap | talk 23:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a real merger, it has sources. 64.200.124.189 12:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah? Where? --Blackcap | talk 12:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • (Cox & Palethorpe, 2003) is a source and it's that source is shown in the article. 64.200.124.189 12:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Don't you remove my words. "Oh yeah?" is not a personal attack, and removing it is vandalism. --Blackcap | talk 12:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
        • From what I can tell, Cox and Palethorpe are authors. An author without a title is not a very useful piece of information in terms of encyclopedic validity. --Blackcap | talk 13:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Keep as references were added --NeilN 12:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Article title may not have the best name, but topic of article seems valid, and Google returns many non-WP, non-webforum links showing that Cox + Palethorpe are Australian linguistics researchers ([10], [11], [12], for example), and this genuinely looks like something their research would cover; in fact, [13] says, in a footnote on p 13, cf. Australian English vowel changes in progress in some areas such that "salary" and "celery" sound the same. See Cox, F., and Palethorpe, S. (2001). The Changing Face of Australian Vowels. In Blair, D.B. and Collins, P (eds). Varieties of English Around the World: English in Australia: John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam, 17-44. Proof enough for me. Keep DS 13:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. As soon as it's in the article I'll say keep. --Blackcap | talk 13:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • verify This appears to be some kind of linguistics-related article. If its not primary research, then keep. Roodog2k (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't much like the title as it stands and will shortly propose a better one, but it's very much a real merger, and very much not original research. Another reference for the Victorian merger is Cox, F. M. and Palethorpe, S. (2003). "The border effect: Vowel differences across the NSW–Victorian Border". Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society: 1–14. . (All refs so far have concerned the Victorian merger and if they mention the New Zealand one at all, I think it's mostly only as a tangent. I have some refs on the New Zealand merger but not immediately at hand, and haven't read them completely enough just yet. I may do so during after mid-October.) Cassowary 2005-10-01 14:30:37 UTC (according to edit history. Uncle G 14:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)) (yes, it was me —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 14:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC))
    • QUESTION You state that it's very much a real merger, and very much not original research but all the work seems limited to the two authors cited as references (and presumably this article has been authored by them or a related party). As such, is it accepted enough to justify inclusion here? Can you provide a non-Cox and Palethorpe reference? Dottore So 19:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Your presumption is wrong; much of the text was originally written by me in a post on a web forum not too long ago (and plagiarised when included here), and I'm very much neither Cox nor Palethorpe. Cox and Palethorpe seem to have been involved in a relatively high proportion of what's been published on Australian English phonology in the last decade (or perhaps my searching methods are geared towards finding stuff by them...), and I haven't seen anything on the Victorian merger except by them. (But then, I'm not a linguistics student/linguist and haven't read all that much.) I've never been too concerned about the lack of diversity in authorship because as a merging speaker living in a predominately merging community I've made and heard many puns/been confused by the homophony on a number of occasions. There seems to be more diversity on authorship of the merger in New Zealand, but as I say I haven't read much on that so can't talk much about it... —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 23:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for content (title change would be OK) see [14] for reference to celery-salary. Dlyons493 Talk 14:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Australian English —Wahoofive (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. This could easily be summarised as a paragraph as one section in the phonology part of New Zealand English, with a similar section in the Australian English phonology article. It doesn't need a separate article. Some of it also seems quite odd, if not incorrect (like the bit about it being the only feature shared between NZ and VIC but not the rest of Australia, which I'm sure is not the case - the word "chance", for instance, is pronounced the same in VIC as in NZ, but not as in the rest of Australia). Grutness...wha? 01:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Question: How is the word 'chance' pronounced in NZ and Victoria, and how is it pronounced in the rest of Australia? —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 04:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The "a" is as in "part" in NZ and Victoria. In many other parts of Australia it is as in "pants". In SA and Tasmania, it is slightly closer to the "a" in "fall". The same pronunciation is found in the word "advance" - it is often possible to pinpoint which state an Australian comes from by asking them the name of their national anthem. Grutness...wha? 06:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, real, verifiable conditioned phonemic merger. To those who don't like the name, examine Category:English phonology and you'll see its name is consistent with many similar articles. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no merge, I can remember this being discussed in my college "Dialects of English" course, and that's something, because I slept through much of it. Xoloz 08:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, looks legitimate. The name is no sillier than the foot-goose merger. Ilmari Karonen 23:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Bryce 17:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no merge. --Zeborah 02:31, 13 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nofingers, Mohammed Hasfi, Muhammad Faris

Guess who? Nn vanity bandcruft that fails WP:MUSIC completely. --Blackcap | talk 12:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment See also the AfDs for Mohamed Syam and Zainal Shah Alam. --Blackcap | talk 12:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete waste of space CambridgeBayWeather 12:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Cnwb 14:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete bandity. Closing admin: don't forget to delete the pictures, too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't worry, I already listed them on IfD. --Blackcap | talk 04:51, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied as A7 --Doc (?) 13:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Owen mcateer

No claim to notability.--Carabinieri 12:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Why? (unsigned vote by User:80.44.124.199)
    • Well, why is this article notable?--Carabinieri 12:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • To clarify, article-creator-who-probably-is-but-possibly-is-not-Owen-McAteer: the article doesn't tell us why Owen McAteer deserves a Wikipedia article. It's just his birthdate and location. For someone to be in Wikipedia, there has to be something noteworthy about them. Google indicates that Owen McAteer is a reporter for the Newcastle Evening Chronicle, which isn't notable enough, and even if it was, this isn't the same Owen McAteer, because this Owen McAteer is only nineteen. Sorry, guy. Delete. DS 12:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Isn't this a speedy criteria now? Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • In fact, looking at the article history, it was marked as such, but the tag was removed by 80.44.124.199 (talk • contribs) Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • ...and while I was wrting that, it was speedied anyway! Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm getting faster --Doc (?) 13:26, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Al's Patented Weight Cutting Technique

Potentially dangerous hoax. Google gives nothing for "patented weight cutting technique", and nothing for various spellings of "allen umberidgson". There are plenty of hits for "Tyrell Biggs", but though the article claims Dr Al is his trainer, there are no hits for "Tyrell Biggs" + "Dr Al". DS 12:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Why the hell is this up for deletion? It's an insightful look into the weight cutting of the boxing world. User:CLW
  • The article cites no references and as the nom stated, there's nothing on Google. Delete. --NeilN 13:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Non-verifiable; likely hoax; potentially very dangerous. --Daveb 13:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It only says that Dr. Al was Tyrell Biggs' one time trainer, at an amateur gym, so why would there be hits for him on google? User: RHaworth 220.245.178.132
    • Stop impersonating other users [15]. That's a blockable offense. --Blackcap | talk 13:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • And if he's that non-notable, then why is he here? --Blackcap | talk 13:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. As an aside, this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. As a boxer and a weightlifter myself, I can personally attest that no one in their right mind would do something as totally ridiculous and bad for one's own health as to induce vomiting and diarrhoea to make a weigh-in, especially in boxing, when you can often just go up to the next tier. There's no cut-off for heavyweights, all weights are allowed of boxing, so before the weigh-in, you'd just sign up for the next class. If you need to lose weight that badly, then you're in the wrong weight division. --Blackcap | talk 13:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. feydey 15:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. Also, even if every word is true, an encyclopedia isn't the place for weight-loss techniques. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ditto ditto Joaquin Murietta 19:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, tiresome hoax. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as a ridiculously dangerous hoax. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, at least it's so stupid no-one would actually do it. --Apyule 05:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE My son attempted to cut weight with this method, now he is comatose! And he's gone all retarded. (and i ain't talking about late in french!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.245.178.131 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 3 October 2005.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmed Sammoud

Would be vanity, but claims notability as creator of Tornado Os - which is itself up for deletion. If the creation goes, so too should he whose only fame is being its creator. DS 13:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Non notable.--Exir KamalabadiEsperanza 13:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional Delete -- wait until the fate of Tornado Os is decided; if the outcome of that debate is delete, then delete this, otherwise keep it. --Mysidia (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Tornado Os has been deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:10, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. (Will move to fix title.) · Katefan0(scribble) 19:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blender Magazine's 500 Greatest Songs Since Your Were Born

possible copyvio. 202.156.6.62 13:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, like 100 Greatest Britons. Kappa 14:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, listcruft. — JIP | Talk 14:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is this article up for deletion? What's wrong with it? (unsigned vote by User:Street walker)
  • Delete. The article appears to be an entirely arbitrary list, originally compiled by a limited number of magazine journalists, with "greatest" grossly mis-defined as "the one we like the most". Sliggy 15:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete also, what's with the title? "Since Your Were Born"? It looked like a simple typo, but it's repeated in the article too. Hmm. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Dottore So 19:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV list. Joelito 19:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Your were born? Who are Your? Two Halves, not sigged in
  • Keep There is a list of the 500 best songs as picked by Rolling Stone. Why not this? OmegaWikipedia 20:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Here is the list of songs picked by Rolling Stone at List of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. If that can stay, then this needs to stay, or else delete both, but be consistent. OmegaWikipedia 20:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per OmegaWikipedia (but move to correct spelling) —Wahoofive (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per OmegaWikipedia; precedent has been set with the Rolling Stone list. As long as the magazine is a notable one (and Blender is) I can't see why this list can't stay. POV doesn't apply because this list is cited in a magazine and is not the article writer's opinion. 23skidoo 02:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but Move to proper spelling, per Wahoofive. Xoloz 08:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gamaliel 03:49, 3 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 that nobody seems to want the article to be deleted in the first place. The nominator abstained, everyone else who expressed an opinion expressed the opinion that the article should be kept, and no-one came forward, after notice was given, wanting the article to be deleted. Uncle G 11:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Batman Vs. Dracula

Hmm, the article itself is poorly written but I recall there is such a movie made by Andy Warhol. Perhaps a redirect will be appropriate? Abstain for now. 202.156.6.62 13:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Hm, someone seems to have blanked the AFD notice on the article itself, so I didn't notice when I cleaned it up. Incidentally, it's available on Amazon. DS 14:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • 202.156.6.62, please only nominate articles for deletion that you actually want to be deleted by an administrator. Unless an editor who actually wants this article to be deleted comes forward by tomorrow, I shall be closing this discussion as keep. Uncle G 15:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for what it's worth, but cleanup and wikify. 23skidoo 16:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep and please wikify it of course Yuckfoo 19:23, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wharton school publishing

Blatant advertising. may also be copyvio. 202.156.6.62 14:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete adcopy. Pete.Hurd 21:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Reinyday, 16:49, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 13:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ask a Stupid Question Day

This article is causing confusion among admins. It was speedied once as a hoax (which can't be speedied except in extremis) and then as a recreated article, which doesn't fit the G4 CSD since it wasn't AfDd. Since Google returns plenty of hits, I figure the questions should be settled here. -Splashtalk 14:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Wiki needs to set some standards for keeping holidays. Possibly whether they appear on this site (It looks lowtech, but it has a good set of standards): [16]. This article appears in September.
  • Keep. -- Reinyday, 19:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Either verify the claim of those greeting cards, find a reference to it on television, or delete. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 19:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not sure what you mean about "verify the claim of those greating cards", but if you mean verify that such greating cards exist: I'll take door number one: [17], [18], [19]. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 22:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Although, I should point out that two of these sites claim that ASQD is on September 30 --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 22:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete insignificant joke holiday —Wahoofive (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Extremely weak keep. We have Talk Like a Pirate Day. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless we want articles on Elephant Appreciation Day and National Punch Your Alarm Clock Day too.Keep per Ilmari Karonen Denni☯ 03:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow, there's a "talk like a pirate day"!! Yay!!! Just for learning that, I'll agree with Zoe, weak keep. Xoloz 08:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - change title to lower case. --MacRusgail 13:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 21:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Not a joke, a school thing. Article should, if possible, be amended with information about how widely the day is observed. Ilmari Karonen 23:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. With respect to Denni's comment, let's start days about punching alarm clocks or appreciating elephants. I see no problem with that. EKMichigan 02:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess it depends on what you want Wikipedia to be. I would like it to be a source of reliable and valuable information. Wikipedia is not the place for cute jokes. However, if Ilmari Karonen is correct, I will happily change my vote. Denni☯ 00:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I was just going by what the article claims. I haven't been able to verify the specific claims made in the article; as it says in the article itself, this seems to be a difficult phrase to search for, since most hits are copies of or references to a "list of bizarre holidays". Also, curiously enough, Yahoo search returns significantly more hits for the phrase than Google does. What little I have been able to verify includes:
        1. There is such a thing as "ask a stupid question day". It's not original research.
        2. At least some schools mention it in their calendars for September, although I've so far found no evidence of official observation (see [20], [21]).
        3. It is mentioned in at least some publications intended for teachers ([22], [23]).
        4. At least some teachers use it as a classroom theme (see [24] page 19).
      • Make of that what you will. In my opinion the thing has sufficient legitimacy to justify it having an article, even if it might be better written than it currently is. After all, we're not trying to save paper here. Ilmari Karonen 20:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete What's Next No Electricty Day --JAranda | yeah 03:03, 4 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was BJAODN and REDIRECT to Cumulative distribution function. — JIP | Talk 13:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CCDF

Looks to be silly vanity/nonsense Whitejay251 14:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Restore It might be the speediest nonsense ever written but it's not possible to check that now. If an article goes on Afd rather than speedy, then I feel a few votes are needed prior to its being deleted. Dlyons493 Talk 16:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I speedied it as nonsense to save everyone time - but I've now restored it as requested. --Doc (?) 19:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Yup - it's rubbish. Dlyons493 Talk 19:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cumulative distribution function, since a CCDF is a complementary cumulative distribution function (a CCDF), although that target article needs to have such a mention added. (It need not be there for this to be a sensible redirect, however).-Splashtalk 19:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN, then redirect per Splash. Ilmari Karonen 23:11, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 19:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NHS Dentistry - What's Happening 2006

Very clearly unencyclopaedic, an FAQ or something into dentistry. Feels like a copyvio, but I can't find where from. [[Sam Korn]] 14:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Finally found it. Copied from here [25]--inksT 21:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom --NeilN 14:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, this entry was copied from my website www.simonjenkins.co.uk and is an attempt to explain to people what is actually happening in the real world. We are all familiar with government spin and dentists know that government is forcing them into private practice and then accusing them of going into private practice. For the full detail please see my website above, if you decide this is not an appropriate entry into Wikipedia then so be it, but it is the truth.

regards Simon Jenkins www.simonjenkins.co.uk

  • Comment. I can't find the text on www.simonjenkins.co.uk - but is it a copyvio if the author posts it? (and thus inherently gives permission?)--inks 00:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No, it isn't. If he posts it with an incomplete understanding of the GDFL, and complains later, he'll have no defense. Xoloz 09:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a soapbox Pilatus 02:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As per the above from 86.128.21.49 (talk • contribs), it is clear that this is original research. Delete. Uncle G 03:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete While the author's concerns may be real, WP:NOT a crystal ball. It is also not a place for discussion on the pros and cons of government funding decisions. Denni☯ 03:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete classic example of unencyclopedic content. Xoloz 09:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is a personal opinion of a political situation written for the direct purpose of explaining to patients why dentists are leaving the NHS and was never intended as an encyclopedic material by the author, ie me. Simon Jenkins
    • In that case, it's a copyvio, and I'm going to Speedy it under CSD:A8--inksT 21:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Done.--inksT 21:48, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. But may I suggest this is relisted or Transwiki'd anyway? Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Swedish Budget

The Swedish federal budget for 2004-2006. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. DS 14:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, encyclopedic. Kappa 14:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Swedish cruft, I mean federal cruft. I agree with DragonflySixtyseven that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. While this is useful to some people, it is not appropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia. At the most, merge significant figures into Sweden. — JIP | Talk 14:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, merge this page with Economy of Sweden under a (the) budget section. -weatherguy1033
  • Certainly not worth keeping as its own entry. Merge per weatherguy1033. Dottore So 19:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm split between merging and deleting this. No way does a federal budget deserve its own entry. That said, I can't decide if this would be a useful (in which case merge) or detrimental (in which case Delete) addition to any keepworthy article. The Literate Engineer 23:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikisource then delete. Sjakkalle, thanks for proposing a good solution. The Literate Engineer 16:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think national budgets might belong in Wikisource. The raw numbers are not truly encyclopedic material, but the info might be useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikisource per Sjakkalle. Xoloz 09:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikisource as per Sjakkalle. I would welcome a more descriptive article a la Canadian federal budget, 2005. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-5 T 01:56:19 Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 19:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Stone (porn star)

Not a encyclopedia article --Mosesofmason 14:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep but rewrite. The current contents read like an advertisement. Was this written by Lee Stone himself? — JIP | Talk 14:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. advertising. may also be copyvio --Inteloutside 15:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio. I've marked it as such. Pburka 17:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and Keep as there are plenty of other porn stars on Wikipedia why delete just this one? CambridgeBayWeather 05:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As this article currently stands, it's a mess -- but a fixable mess. This version is the copyright violation -- which should be promptly handled with a delete & replace by a later version. (Let's get that information out of the history logs.) However, this later version is nothing more than a list of Stone's vital statistics & some of the movies he's appeared in -- although the photo may be a copyvio, that's another topic. Assuming this vote concerns the later version, I believe it should be labelled {{cleanup}}, & the information put into grammatical sentences. -- llywrch 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per llywrch. Copyvio problems appear to be resolved. Article is now legit and just needs to be cleaned up and wikified. Psy guy (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per llywrch. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-5 T 01:20:50 Z
  • Keep per Llywrch. CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:45, 6 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ngoyo

Inaccurate. --posted by Beerbuzz on Ngoyo article at 10:37 UTC 1 October, 2005; reproduced here by Dvyost 14:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I've finished the postings for Beerbuzz's AfD to try to act in good faith here, but I don't think the deletion of this article is called for. There may well be some inaccuracies--it currently seems put together from a few net sources--but the kingdom of Ngoyo clearly does exist, and was a Iron Age kingdom in Cabinda. There's even a scholarly book on the subject 1. I think the best thing to do here is to fix whatever inaccuracies there may be. --Dvyost 14:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the article is inaccurate, please help correct it. Pburka 16:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep inaccuracy is not a reason for deletion, just improvement. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 22:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it's inaccurate, edit it to make it accurate. Ben D. 23:42, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prussian Blue (band)

Two for one! Two different bands named Prussian blue, both apparent vanity, both crappy articles. The first one is an english band, with an empty entry on AMG but no other hint to WP:MUSIC. The second I'm not sure about. It's an "aryan pride" duo of young twin girls, who do claim to have done a national tour. I've tried, but can't verify this (nor do I know what counts as a tour, since they seem to be tied up with the National Vanguard organization). No AMG entry, hard to google. Because of this I'm only a weak delete. — brighterorange (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, at least the white power band. I've heard them on CBC; they're very creepy, but definitely verifiable, and, I think, notable. Pburka 16:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both. The creepy little girls have no allmusic entry, and their single CD does not appear to have any distribution (one fan page says, "You can buy the Fragment of the Future CD from the Prussian Blue E-Store. The CD also appears on eBay from time to time."). They therefore do not meet WP:MUSIC. Thank god. Bikeable 23:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Pburka, being on CBC is media coverage and passes WP:MUSIC. Kappa 00:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the white power twins seem to pass WP:MUSIC and it would be unfair to the British band if we didn't make it clear that they were different. --Apyule 05:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep both bands in the article; per Apyule, these identically named bands need to be disambiguated. --Metropolitan90 06:56, 5 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 11:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Albrecht Fölsing

unverifiable: cannot find indication that two books 'cited' by author of biography exist, and his reply was useless; the Einstein biography is genuine but I don't think it makes this Folsing notable CH (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, since I nominated the article various editors have replaced the questionable books which books which I do not doubt are genuine, and at least one I already verified myself, so, er :-/ I am changing my vote to keep.---CH (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand (Amazon did help). Google has more that 1300 hits on Folsing, in several languages. Delete all the nonsense but don't throw out the baby at the same time. Ejrrjs | What? 16:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It appears that this real author, who has written several biographies, was used to make the articles about "Dimitrius Josef Stachnikov" and his purported theory seem plausible, by stating that he had written a biography of Stachnikov as well. Unlike Stachnikov, this person's existence is verifiable. He furthermore satisfies the Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, having written books published by Penguin and others. Keep. Uncle G 18:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has published several easily verifiable books, and the Einstein biography has been translated into at least three languages (English, Finnish and Swedish). Uppland 18:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this notable author. Karol 11:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • 'keep' , as above. --Isolani 12:44, 9 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY USERFY. ~~ N (t/c) 17:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of James Bond, Harry Potter and Earthsea

  • Wierd pointless "original research"? Rmhermen 15:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy, I'm the author, it's original research and perhaps a little weird, but certainly not pointless. — JIP | Talk 15:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete What's next, Comparison of Pippi Longstocking, Dune, and The Silence of the Lambs? JIP can userfy it if he really wants it though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy as per JIP - if you really want it fine. Does seem a bit arbitrary and pointless. Whitejay251 17:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. --Kwekubo 17:07, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (and protect page from being recreated). HappyCamper 16:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Owlboy

Not notable character. User vanity etc. feydey 15:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This is the third time this has been created: the first time it was created at OwlBoy and moved to User:OwlBoy and the redirect deleted - the user was warned about posting this stuff in main namespace at User talk:OwlBoy after which he blanked both pages and left. I have just deleted OwlBoy for the second time as re-posted content that had been deleted in line with our deletion policy, this is the third time it has been re-created. Speedy delete -- Francs2000 16:10, 1 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.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. bainer (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This nonexistent article

Created by a vandal. pamri 08:58, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. There is no need for a VfD on this article. Harro5 09:49, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this should have been speedied as little or no content. Megan1967 09:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • From User:Martinultima: "Stuff I'm proud of: Constantly creates and re-creates the "This nonexistent article" page, although it's always deleted..." Uncle G 13:20, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. – Rich Farmbrough 20:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emp3world

Advertisement for Emp3world.com Dlyons493 16:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not a significant website. Doesn't establish why it is notable. It is just like any other audio search engines in thepast. Spam. Wikipedia is not a web guide. --J. Nguyen 01:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Alexa ranking is 4,822, which would be very good for a forum site, but is poor for a search engine. Can anyone shed some light on its popularity/notability? MCB 22:32, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Order of the white turtle

Unverifiable Dlyons493 Talk 16:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax. No Google hits. Probably an attack page on the guy named in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 21:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as an attack. Jkelly 22:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted. It's a libelous attack page against the guy mentioned in the last sentence. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE per precedent. ~~ N (t/c) 17:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikilinking

Previously marked as a speedy, but I don't see how it is one. Similar-but-not-identical article deleted in June. Google on "wikilinking -site:wikipedia.org" gives 9000 hits, but on cursory inspection none seem relevant to this game. Delete unless proven to exist. ~~ N (t/c) 16:48, 1 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.

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

The result of the debate was to keep the article. User:Nichalp/sg 08:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Dharmasastra (P.V. Kane)

Verbatim copy from sections of Pandurang Vaman Kane and an unnecessary duplication as the articles have the same content while the titles suggest difference. btw, I am the original author of Pandurang Vaman Kane-- Gurubrahma 16:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: I think important books like this one should have their own article. This is at least the way it is done in other author-articles. --Machaon 17:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Machaon and I think that means keep Tintin 22:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: An article should add value - if I follow the link to the book from Pandurang Vaman Kane, I'd find it a duplication of material well placed in the Kane article. Either the info about the book should be expanded or it should be made a re-direct to Pandurang Vaman Kane. Also, it may be pertinent to point out that Machaon is the author of the Afd. --Gurubrahma 06:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: This article is about a book by a particular author, who also has an independent article in wikipedia. Here, the issue is duplication of some texts from the article about the writer. In my opinion, to begin a stub, sometimes such duplication/ same contents with minor changes would be inevitable. This has perhaps happened in this instance. Over a period of time, other editors shall surely add relevant materials and this page shall continue to grow and the contents shall have further value addition. As such, there appears no justification to delete this page on the ground of duplication of contents. The contents should be allowed to mature. I am not sure, but I may add that the page may be moved to a page name 'History of Dharmasastra, book' or something similar. --Bhadani 09:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hm. Yes, keep - and definitely renamed, so as to distinguish the history of Dharmasastra from the History of Dharmasastra. DS 16:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep and definitely rename - sorry for listing the article on afd. Now I am clear about the purpose of having an article on the book as well. would edit both the pages on the book and the author significantly by the end of this month to reduce unnecessary duplication. Pls suggest a better re-name (am thinking of ---(book)). Hope this serves as a lesson to me before crying wolf on Afd in future. --Gurubrahma 06:04, 7 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Ryan Delaney talk 02:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extinction (band)

No AllMusic entry, only album gets 171 google hits. Punkmorten 16:57, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 19:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legendary Frog

I found this article by following a link on Talk:Joseph Blanchette. The link admits to cheating, and that article was deleted in this AfD. Whilst I have no opinion, I think this article should also been seen by AfD. Note that it is not speediable as a recreation, really, since it is a rewrite (just). -Splashtalk 16:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and rename to Joseph Blanchette. It seems to me the article on Joseph Blanchette was deleted in error, the subject is clearly notable enough. --Mysidia (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep rewrite After reading the article and talk, I agree. — brighterorange (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep
  • Keep for reasons given on the talk pages of both articles, as well as my objections to the original VfD on the other article. And the "cheating" line was probably a joke, man. (As for the naming aspect, people are just as likely to search for Legendary Frog as Joseph Blanchette; he puts both names on every movie he does. Whatever happens, one should redirect to the other.) CaptHayfever 03:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (disclosure: I created this page). I'm not sure I can say much more than what I've already said elsewhere. If we are to have any articles on flash animated artists/series at all (and we certainly do), then Legendary Frog is more than notable enough for inclusion. (I have a much bigger defence for keeping this article, in the article's talk page - please go there.) In any case, whatever the outcome of this vfd, I'm relieved that this issue will finally see some formal resolution. Wandering oojah 15:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, as for my comment about 'cheating', yes, I was mostly joking. It's true I created this article in a, ah, fairly sneaky manner...but I was also under the impression that rewriting deleted articles, when there is due cause, is generally tolerated on Wikipedia. Wandering oojah 15:02, 4 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP and MOVE to Coventry and North Warwickshire Cricket Club. — JIP | Talk 19:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coventry and North Warwicks Cricket Club

Non-notable amateur cricket club out of many. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Not the case. Coventry and North Warwicks Cricket Club is a long-established cricket club in the first ever cricket league in the world. It is also a club with a close association with arguably the most successful County side in modern times (Warwickshire County Cricket Club). Perhaps the relevance and importance of this imformation being on wikipedia is lost on a Canadian, but people's areas of interest are wide and varied and being so dismissive about information some people will useful and informative has no place on an Encyclopedia site. Keep. User:Chris W | 19:28 (GMT), 1 October 2005

  • Keep Significant club. Osomec 21:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Osomec --Centauri 06:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --MacRusgail 13:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable enough for Wikipedia, jguk 20:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Let him write about it if he wants to. [[Sam Korn]] 20:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; notable. (See? I'm not anti-cricket! :-)) MCB 22:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Coventry and North Warwickshire Cricket Club — the article title is wrong. But certainly notable if a player who had already played 28 international matches chose to go there. Stephen Turner 09:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Move per Stephen Turner, but otherwise keep - the Birmingham and District Premier League is an important league in both historical and quality terms, as can be seen by the fact of Obuya's playing for the club and the fact that Warwickshire CCC used to play there. Loganberry (Talk) 13:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Move as per Stephen and Keep. Also, notability is not a deletion criterion. Guettarda 13:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable to me. Carioca 21:22, 6 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Parafinalia

Not notable school group formed in February 2005, no releases. feydey 17:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - not notable yet, "up and coming" is very tenuous future speculation. --Mysidia (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • speedy redirect to paraphernalia, apparently not the easiest word to spell. — brighterorange (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • dont delete - The band is getting more puplicity recently, this page is to give anyone wanting to find out about the band the infomation they need. The bands name is not spelt "paraphernalia" it is spelt parafinalia, so a redirect would not be appropriet. user:cons. 21:15, 1 October 2005
    • It's true that this band spells its name "Parafinalia," but under the criteria at WP:MUSIC the band does not appear to qualify for a Wikipedia entry yet. The purpose of the redirect would not be to help people find the band, but to help people find the word "paraphernalia" which is often misspelled. Looking up "Parafinalia" on Google I find several references such as "Pipes, Rolling Papers, and Marijuana Parafinalia," or "There was plenty of drug parafinalia in plain sight," or "im telling you depeche mode would never use drug parafinalia to promote themselves" [sic in all cases]. I'm not finding references to the band. So redirect (non-speedily, the article merits a full AfD) as per Brighterorange. If the band becomes successful, they can have a proper article at that time. --Metropolitan90 03:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Vanity, certainly not notable. --Ariliand 21:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect (speedily or otherwise) as per Brighterorange. Thryduulf 22:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • dont delete - The bands web site is www.parfinalia.tk, this article is just to futher th bands awareness. user: cons
    • You're not being very consistent with the spelling, are you? Also, you don't get to vote twice, though I can't really accuse you of sockpuppetry since you signed both votes. The band clearly fails WP:MUSIC, so I say delete or redirect per Brighterorange. Ilmari Karonen 23:01, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 02:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minneapolis Ice Bats Broomball

non-notable defunct amateur team, heavy advertising angle Pete.Hurd 17:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected, non-defunct, non-notable amateur team whose page contains little other than lists of their sponsors. Pete.Hurd 02:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN "low level recreational league" team. Their web site is on a user's ISP-based home page. MCB 22:35, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 22:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Era Flair

Listed for deletion under Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion/XD1. Looks non-notable - "era flair" "buddy luv" returns 0 googles. ~~ N (t/c) 01:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ambi 15:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

(Delete Does not come within a mile of WP:MUSIC CastAStone 18:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Relisting orphaned nomination from August 24. No vote. Titoxd 18:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: Notice that this is a VFD subpage, not an AFD subpage.
  • Keep, verify, and cleanup. -- Spinboy 02:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of meeting WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Why is this still open almost two weeks after relisting? Bearcat 17:38, 13 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to alternative lifestyle. --Jacquelyn Marie 05:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative people

Too broad a classification to be useful. Dlyons493 Talk 18:28, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (thus keep); both articles are merged at The Million Dollar Homepage. Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Million Dollar Homepage and Milliondollarhomepage

There are two articles on the "Million Dollar Homepage", one at The Million Dollar Homepage and another at Milliondollarhomepage. Both are up for deletion and have their individual AfD subpages. It's probably better if both pages are discussed together. The statements from both AfDs have been moved here. Please add new statements to the bottom. Pilatus 19:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milliondollarhomepage

Advertisement page with no other content Naturenet | Talk 15:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I read something about this page just a couple of days ago, I think in TIME magazine the Guardian. It has an Alexa ranking of under 25000. To be honest, I think we should have an article on the subject, even if this isn't a great one. I'll see if I can find some time to expand it into a decent stub. Keep and list on articles for expansion, if I don't do it myself. [[Sam Korn]] 15:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep & expand CambridgeBayWeather 16:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Now somewhat expanded. [[Sam Korn]] 09:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - I just don't find someone selling ad space on a web page notable. Jwissick(t)(c) 16:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
If he succeeds getting the money he needs for uni, then let it be recreated... till then it is one of many non-notable fund raising schemes. Jwissick(t)(c) 01:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - It were in the Telegraph also. But someone had better do something with it. Oswax 17:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I do not see how Kitty Genovese features in the matter, but the article contains no information whatsoever so I would suggest Delete Maltesedog 17:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Forgive the odd reference! What I meant is that someone could make this into a decent article, but most people (including me) will probably stand around and do nothing. Oswax 18:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Let’s Keep this for a while, at least. It’s a somewhat interesting and unique idea, I think. More power to the guy if he can really raise the money this way. However, the article should be moved to The Million Dollar Home Page per the name given on the website. ♠ DanMS 19:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, we're not a compendium of crazy internet sites. --fvw* 21:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete adcruft.--Isotope23 19:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Million Dollar Homepage

It's Spam. Much and all as I'd like to see him make a Million Dollars. Dlyons493 Talk 18:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • weak keep ongoing internet phenomenon. (When my brother walked in, he remarked, "Hey, I saw that site!") Time will tell if it retains notability. — brighterorange (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This discussion is still happening for a different version of the same article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Milliondollarhomepage. CastAStone 19:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, we're not a compendium of crazy internet sites. --fvw* 21:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I just came to Wikipedia to get more info on this site and the guy has already earned over $300k in six weeks. That sounds like a notable Internet phenomenon to me! --Chuck SMITH 03:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Common section

  • Keep - It is equal to Slashdot in terms of Alexa pagerank [26] and is already an Internet phenomenon. BBC has done a story on it [27]. Fuzheado | Talk 05:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Major press in newspapers and TV + heaps of copycats + original idea showing business potential = article worthy of inclusion.

I hope no one minds, but I took the liberty to merge Milliondollarhomepage and Million Dollar Homepage into The Million Dollar Homepage. --Chuck SMITH 16:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

if it is a worldwide talking point / event ? then surely it must stay , thats what encylopedias are about right ? if not what is the point of this site as well ?? to be selective about what it logs in human development and history ? that does not seem right ....

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Withdrawn/Keep Marskell 10:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Association

An odd one. The name and the text are generic enough I can't prove it exists. The Royal Historical Society and the American Historical Association both have articles and this refers to neither (its cat'ed as a British Organization). Delete unless someone can prove what it is. Marskell 18:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No context. Pburka 19:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Vote withdrawn based on new information. Pburka 00:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It appears to be a real association, in Britain, with a focus on secondary education and local history. Historical Association Website Joaquin Murietta 19:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • In that case, it's a copyvio of the above website. Pburka 19:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Not clear on Wiki rules, but did the website have a copyright? or is is public domain? Joaquin Murietta 20:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Every website is specifically copyright protected unless they explicitly release the information to public domain and/or GFDL. With no copyright claim, copyright is assumed. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you for explaining this. Do you think we should rewrite the page to avoide the copyright problems? Joaquin Murietta 23:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Definitely odd. Apparently has H.M. The Queen as patron!!! Dlyons493 Talk 19:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Osomec 21:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • We can't keep copyright violations. Since nobody bothered to list it as such, I have done so. Case closed. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I rewrote it at: Historical Association/Temp Not sure about the second sentence. Comments por favor? Joaquin Murietta 00:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I withdraw based on above. Joaquin, if you'd like to close this please do and place your text in place. Marskell 22:18, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Powergen Cup. Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anglo-Welsh Cup

The data on this page has been moved to Powergen Cup as the Anglo-Welsh Cup is sponsored by Powergen the same as the old Challenge Cup GordyB 18:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect. No need to delete. Pburka 19:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge and redirect. What's Wikipedia policy on referring to sporting events and venues by their sponsor's name vs. by their old name? Andrew pmk | Talk 02:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
There's no content on this page that is not already on Powergen Cup. The situation occured because the Challenge Cup (known as Powergen Cup) was abandoned and a new Anglo-Welsh tournament was created in its place. So I created the article. It was then announced that the tournament would also be sponsored by Powergen and use the Powergen cup name. I'm pretty sure the original trophy is still used. Then somebody else creates an Anglo-Welsh section on the Powergen Cup page. I don't really care what is decided but merger has already happened.GordyB 13:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete contents and turn into a redirect. Though it's not easy to decide whether this is a new competition or a continuation of the old Powergen Cup with Welsh sides added. Everybody seems to refer to it as "the Powergen" anyway. Rhion 11:24, 5 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Children of ragnarok

Subject is non-notable. Subject has less than 100 google hits, and the majority aren't relevant. May be notable in the future, but isn't notable yet. It's also a copy-n-paste of a user page. Biography articles are usually better written by someone else. --Interiot 19:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Wile E. Heresiarch 21:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I highly doubt that a group of high school students making Flash animations will ever be notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:05, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 11:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chester County High School

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; it reads like a News-story. Additionally, the information is not noteworthy enough to be included on Wikipedia

Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

this was not really readable until today so now it is added to october 1 2005 Yuckfoo 19:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --It just needs to be cleaned up. Would be good idea to list it on WikiProject Schools or use their guidelines to clean it. I believe that all high schools are notable, even those who have badly written articles. PRueda29 02:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Yesterday there was no school nominated now its a nn high school oh well and stop nominating high schools also --JAranda | yeah 08:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete-More junk about somone's local school. Dudtz Image:Kardos.jpg 9/29/05 6:48 PM EST
  • comment - I just tidied it up a bit, but there is really no more information than can go into an infobox. These school pages are only useful if they have context with other wikipages. This appears to have no context. Any author who creates a school page should be required to also build a page for the school district and describe how all the schools in that district feed into each other. Also, they should make appropriate links to the local community pages that are in wikipedia. Ironically Henderson, Tn does not appear to have a page. If the appropriate context is not there, and no one is willing to do the work to determine the context, I agree that this page, and similar pages, should be deleted until someone is willing to do it properly. David D. (Talk) 17:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • OK i found the Henderson page, however, the author has not bothered mention the school on this page. Why make a page if you can't even be bothered to mention it on the town page. These contributions to wikipedia are random events that get lost in the noise and are not helping to improve the product. In my view this is why these school articles keep getting put up for deletion, and why not? If the author can't even be bothered who will rescue this article and do it correctly? If someone cares it will be done correctly the first time until then i see no reason not to delete these contextless schools. David D. (Talk) 17:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I added some stuff too. Your table looks good.Joaquin Murietta 19:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Here we are, back on high schools.--Nicodemus75 18:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please high schools are ipso facto notable if there is a problem we can just edit the article we do not need to erase it that makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 18:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 19:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep as stated by Kappa Joaquin Murietta 19:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep a verifiable high school. --rob 19:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. A school is not inherently notable!--inks 21:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Osomec 21:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete nn Pete.Hurd 21:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and kick it over to the high school WikiProject. It's a good start on a good, short article and there are a lot of school article fans who seem to be voting to keep it as well. - Lucky 6.9 22:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — has been cleaned up and the news story removed. Andrew pmk | Talk 02:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete yet another school article which cannot or will not go to the trouble of telling us why its subject is noteworthy. Denni☯ 03:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gosh, short but somewhat eventful history. --Tony SidawayTalk 06:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The only notable fact in the school's history seems to be that it was built on the same site as an older school. The shooting at the local county fair wasn't something that relates to the school in any way other than the principal being more wary because of it, as far as I can tell. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete owing to a complete lack of a claim of notability. I don't think school articles that would be CSD A7 candidates if they were about people should be kept. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. Xoloz 09:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep High School and up. — RJH 19:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 18:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Highschool.Gateman1997 21:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- DS1953 02:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep chowells 18:13, 7 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mud Butt Infirmary

Hoax. Zero google hits. --202.156.6.61 19:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Joyous (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Sam Spade 21:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, could even speedy as nonsense. Ilmari Karonen 22:42, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kinikini

It's just a family name. Pretty much everyone has one. Dlyons493 Talk 19:19, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nonnacris

No mention on allmusic, no Google hits for a band with that name. The name occurs 11 times on Google as someone's username on a webforum. Do I say "Garage band vanity"? 129.215.194.205 Pilatus 19:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no assertion of notability. Ilmari Karonen 22:39, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dike Road

Delete. Nonsense. ♠DanMS 19:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy if possible, else delete. ZOMG ROADCRUFT! --SPUI (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense. Ilmari Karonen 22:37, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] M.O.B.

I see no evidence that they fulfill WP:MUSIC. Joyous (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I come from West Palm Beach and they are actually slightly well-known on the underground scene. They recently had a performance actually at a nightclub named Ray's. Although they currently don't have a record contract, the rumor is that there is one in the works and the album is almost finished.
  • Delete promo/vanity, come back when you're famous, thanks. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. They do have at least a mention over at allmusic.com, however brief, which helps. I would have nominated it for deletion had it not been. That's why I hung a cleanup tag on it. The myspaces.com website doesn't help. Neither does the "in yo face, mutha" style of the article. - Lucky 6.9 22:27, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 'redirect to Sranang Tongo. Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taki language

Delete this article as a possible hoax. I can find no independent evidence that this language exists, least of all the claim of having the world's smallest lexicon. Googling "Taki language" brings up mostly hits of the Taki Taki language in Suriname, which is different. When I asked the creator of the article for sources, he provided me merely with a Wikipedia mirror. Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax - Ethnologue [28] doesn't list it. Dlyons493 Talk 20:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Ethnologue doesn't list Sumerian either, but that's not a hoax. It's the fact that I can't find it anywhere that makes me suspect a hoax. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sranang Tongo (taki taki language) since this is a likely "mis-spelling." And while you're at it delete the hoax article Sumerian language too... :) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 22:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - possible conlang? -> [29]
  • Redirect to Sranang Tongo, per above, I guess. Normally I'd speedily redirect this but since they're not really the same thing, that doesn't seem like a good idea here. Friday (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find the source, but I thought I got it from a Bathroom Reader; which is pretty spurious - so deleteMolotov (talk) 21:46, 3 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE'. — JIP | Talk 05:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Fogarty

Doesn't look very notable. Deb 19:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Mister Fogarty also created Anadarko Petroleum Corporation (a copyvio page about his workplace) and People at Anadarko, which has a special subcategory of "Anadarko People on Wikipedia". The corporation may deserve a page of its own if someone cares to rescue it from copyvio hell; Mister Fogarty himself most certainly does not. Clean out his Wikidesk (that is, delete). DS 19:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, nn-bio. Ilmari Karonen 22:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, CSD:A7, no assertion of notability. MCB 22:41, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kontinental Brekfes

Member of the above-mentioned band M.O.B., also up for AfD. Joyous (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • As it was mentioned on the discussion for M.O.B. this rapper is actually slightly well known in West Palm Beach. It was reported that he also has a contract in the works for a solo album.
  • Delete promo/vanity, come back when you're famous, thanks. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, zero Google hits. "official website" is a myspace page. Nonsense, hoax. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:27, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Archeon Tarot

This user created a series of advertising pages in a short time. Some of these are copyvio, some are close to spam, some probably wouldn't draw much comment as they are less blatantly promotional. I'd appreciate an Admin looking at the whole set of them. Dlyons493 Talk 19:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable and since the primary part of the article consists of a quote taken from the linked website, I think it might count as copyright infringement too. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above - Ravedave 06:19, 8 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Stefan Selakovic. Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Selakovic

Moved from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Probably Serbian, but in Roman alphabet. Apparently an article about a last name, has a link to a genealogy page, so probably not worth keeping, but I'm listing it here to get input from someone who can actually read it. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is indeed Serbian. I agree it's not worth keeping; it discusses the origins of the family name Selakovic and it's frequency in Serbia. Denis Kasak 23:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

End moved text

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dvd duplicator

Advertisement Dlyons493 Talk 20:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, obvious spam jamesgibbon 20:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to DVD recorder --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete sans redirect, since the title is miscapitalized. Ilmari Karonen 22:33, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 20:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Webster

Most likely non-notable autobiography. It's difficult to tell, because there are many google hits for "Christopher Webster". However, some amount of googling found practically no references to the "nationwide" "Porridge, at McDonalds?" quote, and I can't find any online biographiess for a Christopher Webster born on 1986. If someone manages to find real biographical information that can be used to expand this article, then possibly Keep. --Interiot 20:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete IMDB [30] shows there was an actor by this name who had an unnamed role (not identified as a schoolyard bully) in "About a Boy" and a TV movie, and no other acting credits. Googling for variations on the name and McDonald's, porridge, etc. turns up nothing. There is no evidence that the stuff about acting in porno movies is more than just someone's overactive imagination. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. -- The article Katherine Kenyon, also about an aspiring young British actor says that she is dating Christopher Webster. It was created by Majsharpe, the same person who removed the deletion notice on this article. Ben D. 17:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. -- At least more context has been given (middle name, birthplace, girlfriend). So it's a lot easier to combine those things in various Google queries [31] [32] [33], but I'm still not finding anything notable. (there's a lot of google queries that could be run on variations of the names and such, but the fact that almost nothing is really popping out probably means non-notable). And the "studying hard for her A-levels" line didn't make me think this was a distanced biography either.
  • Speedy Delete as CSD:A7. I don't consider "aspiring actor" as an assertion notability. "Aspiring" == "wannabe". If he actually has acting credits sufficient for an article, someone will re-create it. MCB 22:45, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 05:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lost in fusion

Admitted non-notable band: "Lost In Fusion a band that began in the summer of 2005 ,Compose just by 2 guys at the moment" 202.156.6.59 20:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Speed deleted: band vanity with no claim or evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Please don't speedy things which don't fit the criteria. Kappa 00:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Of course, I did no such thing. The article fell in CSD category A7, An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. Please don't waste other people's time. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The band failed to pass WP:MUSIC and thus should be deleted, but A7 specifically does not apply for bands. The band CSD proposal failed, altbeit slimly (see the poll). The speedy deletion was a mistake, and therefore Wile E. Heresiarch's asserion that Kappa is wasting people's time is completely unjustified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sjakkalle is correct. CSD A7 applies specifically and only to articles on individual persons whose notability was not asserted in the article. If this page was indeed speedily deleted under the impression that CSD A7 was applicable to it, it was improperly deleted. I hope, Wile E. Heresiarch, that you would consider restoring it for the duration of the AfD, failing which it shall be nominated for undeletion at VFU.—encephalon 10:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just to clarify: As Wile E. Heresiarch himself writes above, the wording of A7 specifically states that it covers articles about "a real person". Since general consensus seems to be to interpret speedy deletion criteria rather strictly, the use of singular is generally taken to mean that it covers articles about one and only one person, not bands, clubs or any similar groups. I don't doubt that the band was non-notable, but since speedying can be rather controversial, and once done also non-transparent to the ordinary user, what we need isn't rules-stretching, but better (i.e. wider, but specific and unambiguous) criteria. / Alarm 12:43, 3 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

[edit] Fat pat and the lovely lads

NN ≈ jossi ≈ 20:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete the article admits they are not currently notable. No allmusic entry. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree. Punkmorten 22:01, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Felanil Baaks

Fancruft. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is fancruft extraordinaire; unreferenced, speculative, rumor-based Star Wars cruft-- possibly fan-fiction-- definitely non-encyclopedic. Nuke it forcefully. [edit] 20:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and [edit]. MCB 22:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm thinking weak delete, and recreate under a more general page. The character is real, but the information is all wrong. Baaks is a male Duro, not a female. See [34], [35], and [36]-LtNOWIS 23:47, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Davenant road

Delete as unencyclopedic road vanity. The last thing we need is a disambiguation page for every "Davenant road" in the world. [edit] 20:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete judging by google maps [37] and the fact the road is not hilighted in yellow or green, it would appear minor even compared to other roads in Oxford --TimPope 21:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and TimPope above. Besides, when the edit summary given by the article's creator [38] is Created demonstration article then there's something wrong! Loganberry (Talk) 00:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Loganberry and TimPope. (Nomination itself is weak, because it doesn't address this particular article and this particular road. It is perfectly possible to have multiple important roads with the same name, e.g. Canal Street). Dpbsmith (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on edit comment, could this be speedy deleted as newbie test? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:22, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. – Rich Farmbrough 20:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Mijksenaar

Delete, possible candidate for speedy deletion (CSD A7). [edit] 20:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. NN-Bio, Vanity. I don't see a problem with speedy-ing it either.--inks 21:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Just needs editing and restructuring. Paul Mijksenaar and his company Mijksenaar-Arup are responsible for the signage of JFK Airport and several other big American airports. So he is quite a name in the world of information design. [39] [edit] 13:05, 4 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saber Swift

This isn't an article, it's a discussion of a fiction "work in progress." Joyous (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. 0 Google hits for "Saber Swift Chronicles". Jkelly 01:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Ilmari Karonen 22:26, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to validation. — JIP | Talk 05:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] validate

Dicdef, has been transwikied. Ingoolemo talk 21:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete while this is a dictionary def, I know that this term is used for testing whether surveys (or other measurement instruments) are accurate at measuring the phenomenon of interest. I don't know enough to write the article about this, but it might be worth writing. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • That would be validation, which we already have an article on. Uncle G 03:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yeah, okay, my laziness shows through... I shamefully vote Redirect to validation. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As per our Wikipedia:naming conventions (verbs), redirect to validation. Uncle G 03:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to validation. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:36, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Yogi Tea. Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yogi tea

Transwikied to cookbook - can now remove from here. Dlyons493 Talk 21:26, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eleanor Dall

granddaughter of Franklin Roosevelt, no notability of her own established TimPope 21:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn granddaughter. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE! "No notability of her own established"? She is a direct descendant of one of our country's presidents. That alone garners interest. User:Mdiane ← user's only edit is this comment --TimPope 20:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Being descended from a President is not a claim to notability. They need to have done something of their own. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Really. We're probably all descendants of Charlemagne — does that entitle me and everyone else to a vanity page? Ilmari Karonen 22:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Ilmari Karonen. In a few generations, the number of descendants of any given person is likely to be numerous. MCB
  • DO NOT DELETE she is a noted scholar and historian and provides relevant facts to the lives of her grandparents and great-grandparents. She is among the very few still living who can provide us with useful historical facts. Mrs. Seagraves is 78 years old now. We don't know how much longer she can or will live and with her death dies and encyclopeida of history.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Momentos de Amor

Article about a local radio show in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. Not notable. Ariliand 21:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no Google hits for "Momentos de Amor" WNIK. Gotta love the translation "Mr. Dennis Insipid Martinez", though. Ilmari Karonen 22:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It is a vanity page about a radio and tv personality named Sr. Dennis Martinez Sosa and it is a machine error that translates Sosa into insipid. No internet hits.-Dakota 15:42, 10 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Kushnick

Non-Notable Person. Just because she was Jay Leno's agent doesn't mean she is notable and qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Hell I work in the entertainment industry so does that mean I can have a Wikipedia article too? I think not. Misterrick 21:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. As Hollywood agents go, she was pretty controversial. Kathy Bates won a Golden Globe and was Emmy-nominated for playing her in the TV movie The Late Shift (about the Jay Leno-David Letterman rivalry), so I think some people might want to look her up in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 03:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is so little info available about her online, and much of it is very biased against her; she co-founded an AIDS awareness organization and much of her work in her later life (post-Tonight Show) was involved with AIDS research. Further, she is an important figure in the "late night wars," whether or not people want to acknowledge her role in severing the relationship b/w Leno and Letterman. She was a representative for several other Hollywood figures besides Leno, and in many ways was famous in her own right, and so my vote is to keep this article with expansions. Telestylo 07:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Her role in the 'late night wars' alone makes her notable, if not for exemplifying how not to handle a client. Being Jay Leno's agent is not what makes her notable; his current agent - whoever that is - is certainly not notable. But she was particularly notorious in hollywood for many years, particularly because the tonight show is such an important show for the industry. Aspersions 07:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The book and television movie, as well as coverage in celeb. magazines, make her a notable person. Xoloz 09:16, 2 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 Speedy delete as single-person nn vanity.

[edit] Del Toro

This is just a page on a poster on a forum. No sense creating one here. ErikNY 21:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no one cares. Punkmorten 22:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Except for Del Toro.  :) He's outta here. - Lucky 6.9 22:30, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baristanet

Minor blog site. Alexa ranking of 281,364. Joyous (talk) 22:05, 1 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to UH-1 Iroquois. – Rich Farmbrough 19:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bell_UH-1

This article is a duplicate of UH-1_Iroquois Sylvain Mielot 22:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect. Thryduulf 22:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Redirect. Vegaswikian 06:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • "Speedy Redirect" would hide non-CSD content under a rdr, and have virtually the effect of an illegitimate deletion.
  • Merge, as nominator should have instead of burdening AfD. I will perform the history merge early Oct 5 UTC and document that here, unless there are objections before then.
    --Jerzy•t 17:17, 3 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arne Kaijser

I am not convinced Arne passes the average professor test. If the article were created today I'd be tempted to speedy it for not making any assertion of notability - however this article has been around since 19 May 2001 and has attracted only 4 minor edits since then, including the Conversion script and my addition of the afd tag (the first edit in over a year). There are a grand total of two inbound links.

Because of its age this article has been picked up by just about every Wikipedia mirror site going, making raw google hit numbers irrelevant. Almost all the other hits seem to be directory type listings. The lack of an interwiki to the Sweedish Wikipedia makes me doubt he is significantly more notable in that language, but my knowledge of Sweedish extends to one word - Igelkott (Hedgehog) - so I cannot say. Thryduulf 22:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Wow, the weird things one finds in Wiki-land. Keep -- since the article has been here forever, I give it the benefit of the doubt and presume it is notable. As nom. suggests, its age also makes it unclear what set of criteria to apply to judge it. Absent a positive case that this fellow is non-notable, I think such an established, if obscure, article does no harm in remaining. Credit to nom. for even finding it, though. Xoloz 09:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I have managed to find some more information about him, but I can't tell if he's notable or not. // Liftarn
  • Keep, professor at one of the leading technical universities in Europe. Kappa 23:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not every single one of the professors in the world are notable. Gamaliel 03:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Very true. Nor has any other known professor been here since 19 May 2001. Xoloz 05:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, professor - and head of a department - at a major university of technology, author/co-author of several books, and member of the editorial board of two scientific publications. Seems to pass the average professor test. / Alarm 17:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If all this is true, why isn't it in the article? Gamaliel 18:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Because no one had added it. Until now. / Alarm 12:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alarm. -- DS1953 03:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alarm CLW 08:58, 7 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 19:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Solypsis

Besides verging on patent nonsense, this person/band/noise doesn't have an entry on artistdirect or allmusic. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It was already deleted by Arminius, just one minute before it was re-created (see the deletion logs. Delete. --Fibonacci 23:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not nonsense, but it's not notable either. Delete. Ilmari Karonen 22:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Solypsis is not an american arms manufacturer, nor a mythical location in a retarded role-playing game. Solypsis is a kind of noise --- just remember that part. isn't nonsense? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

i made changes to the entry and will continue to add important info.

extensive updates have been made, with multiple links added.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 04:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Akuma (Mortal Kombat character)

Page begins: Akuma is a not really a part of the Mortal Kombat storyline and had absolutely no appearance in an MK game. Delete articles on non-existent video game characters. Quale 22:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete ridiculously unverifiable. "but some videogame viewer saw like almost a digital version of Akuma fighting against a realistic Liu Kang." — brighterorange (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete because it was an article made by a known vandal. See: User talk:205.188.116.5 The article has no meaningful content. What is next M. Bison (Mortal Kombat character)? M. Bison is a not really a part of the Mortal Kombat storyline and had absolutely no appearance in an MK game --J. Nguyen 02:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • FATALITY! Hoaxes should be deleted. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. This is a totally pointless article.
  • Delete nonsense --Quasipalm 17:48, 7 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 04:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DoubleSign

Delete Advertisement PhilipO 22:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. See also the Afd for DoubleSign Astrology. - BorgQueen 23:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Question: I followed this example Fotki - are articles about web portal considered an advertisement? --WalterJKin 23:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, Fotki has over 2 million hits on Google [40]. "DoubleSign Astrology" has ~600 [41]. There is a serious difference in notability between these two sites. The tone of the article ads nothing but basic information about the site, reads like a low-key advertisement and doesn't demonstrate its particular notablity over any other astrology site. Statements such as
The website is popular among users due to cool images of both Chinese and Western Zodiac Signs, as well as DoubleSigns, daily, bi-weekly and yearly horoscopes (Chinese and Western), descriptions of Zodiac Signs from different point of view, including books, celebrities, love and sex; and Are You Compatible? Calcluator.
are intrinsically promotional. Since you appear to be the creator of the site in question, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy to be creating articles about it [42]. My vote remains at Delete. Cheers --PhilipO 23:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising, as is DoubleSign Astrology. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like to replace this entire article about a web portal, with one the describes DoubleSign as astrological term, its meaning and application from astrological point of view. I tried to it yesterday, but the old article (about the portal) was restored.
I restored it because you removed the AFD (Articles for deletion) tag at the top of the page. You will need to re-edit this article without removing this tag. Cheers --PhilipO 15:57, 4 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 04:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Netcohort

Neologism, coined a couple of months ago. Joyous (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete neologisms. — brighterorange (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, no Google hits. Ilmari Karonen 22:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; self-admitted neologism. MCB 22:53, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gin Sour

Delete. This is nothing but instructions for mixing a cocktail. Wikipedia is not a “How-To” manual. ♠DanMS 23:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep — There's enough other useful material present, I think, to make this a keeper. — RJH 19:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per RJH. Ilmari Karonen 22:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, gives an interesting history for a noteable drink. --Apyule 05:25, 3 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Waste Watch

Delete Very nice, but doesn't merit an entry in Wikipedia. PhilipO 23:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, and cleanup, assuming it is verifiable. Jkelly 23:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Why? It is simply an article about a municipal recycling program - and basically the instructions pasted here at that. So many towns and cities have one that I can't see why this one is particularly notable. Now, if it was the first of its kind....--PhilipO 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment. It's a provincial, not municipal, recycling program, it's mandatory, which is unusual, and the article contains numbers on its success rate, which means its more verifiable and encyclopedic than most articles put up for deletion. It needs cleanup, but I would like to see more articles in Wikipedia on verifiable, real-world concerns, not less. Jkelly 00:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, notable aspect of recycling in Prince Edward Island. Kappa 00:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A ground-breaking and somewhat controversial waste management program. Lots of room for improvement and expansion. Pburka 00:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. -- Spinboy 02:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Other provinces have articles about current political issues in the province, Prince Edward Island should be no execption. --Cloveious 04:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa; this made the news as far west as Saskatoon, as I recall. If the article turns out to be unexpandable, merge it to PEI's article, but it seems like it could stand on its own. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Wow! I have never been so against the consensus with an AFD before! :-) Fair enough - it looks like it should stay. It needs work though.... Cheers. --PhilipO 18:25, 3 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cboc

Delete. Two acronym definitions only, and dubious ones at that. Move to Wiktionary if the acronym is known. One definition is POV, the other does not seem to make sense. ♠DanMS 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete — RJH 19:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ilmari Karonen 22:01, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep and cleanup --JAranda | yeah 04:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fisher & Paykel

Currently advertisement. Needs at least a major re-write. Dlyons493 Talk 23:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Withdrawing Afd and leaving Advertising tag as per feedback below. Dlyons493 Talk 11:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. At least add the {{Advertisement}} tag to speed up rewriting. An ariticle shouldn't be deleted just because the current version is substandard. Fisher & Paykel gets 1,000,000+ results on Google and seems notable to me. --W.marsh 00:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Major international appliance manufacturer. Their unusual dishwashers are widely available in North America. AfD is not the place for cleanup requests. Pburka 00:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. Major company. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep as per above Roodog2k (talk) 01:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Major company. Well known brand where I come from (Australia). Cnwb 05:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean-up. This is a known appliance manufacturer. Stu 20:54, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 05:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Optimus Prime (person)

Not notable except for naming himself after Optimus Prime, the fictional robot. I don't understand how this survived an October 2004 vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Optimus Prime (person).--Pharos 23:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Perhaps because a lot of people don't consider "notability" to be a major factor in whether something's worthy of having an article about it in an encyclopedia, or disagree with your assessment of this person's notability? There are articles on Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 and Jennifer 8. Lee solely on account of their unusual names, for example, so this article isn't some aberration. I personally happen to think it's noteworthy that someone named Optimus Prime fought in Iraq. Bryan 23:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Jennifer 8. Lee writes for the New York Times. The naming of Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 was at least a protest against Swedish naming laws. Someone like Adolf Lu Hitler Marak is a notable Indiian politician. That Optimus Prime (the person) fought in Iraq doesn't I think make him any more notable than hundreds of thousands of others who have.--Pharos 23:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • No, but the fact that he's named Optimus Prime makes him more notable than hundreds of thousands of others who have. Why can't someone be notable because of their name? You've already granted Brf...116 a pass in that regard, and Jennifer 8. Lee's notability as a Times writer doesn't appear to be the reason why the article was written either considering how much of it's focused solely on her name - there's as much about her job in her article as there is about Prime's job in his article. I don't see why the fact that the name was self-chosen in Prime's case would make a difference. Bryan 07:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I could easily go down to the local courthouse tomorrow and legally change my name to Godzilla. Then, presumably, would I merit an article carefully disambiguated at Godzilla (person)?--Pharos 19:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Sure, why not? Seriously, I don't see why not. You'd have done something fairly interesting. Bryan 19:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Pharos's previous comment. -Nameneko 01:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep as per Bryan Roodog2k (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An unusual name is not an encyclopedic claim to notability, and this article is wholly unexpandable. If this person name has been a new story outside of his hometown, a sentence about him might be appropriate for Optimus Prime. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • There are already a couple of sentences at the bottom of Optimus Prime.--Pharos 19:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Please delete this time. This reminds me of the saying about changing your name to "TV Listings" to get in the paper...--MacRusgail 13:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per A Man In Black. --GraemeL (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as an unusual article about a borderline notable subject. [edit] 20:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Optimus Prime. Interesting, but hardly merits a separate article. Ilmari Karonen 21:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep does no harm at all. Dmn € Դմն 23:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bryan as well as its initial VfD survival. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep just like last time and please do not merge it that would not make any sense Yuckfoo 14:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'm really strained to consider all of these keep votes as serious. Should I really advise the writer of the next vanity article that comes up here to just adopt an unusual name, as this simple measure will guarantee their notability?--Pharos 15:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • At the very least, assume good faith. My vote is based mostly around the fact that it's already survived the VfD process, but I do believe he's notable enough to warrant an article and would have voted keep then, too. --Badlydrawnjeff 15:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm trying to assume full good faith, but I just don't see any reasonable basis being given as to why he is notable. Surely you realize there are probably thousands of people with names just as unusual as "Optimus Prime"; Mr. Prime just happens to be one of a few who've received mention in their local newspaper.--Pharos 15:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm sure there is a pretty large number of people who change their names to something a bit bizarre. If they recieve media attention and/or do something a little out of the ordinary (this guy, for instance, was deployed in Iraq and his military ID also reflects his new name, which is fascinating), I'll vote to keep them every time. If I have a kid and decide to name him Captain Underpants, he's not going to be notable until there's a reason to notice him, such as a newspaper article or something he does. I don't know if there is a standard in place for bizarre names, but given the nature of WP, I have no problem with using that threshold personally. --Badlydrawnjeff 16:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even if someone does something just to become notable, that doesn't prevent them from becoming notable for doing it. This person has found a unique way to become more interesting and notable than the average National Guardsman. "Optimus Prime comes home from Iraq." I love it. This article is surely a quirky, but real improvement to Wikipedia. Unfocused 17:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as this is an article about a member of the National Guard with a notably unusual and bizarre namewho has received ample press coverage, and is duly noted at Wikipedia:Unusual_articles#Language_and_names. Hall Monitor 18:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Optimus Prime. "Optimus Prime" (toy) is notable, and the fact that someone chose to name himself after it is an interesting fact about the toy. The person is not notable at all. --Austrian 18:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It actually got merged into that article for a while after the first VfD. However, the merged material didn't fit very well and wound up pared down to the snippet that's currently in the "see also" section so the person-stuff was split off into its own article again. I suspect the same would happen now, the Optimus Prime article is even bigger than it was back then. Besides, how would the merged article be categorized? Bryan 23:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a standalone article. How many other people named after Transformers can one find in any country's military? This article is one of the many cool things I've learned about since reading Wikipedia:Unusual articles a while back. --Idont Havaname 00:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • comment IMHO, the fact that the guy changed his name to Optimus Prime DOES make the guy notable enough for inclusion. Its cheesy notability. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 09:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: quickly checking WP:NOT, this article might conceivably come under the category of "genealogical entry, or phonebook entry": One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Well, he's managed that. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:08, 4 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drich

Incoherent nonsense. It had been tagged as speedy but the user removed it. 202.156.6.60 23:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete, but should be retitled to 'D-Rich' if kept. D-Rich is mentioned on the G-Unit article, but is merely on their label and has only one recording out as far as I can tell, seemingly failing WP:Music. Isn't on AMG either. Certainly some potential to become notable someday though. --W.marsh 23:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Definitely not nonsense, though. Jkelly 23:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, signed by a major label. Kappa 00:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He can get an article when he has an album. Gamaliel 03:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per Gamaliel Pete.Hurd 00:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC --JAranda | yeah 04:15, 7 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to allegation. — JIP | Talk 05:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Allegedly

Not only is it a dictionary entry, see WP:NOT a dictionary or usage guide, but I think the article is also biased and inaccurate; in case the subject were encyclopedic, it would have to be rewritten anyways. --Mysidia (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: This was already marked for Speedy deletion under CSD:G4 - the article has already been deleted before, but the author removed the tag. I restored the Speedy notice, no need for an AfD. Owen× ☎ 23:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dictionary definition. The definition is wrong anyway. Allegedly is not a verb, it’s an adverb. ♠DanMS 00:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to allegation. -- BD2412 talk 02:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to allegation. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:37, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tireball

Vanity and unnotable site. (No Alexa rating for those who care) Kushboy 23:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 22:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per ditto Pete.Hurd 00:22, 6 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Space Lonely Soldier

Appears to be non-notable. Ashenai 23:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete — appears to be a description of somebody's home brew role-playing game. No evidence of notability I could find. Most of the google hits concern the song of the same name. — RJH 19:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per above Pete.Hurd 00:21, 6 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.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. User:Nichalp/sg 08:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shrivatsa

Does not appear to contain any information not present in such articles as Shiva, Vishnu, or Trimurti. Furthermore, doesn't actually specify what Shrivatsa is. Shrivatsa may be a topic deserving an article (unfortunately, systemic bias comes in to play: I can't make that call, and I doubt many of us can), but this is by no means that article. The Literate Engineer 23:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Possibly a copyvio from [43]. Even if the article is fair use of that essay, the part that was taken is primarily a quotation from the Encyclopedia Britannica (not indicating whether it was a public-domain or copyrighted edition of EB). --Metropolitan90 02:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Move this nom to WP:CP User:Nichalp/sg 18:10, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WorldUnited

Advertisement for worthy but nn organisation. realted to grassroots.orgDlyons493 Talk 23:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete good luck and power to them, but there's nothing encyclopedic going on here. Pete.Hurd 00:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Nom --JAranda | yeah 04:14, 7 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 07:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow Henry Gang

Incoherent nonsense. This article has been speedy deleted already but the user keeps recreating the page. 202.156.6.60 23:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If it's been previously deleted and the content is similar, Speedy it. At the moment it comes under nonsense anyway.--inks 23:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of speedy-ing it, under CSD:A1 and A8. I'm not sure if that was the right thing to do with an active AfD entry, but no doubt an admin will know what to do.--inksT 01:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It’s just a poem or the lyrics from a song. Not encyclopedic without context. ♠DanMS 00:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete copyvio anyway. Lyrics from a Slipknot diddy, "Duality". Roodog2k (talk) 01:26, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect as non-notable. Thue | talk 19:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Carter

Not especially notable businessman.Dlyons493 Talk 00:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Possibly a speedy. Sonic Mew | talk to me 00:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Only 11 google hits for "Mike Carter" "Towers Perrin", and I don't think they're even all him. Maybe redirect to Michael Carter? Pburka 00:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. 712 google hits for "mike carter" "Bib Fortuna", much more than for this guy. (weird, this is more like a resume than normal autobiocruft) --Interiot 01:40, 2 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Land of me

Advertising for a blog. Wikipedia not a repository of links. Jkelly 02:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information. --Mysidia (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Speedy if possible (vanity/advertising, seems speedyable...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:26, 2 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2005_October_1_1ef1.html"