Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 3

< October 2	October 4 >

Discussions
Centralized discussion

edit • talk • log • watch
Wikipedia:WikiProject reform User-warning templates strawpoll Wikipedia:Main page featured article stability Wikipedia:Article inclusion Wikipedia:Credentials Wikipedia:Notability Wikipedia:Overlapping policies and guidelines Draft unified account policy Broad community discussion on the status of Wikipedia:Attribution
Conclusions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Neutrality^talk 13:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sea of Insanity

A webcomic, hosted on keenspace, found here. Article makes no assertion of notability, it is not mentioned on the alexa report for keenspace suggesting it is not one of the well read webcomics. A google search shows up nothing which would lift this from every other website out there. Hahnchen 00:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Huh. I thought LKM quit Sea of Insanity a long time ago. Anyway, transwiki to Comixpedia, as non-influential webcomic. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn webcomic. --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - as per nom CLW 11:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn webcomic. Dottore So 20:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - as per nom Dragonfiend 21:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete here and transwiki as per Man in Black. Qaz ^(talk) 23:24, 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. Neutrality^talk 13:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vevega

no-brainer vanity protologism. — brighterorange (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. nn. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
delete as above, va-voom. Pete.Hurd 04:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Quale 04:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 06:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as above. --Ashenai 09:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - as per nom CLW 11:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Qaz ^(talk) 23:27, 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. Neutrality^talk 13:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ektron CMS400.NET

copyvioesque advertisement. — brighterorange (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Looks pretty non-notable to me. — ceejayoz ^★ 01:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
delete as above Pete.Hurd 04:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Quale 04:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 06:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Seems notable (lot of Google hits), but NPOV advert to the point of unusability. --Ashenai 09:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 11:01, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete CSD G4 (done by User:Bogdangiusca) — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ektron CMS400.NET

Advertorial article on a content management system which is written by a user whose name is all over the manufacturer's website. Just zis Guy you know? 17:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete as deleted and reposted content. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Speddy Close the article has been deleted alredy. --Edgelord 20:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Neutrality^talk 13:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled!

A non-notable webcomic hosted on a keenspace domain here. The alexa rank for the comicgen.com domain is around 150,000. But if we look at the traffic report, Untitled! doesn't even feature on the list, suggesting a tiny readership. Entry already exists at comixPedia, where it should belong for the time being. - Hahnchen 00:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, as per nom. --Ashenai 09:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 11:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn webcomic. Dottore So 20:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per nom. Dragonfiend 21:36, 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. Neutrality^talk 13:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Syzygy of Idiocy

A long-dead webcomic, which I can not find online, anywhere. Bar a cafepress shop, which I'm guessing hasn't been used for a long time. WP is not a memorial, especially not a memorial for a website which shut down because its hosting was terminated (surely, if its notable, it would have carried on regardless due to popularity and demand?). - Hahnchen 00:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

delete doesn't pass my notability threshold. — brighterorange (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Dizzlete with extreme prejudice. FCYTravis 03:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN. Where do all these webcomic articles come from! Cnwb 06:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 11:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn webcomic. Dottore So 20:53, 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 speedy deleted. — JIP | Talk 07:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Igor Miskovic

self-referential vanity, almost A7. — brighterorange (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete It most definately is A7. The guy admits in the article that he is not worthy of the page yet, he just hopes to be someday. CastAStone 01:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speey delete. Definitely A7, and so marked. Quale 04:15, 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. Neutrality^talk 13:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome Consumer

Another non notable webcomic with an alexa rank of almost 4 million which can be found here. The article was written by a user named Urabob, which just happens to the author's alias on their sub 50 member forum, here. The articles for the authors are listed below. - Hahnchen 00:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn comic cruff/advert CastAStone 01:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN vanity advert. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 11:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn. Dottore So 20:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wow, this is a really lacklustre webcomic. It deserves the popularity (or lack thereof) it has... Philip Taron 10:25, 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 delete. Neutrality^talk 13:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Colin

Non-notable webcomic author for the comic listed above. - Hahnchen 00:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete NN ad vanity --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 11:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn-bio.--Isotope23 16:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn. Dottore So 20:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity page... Philip Taron 10:22, 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 delete. Neutrality^talk 13:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toni Patrick

Non-notable webcomic author for the comic listed 2 places above. - Hahnchen 00:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete - NN (and vanity) per Hahnchen. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 11:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn-bio.--Isotope23 16:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn. Dottore So 20:56, 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. Neutrality^talk 13:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vermont Group

This is a non-notable group of Diplomacy (game) players. It has only 107 unique Google results in English. The founder's article is listed below. -- Kjkolb 00:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 05:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, although we don't have a guideline to help us decide on including groups of Diplomacy players. Someone should go write one right away. Jkelly 06:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete online board-gaming group. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 11:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn. Dottore So 20:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. This group is worldwide and is one of the most significant groups in the Diplomacy (game) hobby, but by WP's standards it's just another online game-related group, and doesn't have Google or Alexa evidence of notability. If I used the arguments of some AfD voters, the WP:Importance criterion "is of interest to a community" would garner this article my "Keep" vote. Barno 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point, and that raises the question of whether the community is itself of note then, and deserving of an independent, encyclopedic article (which in this case I don't think is the case). Dottore So 23:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The Diplomacy community definitely is notable and article-worthy. First play-by-mail historical game, first game hobby to spawn hundreds of fanzines published nationally and internationally, championships in nearly twenty nations, a long-established world championship convention (not just an online tourney calling itself "world championship"), organizations that provide real functions and not just chat forums, coverage in mainstream media, and so forth. Favorite game of Walter Cronkite, John F. Kennedy, and Henry Kissinger, although that might not be so notable a point. It's far more notable than most of the MMORPGs whose adherents think they should have their clans and forums and hacker-groups listed in WP. Barno 17:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting. I think I would include all that in the Diplomacy (game) article, though, instead of a separate Diplomacy Community article. That's just my preference though. I certainly am in total agreement concerning your sentiments about the plethora of insignficant MMORPGs. Dottore So 12:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

- - Comment. I'd suggest that the Diplomacy (game) article wouldn't be hurt by adding some information to it. I notice that it is completely unreferenced at the moment and contains inline external links. Jkelly 03:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Agree with Jkelly. -- Kjkolb 04:33, 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. Neutrality^talk 13:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doug Massey

Founder of the non-notable Vermont Group of Diplomacy (game) players, which is listed above. -- Kjkolb 00:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 05:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nn-bio. Jkelly 07:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Speedy what's next, an article for every D&D Dungeon Master? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - utterly nn CLW 11:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - indeed. Dottore So 20:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. JDPR and the Vermont Group are notable within the Diplomacy (game) community, but not to the general public, and their influence within that hobby aren't so crucial that their founder is the Henry Ford of Diplomacy. Barno 17:43, 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. Neutrality^talk 14:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MOJD

Vanity article. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 19:35, 2 October 2005 (CDT)}

Delete From the article: "most significant [work] is the network maintenance of a rural high school between 2004 - 2005" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Starblind. — ceejayoz ^★ 02:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
delete as above Pete.Hurd 04:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 05:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn, advert CLW 11:07, 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. Neutrality^talk 14:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Www.animateclay.com

Non-notable, Alexa rank of 583,606 and appears to be a vanity page. — ceejayoz ^★ 00:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ^★ 00:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, lol. ericg ✈ 00:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Alynna 04:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 11:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Flower party■ 19:39, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria Star 2

It is a non-notable 96-foot ferry. -- Kjkolb 00:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Spinboy 02:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Ferries and ships are fairly large objects which have individual variation. I think people interested in ships might be interested in such articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Sjakkalle CLW 11:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: If the ship were larger, perhaps it would be notable, but we're not even talking about a large oil tanker or cruise ship. It's only 96 feet long and has a total crew of 4 people, smaller and fewer than some fishing boats. The number of ships that of that size or larger over the last few centuries is enormous. Also, "Victoria Star 2" gets only about 30 unique, non-porn search results, many of which are spam sites. -- Kjkolb 12:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- My "keep" votes aren't always to be interpreted as "keep as it is forever and don't ever try to merge it". If we had an article about the cruise company which owns the Victoria Star 2, I would be all for merging this ship and any other ship belonging to it in with that article since it provides more context. Information about a shipping companiy's ships is in my view relevant information which should be included in some form, preferably in the company article (which I don't think we have now). For now, I think the best thing is to let the article stay until we do get an article about the ship company. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete I agree with Kjkolb. It's too small a ship to be significant without being further involved in some other affair. Marcus22 13:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Karol 18:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Per Kjkolb, Marcus; in this case the vessel in question is too insignificant to warrant an entry. Dottore So 20:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are literally dozens of ferries in the Georgia Straight, and this is about one of the most minor. -- Corvus 22:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Sjakkalle Carioca 22:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Dottore So --JAranda | yeah 01:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Sjakkalle. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge someplace - I read it over and agree with the other delete arguments here Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is like having individual articles on busses. Gamaliel 11:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is like having individual articles on transit routes. Like Green Line "C" Branch or Lake Shore Limited. The ferry makes one round trip a day, so they are the same thing in this case. --SPUI (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Read the article, this is quite clearly an individual ship and not a route. I just called Washington State Ferries and there are many ships that go between Victoria and the Washington mainland. There are two other, larger, companies that provide regular ferry service there as well, plus any number of charter services. Should I write an article about my car because I regularly drive to Seattle? -- Corvus 17:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- - In this case, the route is equivalent to the ship. If your car operated on a regular public schedule as a common carrier, it too would be "ntoable". --SPUI (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Some of the information could be included in a List of ferries in the Georgia Strait, or a similarly-titled article. Mindmatrix 19:47, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zombie High

A none notable webcomic with found here with no alexa rank. It's hardly ever updated and the archives are a bit bare. No mention of notability anywhere. Stillborn webcomic. - Hahnchen 00:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep all schools Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 11:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn, Usrnme h8er 14:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Dottore So 21:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Qaz ^(talk) 23:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn Dragonfiend 05:43, 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. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Montrose Academy

This is NOT a school. This is a brother/sister "web studio". The top google hit for this, is a porn site. Other google hits also show nothing to do with what the article is actually about. - Hahnchen 00:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Looks like an attempt to sneak in via the schoole keyhole. Dlyons493 Talk 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn. It can jolly well sneak out again. CLW 11:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nn --rob 16:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Gateman1997 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Dottore So 21:01, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Jar

None notable webcomic made by Montrose Academy, above. Shows no assertion of notability and I can't find it or its archives on Google. - Hahnchen 00:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn. So it had a "ravid" following, did it? Duh... CLW 11:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Dottore So 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Dragonfiend 13:05, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Sidecar Brotherhood

Zero relevent Google hits for this nn three month old cult. No mention of the number of members or any notability. Not enough to even be a hoax. Delete. Owen× ☎ 00:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. NN cult. Formed only a few months ago. Cnwb 06:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 11:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Dottore So 21:00, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 17:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Spiders

A none notable webcomic, found here. The site hasn't been updated it like 2 years, with the next installment of the comic due to arrive Autumn 2004. The site it is hosted on, has been defunct for a long while and the alexa rank shows this, with a 600k+ figure. None notable part of a none notable website. - Hahnchen 01:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. Jkelly 07:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 11:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This comic has been favorably reviewed in the Webcomics Examiner, the Comics Journal, Comixpedia (not the wiki), artbomb.net, and Sequential Tart. Scott McCloud and Warren Ellis have publicly and repeatedly praised it. Given that it has received extensive coverage online and in print publications, it is clearly notable, even before considering its artistic and technological merits. Why was this nominated? Factitious 14:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn-bio. Authoring a web comic of dubious notability does not make a person notable in my book.voted for wrong AfD. No opinion on this.--Isotope23 16:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete; these insignificant webcomics are forming a pandemic. If Factitious can show post some justification of his remarks, I might change my vote, although it is hard to see how a moribund webcomic can attain notability worthy of encyclopedic treatment. Dottore So 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Justification. More justification. Even more justification. So much justification it's all over your screen. Why did you assume that this was an insignificant webcomic? All my remarks can easily be checked with Google. Factitious 22:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I still think it's insignificant per the nominator, but I appreciate your response. Dottore So 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean you think we shouldn't mention it just because it's over two years old, or is there something I'm not getting? Factitious 00:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe if the author himself thought it was significant, he would have finished the thing. He's abanadoned it along with Electric Sheep Comix, just because it's been reviewed by webcomic enquirer or what webcomic? or webcomics r us, doesn't make it notable. Technical merits? I thought infinte canvas would be a massive flowing page, but it's just a horizontal slideshow. - Hahnchen 13:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

As I've already shown, it has been reviewed in publications which are not focused on webcomics. If you're interested in learning more about what makes it technically interesting, I suggest that you read some of the critical reactions, as you should have done before trying to delete this article. Factitious 05:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a merge with Electric Sheep Comix? Gamaliel 11:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- At best, it would be merged with Patrick Farley, the artist's article. Not his art site, which is up for deletion. - Hahnchen 13:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Factitious -Abe Dashiell 13:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep I have no problem with this article. Alf ^melmac 12:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Factitious. Seriously, one read through this thing will convince you it will be marked in the history of webcomics, as an example of the innovative art that happens when political speech is unlinked from monetary neccessity and the constraints of the page. Philip Taron 10:16, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 17:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Sheep Comix

None notable website with an alexa ranking of 600k+ as discussed in the nomination above. I have not nominated the author for deletion Patrick Farley, as there is one small claim of notability there, but I don't think his personal website warrants an article. He has a livejournal blog too. Does that deserve an entry? - Hahnchen 01:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Professional webcomic. Certainly notable. Cnwb 06:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's a pretty bare stub, but Farley's work has received a fair amount of critical attention, both online and in print. I don't see how someone who's researched the topic could think it isn't notable. Factitious 14:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment - I think you could have nom'd the author as well. Authoring a few web comics and a blog just doesn't quite make it to notability in my book.--Isotope23 16:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete I agree with Hahnchen. I also agree with Isotope. Dottore So 21:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. He is noted in print and in Web reviews for his experimentation in Web comics. ELectric sheep is his dedicated Art site and not his "personal" Web site. He has another site for that. --AlainV 08:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Question - This is an art site that has not been updated for a few years. It is a website. An article for Patrick Farley already exists. Would an article on David Hockney's website be deleted? What about The Chapman Brothers official site? Yes, because, like this one they are none notable sites and would fair better as part of the artist's article. What about Goldfrapp, their website has been through several iterations and has been given an MTV award. I've read articles in music magazines talking about their website. But if I listed www.goldfrapp.co.uk on wikipedia, it would be deleted, stating that Goldfrapp already exists. This is the same, but because it has been classed as a webcomic, the guidelines on websites becomes putty. - Hahnchen 12:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  - The website itself got an MTV award, and was the subject of magazine articles? By all means, make an entry for it. I'd support you. Factitious 16:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- Answer. The electric sheep site is an Art site completely dedicated to the Art of web comics and it was last updated January 20th 2005. The fact that the last time a comic on it was updated was in 2003 does not make it less relevant. It is the repository of all of Farley's Web comics that were praised by Web and print sources, which you can check by googling Patrick Farley and electric sheep and by reading Scott McCloud's book and other publications. --AlainV 04:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep As per Factitious and AlainV -Abe Dashiell 13:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep See Factious, plus Rush Limbaugh Eats Everything. This is a seminal early webcomic, and a damn good illustration of what you can do with the web's infinite canvas. Philip Taron 10:06, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aberdeen Street

A road that has only 2 blocks and made 'international headlines' for a car burning WOW! but Still a non notable road Delete --JAranda | yeah 01:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Note the Sneaky use of international headlines: "Canada and New York State" is hardly international, as Toronto, ON/CA and Buffalo, NY/US essentially share a media market (with each recieving the others local TV, Radio and the like). A street mentioned in a local news story that just happens to be near an international border is hardly noteworthy and therefor this should be DeletedCastAStone 01:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Except that Kingston isn't part of that market... Bearcat 05:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  - No, but it does border new york. I should have noted that i was merely giving an example. - CastAStone
Keep -- Spinboy 02:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Why? Grue 17:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The annual homecoming party that went over the top this year should be mentioned in the entry on Queen's University. There is a section "Traditions". The street itself is unremarkable, so delete it. Pilatus 02:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this article is about an event, not a road. The road is only 2 blocks that goes through a neighbourhood not notable enough to have an article itself. --maclean25 02:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep.--Nicodemus75 03:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Why? Grue 17:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Maclean25. There are verifiability problems with many of the statements in the article and no sources, another sore point with me. Quale 04:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per CastAStone and JAranda. --Kewp (t) 06:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect anything salvageable into Queen's University. (If this title isn't a proper one to serve as a redirect, then move it first). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Pilatus. -- Kjkolb 12:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no statement indicated the road is genuinely notable. Local news story only - students getting drunk and being stupid isn't truly international news. Average Earthman 12:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, a street party/riot involving 'thousands of students' might be notable, but there's no reason to believe this is true. --Last Malthusian 13:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete echoing above. Dottore So 21:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Information about the event contained in the article belongs elsewhere, probably Queen's University if references can be sourced. The street itself is not encyclopedia-worthy. Mindmatrix 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn road. Sorry, voted twice - server glitch. Dottore So 22:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Burn this like the car. Gamaliel 11:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I'll agree that this article is delete-worthy, but can I maybe flag this instead as merge request into some kind of article on the Kingston Student Ghetto/Queen's Student Ghetto—the concept of undergrads densely living in low-grade rental housing in a halo around a university is a relatively unique Canadian phenomenon (US universities accomodating far more people on campus or having a frat system) and Kingston has the prototypical student ghetto in the country. Interesting topic from an urban planning end of things. -The Tom 03:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - An event "on or about" a street doesn't qualify as making the street notable. The story isn't really about the street. I'm not voting merge, since the info is unsourced. If it's to be covered elsewhere, entirely new content should be written, citing reliable sources. --rob 09:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete completely non-notable. When we get to the point when we would keep every street in the world that really would mean the end of Wikipedia. Grue 17:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect to Queen's University as per Mgm - notable info about the university.
Delete. I used to live at 10 Aberdeen Street. The street is two blocks long and is not worthy of inclusion despite being party central. Homey 01:05, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marvin "Knife" Sotelo

Probable vanity page; Minimal community benefit Cpaliga 01:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It is important to note that he does have a self-published book seems to be a leader in a religous organization. I do not however think that every person who leads a church deserves a Wikipedia Page.Cpaliga
Also, Please go to the Cultural Reference articles, many of them have been marked for deletion.Cpaliga 14:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- unsalvageable POV, and seemingly non-notable subject --Mysidia (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable MONGO 05:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. Cultural references are crap and the articles written on them mainly created by the article writer, HTSMVKNIFE, except, obviously, for Anton LaVey. --Last Malthusian 13:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity and nn-bio.--Isotope23 18:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Leave it up... DO NOT DELETE!!!

Why does this article want to be deleted?, its actually pretty good. Leave it up why not!

If you'd like to know "why not," look at all of the previous comments explaining the reasons. Cpaliga

awesome article

it passes in my book

WHOA O.O VERY INTERESTING READ

nice just needs a little more info

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 on Wikipedia, Transwiki to Comixpedia Karmafist 16:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shit Happens Webcomic

Effort has been put into this article, that is true. But this webcomic, found here is just none notable, with an alexa rank of over 2 million. Alexa can be a red herring, but for a rank so low, it can be safe to say that this webcomic is not popular. A google search did not bring up anything which would make this website more notable than the others. Another note, is that the main contributor to the article is User:Joellevand, author of the comic. Also, check the newpost on the front page of their site, asking viewers to click on webcomic toplists. If this were notable, they wouldn't need it. This article does not belong on wikipedia, but on comixPedia where it does not yet exist. Sigh. - Hahnchen 01:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Jkelly 07:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as NN and vanity, per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to ComixPedia if there's no license concerns. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn webcomic. Dottore So 22:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Dragonfiend 15:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to ComixPedia as per Mgm. Bobstay 08:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to ComixPedia -- may not belong here, but isn't vanity either. --Raincannon 16:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'd put this down as vanity. The guy who wrote the article seems to be the webcomic artist. - Hahnchen 15:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Neh, I'm the artist, and the article was written by my girlfriend before she became co-writer -- but I take your point on it not belonging here. I'll put it on ComixPedia when I get a moment, then feel free to let it go. --Raincannon 06:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: If someone wishes to himself copy this to another GFDL wiki before the afd ends, that's all well and good, but please don't close afd nominations as transwikis to non-Wikimedia wikis. —Cryptic (talk) 08:04, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 05:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bindows

This article was undeleted after a supported request at VfU. It was previously deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bindows, but the VfU debate was happy to restore the article given the lack of participation and the promise from the original editor that he would de-advertify the article. As part of that request, the article was reverted to its original state. This is a procedural relisting. No comment from me. -Splash^talk 02:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This software is not free and likely an advertisement. Furthermore, when this article was created, the latest version was 1.31 beta when it is 1.51 stable. It's not a notable piece of software either. --AllyUnion (talk)04:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps because this is an old (e.g. restored) version of this article? Besides, that's more {{sofixit}} than a reason to delete, isn't it? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per AllyUnion. Xoloz 06:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I didn't intend to create the article as as advertisement. I've created and edited a few other computer related articles also. I'm not related to the company that creates the software. I do use this particular software though, and am aware that many others use it too. Google returns 136,000 hits. I'm ready to remove any part that looks like advertising. Jay 11:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC) (original author)
Keep Notable ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 19:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete The article does not read particularly as ad copy, but the fact that it is fairly unnotable, limited use commercial software suggests that this entry is designed to provide the appearance of independent support for the product, making it effectively de facto advertising. Could the relevant content and links be moved to the Ajax (programming) article? It would probably recieve more critical attention and relevant review there. Dottore So 22:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, again.Gateman1997 22:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as notable. Carioca 22:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep I have no problem with this article. Alf ^melmac 13:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - the concept is covered comprehensively by the Ajax (programming) article, and Bindows is just one implementation of that concept. It merits an external link in the Libraries section of the Ajax article.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. Rob e rt 01:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wisconsin land

How-to guide about buying land in Wisconsin -- Kjkolb 02:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Per Nom --JAranda | yeah 03:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WP is not a how-to. Quale 04:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikihowto - oh wait that dosn't exist, though it should. Unfortunately, I therefore agree grudgingly, Delete.CastAStone 05:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- "Wikihowto" does exist, it's called Wikibooks; therefore transwiki.--Pharos 07:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
transwiki per Pharos. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
delete —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 10:12, 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 05:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knunder

This article was speedily deleted several times (see Special:Undelete/Knunder, relevant parts available to all editors), but undeleted as not-a-speedy by VfU. So it comes here instead for a full investigation. No comment from me. (PS: I have arbitrarily reverted to what I think is a version the authors would want you to see: the later versions are recreations of protestations.) -Splash^talk 02:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete the random neologism. Pilatus 02:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Non-verifiable, since the page linked in the article [1] indicates someone made up the word as part of a bet to get it in the dictionary. And WP:NOT/ a dictionary or usage guide --Mysidia (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism, not a disctionary, no notable phenom. associated with it, basicly non notable. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
This is a dictionary article about a protologism. (It does not satisfy Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion because it is not attested independently of its source, by the way.) Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:WINAD) and is not a promotional vehicle (WP:NOT) for publicizing newly invented words (WP:NOR) so that as a consequence they enter widespread use, they get into dictionaries, and one can win a bet with one's teacher. In any case: Any encyclopaedia article content about the concept that this protologism is purported to describe would have a natural home in table (furniture); and any encyclopaedia article content about the process of getting words into the Oxford English Dictionary belongs in Oxford English Dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 03:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete this protologism, and protect the space if necessary to prevent re-creation. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete it good! Dicdef and I can't see it changing. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 05:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it's not encyclopedic, but do list it on the bad jokes page, the "safety in knunders" pun deserves to live on. - Stillnotelf 06:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete and protect from re-creation Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- I already did and it got unprotected. -- RHaworth 09:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  - That was me. I unprotected it because VfU mandated it be undeleted, so I didn't have much choice. The irksome IP in question has removed the AfD tag, predictably, and received a warning from me, with no mincing of words. -Splash^talk 12:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to neologism and make a brief note about it there as an intentional attempt to force a neologism into the world. The fact that this boy and/or his teacher have managed to get the Beeb to notice is a bit notable. It has also been noted by such august organs as the Lincolnshire Echo, the Grantham Journal and the Sleaford Standard. It does not actually matter if Wikipedia records it, that is not what puts a word into the language. This one will surely frizzle out (pun on the creator's name) anyway. -- RHaworth 09:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G. android 79 12:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I'm Stephen Frizzle, the creator of the word. I googled knunder earlier to see how it was doing, and 'lo and behold, it's been added on Wikipedia! I was also a bit shocked to see I had "new messages" telling me I'd be blocked from Wikipedia if I was to edit any more pages. What's that all about?! It mentioned something about sharing the same IP address as another user. The only suggestion I can say is the fact I'm using a college computer. It sickens me to think that somebody from the college is deliberately associating the word with acts of anarchy such as this.

Anyway, this bet I'm having is going pretty well, and I like to thank people for going on the site and (possibly) using the word occasionally. Perhaps one day, this article will exist, and it will tell the story about how I managed to force a word into the language. It'll be quite a story to tell in years to come. I'm going to ask politely if you would like to keep this "nonsense neologism" on Wikipedia. I know it won't help me in any way, shape or form, but it'll be proof that the word is being recognised. Proof that it is being used.
I shall leave now, and await what the future of knunder looks like on this wiki. Thank you. -- Friz

Delete. All the uses of the word "knunder" in print seem to be about the creation of the word "knunder" as a neologism; I don't see evidence that it is being used on its own as a regular word. --Metropolitan90 19:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I'm putting a report together with all the emails I'm getting from people using the word across the country. From Primary Schools in Scotland to a workhouse in Australia. At my least count, over 5,000 people were using knunder (and that's just a guess from the facts I've collected through emails). -- Friz
Hello, Pro-Knunderers and Anti-Knunderers! Wordsmith Friz here; just a short note to say that primary school teachers all over Britain are telling their young pupils to "put their chairs in the knunder". I'm warping a generation of 4-year-olds! Also, the word is going to be used- in context- by a few D C Thompson publications (such as The Weekly News and The Beano). At my lastest count, there are now 30 ways to use the word knunder, either as a noun, verb, preposition or adverb, and there are over 6,000 people who know of the word, or are using the word. Watch this space! -- Friz

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 hoax. Hall Monitor 18:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antipope Sixtus XVI

del nonverifiable. nonnotable. mikka (t) 02:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Pope Sixtus has also further alienated some Catholics by declaring that Leonard Cohen was a prophet and by canonizing Jimi Hendrix and Marylin Monroe. DELETE and PURGE and BAN the Drastic SILLINESS and likely HOAX from WIKIPEDIA and its MIRRORS and FORKS. Sorry folks, got carried away. Pilatus 02:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No such institution in Calgary, Canada that can be verified.--Nicodemus75 03:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete sillieness --rob 05:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment Re-thinking, I believe this is a candidate for Speedy Delete--Nicodemus75 05:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Abstain If we're voting on hoaxes and pranks... --Wetman 06:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
~~Merge with current Pope in the hopes we will get an interesting middle ground.~~ Delete as hoax. Jkelly 07:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
delete nn, silly and so forth —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 10:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as hoax vandalism. android 79 12:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy as a hoax.--Isotope23 16:46, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 05:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boss Ross

Probable vanity/self-promotion page, Minimal community value Cpaliga 02:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. NN band vanity. Cnwb 06:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unsigned band, fails WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 12:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per Mallocks. Qaz ^(talk) 23:33, 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 speedy deleted. — JIP | Talk 07:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jackson Young

NN/ Vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 03:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, vanity. -- ReyBrujo 04:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. This is an A7, now so marked. Quale 04:23, 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 speedy keep as a patently invalid nomination. FCYTravis 03:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three's Company

No educational value. Not everyone in the whole wide world are familiar to that show, and it is limited to the G8 nations. My parents are from Mexico which also indicates that they are not familiar with Three's Company. Furthermore, it does not belong in an encyclopedia because it is not something thought in school. It belongs to tvguide.com not wikipedia.152.163.101.13 03:05, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Group_Data_Scheme_Society

The organization disbanded and no longer exists; nothing links to this page and the organization's fate is not notable enough to be encyclopaedic. Note that the link to the website goes nowhere. Evertype 03:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete I'm Irish and I never heard of them. Very little on Google but see [2] Dlyons493 Talk 05:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom--nixie 06:34, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep Marskell 11:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Tripper

No educational value. It does not belong in an encyclopedia. It is also fancruft.152.163.100.202 03:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Bad Faith Nomination --JAranda | yeah 03:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Possibly worst nomination ever. --Nicodemus75 03:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
keep. Gentgeen 04:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per above --rob 05:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
keep Sigh. I take it this is the same person who wanted to delete Three's Company? A clear case of Ritterophobia. Grutness...wha? 05:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedt Keep. bad faith nom, or user unaware of criteria for deletion. Nateji77 06:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Sigh. Jkelly 07:05, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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, as performed by Andrew Lenahan. Hall Monitor 22:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judy McCauley

A Google search brings up nothing noteworthy about this person. The list of her film contributions, which makes up almost all of the article, is factually inaccurate. Melesse 03:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Seems to have co-starred with enough A-list people to turn up a few more Googles than that! Dlyons493 Talk 05:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I have Speedied this as vandalism since 100% of the article (with the possible exception of the D.O.B.) is verifiably factually wrong. For example, Judy McCauley did not play Erin Brockovich in Erin Brockovich, Julia Roberts did. Entire article follows along similar lines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, 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. H e rmione1980 00:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WKIT

The content is this: 'WKIT, a rock radio station licensed to Brewer, Maine with studios and offices in Bangor, Maine, is owned by authors Tabitha and Stephen King.' Ingoolemo ^talk 03:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep and improve. Pretty much all radio stations have their own articles, although this one certainly bites at the moment. See [3] —Wahoofive (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notability shouldn't be disputed. Monicasdude 14:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and slap with a cleanup tag... terrible article.--Isotope23 16:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Improve per Wahoofive. Yikes. Karmafist 17:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 19:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:53, 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 05:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Socceresque

Obscure nelogism, dicdef NeilN 03:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Could never be more than a dicdef. Quale 04:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The concept of being "almost as beautiful as soccer" is close enough to succeeding in acheiving the meaningless ness of "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" without having any of the significance of Chomsky's sentence. This is a neologism, but worse: the -def part of this dicdef is hardly something encyclopedic. Not to mention it's the sort of neologism some people (myself included) make up twenty-dozen times a day because we like tacking derivational morphemes onto words to create our own words instead of using everybody else's. And not one such word (socceresque, ironage, stenchify, etceterize, etc.) is deserving of a Wikipedia article. The Literate Engineer 05:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't know about that. Iron age has an article. AndyJones 23:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Neologism/linkspam. Qwghlm 11:36, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep Marskell 11:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chrissy Snow

No educational value. Not everyone in the world is familiar with her.152.163.100.203 03:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Possibly second-worst nomination ever.--Nicodemus75 03:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. That's a stupid reason for deletion. Nelson Ricardo 04:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ encyclopediae arent textbooks. valid article on notable subject. Nateji77 04:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Change vote to speedy keep. Nateji77 05:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep I'm sure the nominator isn't even trying to be serious with the absurd reasoning. --rob 05:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment the user contributions and ip addresses for this nom found here look similar to those for this nom, who also nominated the speedily-kept Three's Company article. if it's a single user rather than several users sharing ip addresses then heshe has also contributed to a number of articles on professional wrestling, which i personally feel to be of even less educational value than famous 70s sitcoms. not sure why you'd have an agenda against 3s company, tho. Nateji77 05:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
keep as per Jack Tripper and Three's Company. And while we're at it, a pre-emptive keep on any articles on Janet Wood, the Ropers, Man about the House, Robin Tripp, Chrissy Plummer, et al. Grutness...wha? 05:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep. Sigh. Jkelly 07:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. The next time I write an article about a fictional character, I'll make it a point to travel all around the world, making sure even the old people and small children in small, remote African villages who have never used a computer have heard of them, just so it satisfies the Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. Not. — JIP | Talk 07:22, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 05:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Vold

This article was originally tagged for speedy deletion by Kpjas, but I believe that it should be brought before AfD for discussion instead. No vote. Hall Monitor 18:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this as it failed to draw any discussion at all. Rx StrangeLove 15:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Relisting again! R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment We are too busy voting on schools.--Nicodemus75 15:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete in its present form - at least needs a rewrite to make it less promotional. Maybe even then it'll be nn. Suggest adding a list of all schools he attended - Oh God No, somebody will do that now! Dlyons493 16:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Dlyons493. -- Kjkolb 03:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable bio. Quale 04:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nn bio. Xoloz 06:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment, can anyone explain to me what a "Rodeo Stock Contractor" is? If he's a rider, I'm inclined to say keep, but if he is just providing livestock, that doesn't seem to quite meet notability in my book; yes we should list every school he ever attended, because they are all notable you know...--Isotope23 16:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment. This was twice relisted for discussion, that is unusual. What is the record for an article discussion being relisted for failing to draw commentary? Hall Monitor 19:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Dottore So 22:14, 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 05:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Star Trek

Also nominating two other associated pages: Star Trek: Star's End and Star Trek: Renaissance. They are about a fan site; there are no links to them from outside the set and they seem like ads. At least merge the articles. Jason McHuff 03:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Alexa rank is 1,306,006 --Jason McHuff 03:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete all three. Virtual Star Trek is a non-notable website, the other two are fanfics. Quale 04:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete all of the above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, echoing above. Dottore So 22:15, 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 No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 05:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chum Bucket

Contextless jibberjabber without geographical information that is also apparently advertising non-notable eateries.Need I say anything other than Delete? Eddie.willers 03:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Although utterly unclear from the article, it actually describes fictional restaurants from the cartoon SpongeBob SquarePants. Quale 04:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep - I cleaned up the article so it would look less like an ad for a non-notable eatery. — Kjammer ⌂ 06:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to Sheldon J. Plankton where the restaurant is already partly covered. The two are so closely interlinked that there's no point in having separate articles. — RJH 20:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Sheldon J. Plankton.Gateman1997 22:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep -radiojon 19:43, 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 05:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Think tanks the game

non notable fan game --SoothingR 16:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
delete - not notable, poorly written, Stu 17:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
delete Unverifiable. Xoloz 06:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Xoloz. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:54, 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 Relisting didn't exactly draw a crowd, but enough is enough. Rx StrangeLove 05:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silentfriend

Not notable blog/concept. feydey 17:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. promotion for a charity. Nateji77 19:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Relisting. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising, nn. Xoloz 06:17, 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 DELETE and tell the 11-year-old to wash his mouth with soap. Why, back in my time... — JIP | Talk 05:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cushtie

Is it advertising? Is it a dicdef? Is it slang? Is it even notable? No, no, no and again, no. Delete Eddie.willers 04:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Quale 04:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Take out the non-neutral first-person content, and one is left with practically zero content, except for a vague indication that this is some form of cushion. A Google Web search told me what this was. The article certainly didn't. But then that's because it was copied from the advertising blurb in a product catalogue, where the catalogue itself had accompanying pictures to explain what the item was. Copyvio. Uncle G 05:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

My 11-year-old son added this page because he had just been given a Cushtie. He did not, repeat not, copy anything from any advertising blurb, he wrote it entirely himself. I accept that it may not be appropriate for Wikipedia (I am a fan) but please don't judge so harshly. He was attempting to reproduce the type of article he has seen in Wikepedia, he was unaware that Cushtie is not a "real" thing. If you choose to delete so be it! -- unsigned comment by 82.35.131.115

Delete as a non-notable item. Not to nitpick, but while it is not a direct cut & paste job, it's fairly obvious that the text of the first sentence was taken from the link Uncle G posted in the copyvio message. Still, not a bad first effort for an 11 year old.--Isotope23 18:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey- FUCK OFF. I dont know about wikipedia yet- im only 11. I thought since ive seen so much info anout saying how classy other items were i thought id share with the world what i thought. YOU PRICKS WONT GIVE ME THE CHANCE. DO WHAT YOU WISH.-- unsigned comment by 82.35.131.115

- Oh well, at least he can go home and hug his Cushtie. I'm restoring the deleted votes.--Isotope23 19:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a very mature "11-year-old." Delete. FCYTravis 21:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and offer the "11-year-old" a bar of soap for use in washing one's mouth out. android 79 00:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete and give the kid some Lifebuoy a la A Christmas Story. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey im sorry the way i acted- it wasnt your fault. I shouldnt of swore at you. Please forgive me and ill try to make a better article :)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. DS 12:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew & Shawn Brooks

To start, the title is wrong for an encyclopedia article. The entire text is two sentences: "Andrew & Shawn Brooks' first published novel was the sci-fi thriller The Peoples Yard written in 1988. While not critically acclaimed, it did gather a strong fan base that lead them to write The Octagon fantasy saga." Can't find them or their novels on amazon. Vanity. Quale 04:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, at best vanity... at worst, just nn-bio.--Isotope23 17:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Dottore So 22:15, 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 05:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] D (2010 film)

crystal ballism. similar previous afds include Robots 2 (2010 film) and 2010 in film. Nateji77 04:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Kjammer ⌂ 06:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Xoloz 06:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete an so on. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. 23skidoo 21:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. *drew 01:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hoax. tregoweth 20:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Bobo192 20:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, along with 2010 in film. Pburka 01:38, 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 No consensus, several of the votes offered rewrite as an options which was done, so along with the 2 keep votes makes this stuck in the middle. I'd suggest keeping an eye on this though. Rx StrangeLove 05:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Early

Created by Maryearly75 (talk • contribs). I userfied it, but it was re-created in article namespace. This reads like a CV and not an encyclopedic article. -- Curps 04:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite or Userfy. Google [4] turns up 440 hits including the Washington Post. Dlyons493 Talk 05:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup, as per User:Dlyons493. Jkelly 07:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, by all means. The Google link above includes hits on "talking to Mary early this morning" or even "Jacques Stella, Ascension of the Virgin Mary, early 17th century", completely unrelated to that person. The WP mention is one list of art exhibits in Washington, DC, and a fleeting mention in an article on someone else (one Riccardo Maranzana). Falls below by threshold of what is encyclopedic; I class this as vanity/advertisement. Lupo 12:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Vanity. Marcus22 13:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Sufficiently notable to be regularly mentioned in news articles about gallery exhibitions, which seems to me to be analogous enough to imdb standard to justify inclusion. Monicasdude 14:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Rewrite If someone else wants to write it, then that's fine, she's got a good shot at notability. Right now though, it just looks like Mary cut and pasted her resume and decided that Wikipedia would be a good promotional device, which is the prototypical vanity article. Karmafist 17:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Dottore So 22:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to rewrite the entry per suggestions; I created the entry because it came to my attention that my name was included in the text of the Bennington College entry, and studied the other artist, literature links and it seemed appropriate.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Rx StrangeLove 05:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calpoly Demographics

Not an article and possibly a copyright violation too. Rmhermen 04:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Looks like its been copied off an intranet. Dlyons493 Talk 05:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The information was taken from a source and made into to graphs. The creating of the site is for a class project so if it could be left up for a few days that would be greatly appriciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.112.123 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 4 October 2005.

Well, as the standard deletion procedure, it will stay for 5 days while a consensus is built on if it should be deleted. If you need to make pages like this, it's best not to do it in the main article space but to make your own user account then create it as a subpage from there. If you want any help, let me know. --Apyule 06:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, not an article. --Apyule 06:44, 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 05:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jah Acid Dub

Doesn't seem particularly notable, 1020 google hits.

Delete per nomination. - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless something more notable is added to the article. Qaz ^(talk) 23:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nonsense. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:58, 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 No consensus, ~~I'm moving it to Annie L. Gaetz School, Red Deer, Alberta though~~. Rx StrangeLove 06:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Annie_L._Gatez_School

No context, vanity Stillnotelf 05:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. - Stillnotelf 05:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Given the rewrite, I keep my vote: not notable. - Stillnotelf 02:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Move to Annie L. Gaetz School, Red Deer, Alberta and stubbify. FCYTravis 05:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Spinboy 05:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: It is a real school. If kept, it needs to be renamed as it's spelled incorrectly, but my vote is above. -- Spinboy 05:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Move per FCYTravis. Xoloz 06:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The content of the article is "Annie L. Gatez is the most wonderful school for it is in our hometown Red Deer Alberta. Annie L. Gatez was a very nice, humorous, edjucated girl. Annie L. Gatez is where children count!". That is not an article. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Rewrite acknowledged, neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Content now changed. Xoloz 11:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Yellow Pages. Pilatus 12:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hey, at least the original version had some content and made me giggle. Now it's just non-notable. --Last Malthusian 13:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn school.--Isotope23 17:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Move to Annie L. Gaetz School, Red Deer, Alberta. Verifiable school in Red Deer.--Nicodemus75 18:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep for the usual reasons and move as already suggested. That said, is anyone else experiencing difficulty accessing the main article? Both Firefox and Internet Explorer are freezing up when accessing it right now. Silensor 20:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn school --JAranda | yeah 21:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete all public schools. 207.188.29.244 21:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete or barring that move it to the correct name and vastly expand it.Gateman1997 22:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep since the rewrite, real school, useful stub. Kappa 02:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
keep please it has been rewritten and it is neutral and verifiable and about a school so we should not erase this Yuckfoo 03:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move to Annie L. Gaetz School, Red Deer, Alberta. An article on the board should have come first, but the article is still valuable, and will hopefully grow. Regarding Silensor's comments, I couldn't access the school article earlier for quite a while. I couldn't figure it out, since I could access other articles in wikipedia. But now, it seems to work fine. It was really weird. --rob 03:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article does not establish notability. --Carnildo 05:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's that simple when not notable. Are there more schools with this name? If not, then why move it? Vegaswikian 05:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yellowpagifying? --Last Malthusian 08:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Will everyone calling for 'keep and expand' please say what interesting information they would like to see included in this article. (And not the bloody ethnic makeup of the students unless it's somehow important.) --Last Malthusian 08:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep deleting the odd random school article when 20+ a day are added is pointless. CalJW 08:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, failing that Move per above Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete deleting schoolcruft is good for the soul.Dunc|☺ 10:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Generic stub. Gamaliel 11:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move to Annie L. Gaetz School, Red Deer, Alberta. ALKIVAR™ 21:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep usual reasons. --Vsion 22:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, another solid school article. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia can and should have an article about every verifiable enduring public institution in history, including this one. Keep. Gene_poole 04:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- We delete articles on private institutions every day under WP:NOT for advertising and WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. What's so special about public institutions? Do we want an article on every swimming pool, every landfill, every benefits office? They're all public institutions, just less 'romantic' than schools. --Last Malthusian 08:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Setting fictional material aside, we also keep articles about battle ships, bridges, train stations, and other notable institutions such as schools every day. The "coffee cup argument", or swimming pool in this instance, does not hold water. Silensor 18:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep the rewrite per reasoning at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Un focused 04:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete Denni ☯ 23:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move as suggested. Good rewrite. If the next Prime Minister came from this school how many Deletes would change to Keeps? Musser 03:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete yawn. We could have all these schools redirect to one article because they're all the same. Grue 17:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete primary school which noone outside the vicinity will have heard of. --redstucco 08:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn school.Dottore So 12:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Moving would be okay but I don't see the necessity because the name is probably unique. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 22:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable Dudtz 10/12/05 8:31 PM EST

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Rx StrangeLove 06:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford Future of Humanity Institute

Looks like vanity or advertisement, and apparently incomplete and/or vandalized. Wapoo 05:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio from [5] Dlyons493 Talk 05:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
the history shows it was vandalized because it was an advertisement. The vandal, 70.25.196.197, appears to spend his wiki time deleting what he considers to be NPOV violations from pages about republicans. but regardless, he was right to try to do something about this page, just wrong in his method of doing so. Delete.CastAStone 05:45, 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 05:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gacne

Neologism at best, no Wikitionary or Dictionary entry, and Google search shows sites in foreign languages. Article is nothing but a dic def anyway. — Kjammer ⌂ 05:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I dont think I want to know what a gooch or a taint is. Delete as per Kjam and may god rest your soul. CastAStone 05:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete The taint is known scientifically as the perineum. Xoloz 06:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete/Speedy even' for already stated reasons Qaz ^(talk) 00:00, 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 no consensus · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sequel trilogy (Star Wars)

This article is speculation about movies that are not going to be made, based largely on conjecture from expanded universe (licensed) Star Wars works. Only one source is cited, and that source, as far as I can tell, only confirms an incidental fact (in which year the movies would be set). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Based on further revelations, I'm changing my vote to Keep, with an eye to possibly merging it somewhere. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete a) this is a possible copyvio from the fool who made it up on supershadow[6] 10 years ago. b) its made up - he "devised it" from "conjectures" of things George Lucas once said. c) fancruft CastAStone 05:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nn fancruft. MCB 06:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fancruft, original research. — JIP | Talk 07:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Use namespace as redirect to one of the main star wars articles, delete all content. Nateji77 07:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Merge with the article Star Wars speculation. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 08:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I support the idea of a sequel trilogy. Originally, Lucas decided to stop making Star Wars films after Return of the Jedi. Contrary to what the media says, there is still a chance for a sequel trilogy. The sequel trilogy would star Ben Skywalker as an adult. It would take place about a decade after the Dark Nest trilogy. There can be up to three sequel trilogies. If there are to be 15 episodes total, Episode XV would take place in 203 ABY. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 08:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Contrary to what the media says, there is still a chance for a sequel trilogy.
  Unless and until someone adds some sort of proof of this claim to the article, it's unverified speculation. (Plus, given Lucas's track record, I think it's exceedingly unlikely he'd make a trilogy of movies based on EU canon.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  - The sequel trilogy does not necessarily have to be based on Expanded Universe canon. The earlier facts state that it would take place after all Expanded Universe canon, ranging from 40 ABY to 203 ABY. The Dark Nest trilogy, the latest in the Expanded Universe canon, takes place in 35-36 ABY. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 06:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

DELETE. This is not a bloody crystal ball for Lucaszoids and basement Jedi. --80.222.69.104 09:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
KEEP. This is not really speculation. It is based on early facts from George Lucas and on possibility. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 09:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
KEEP. First off, I am the author of this article, I wrote this article based on actual facts. Actually, this is based on facts from Lucas himself in the 80's. I would never believe that damn Supershadow for a second. The information contained in that page is based on factual information in The Star Wars Timeline Gold by Nathan Butler, which can be found here. The Wookieepedian 10:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- You say "facts" twice, but the only source you have cited is a dubious secondary source that doesn't cite primary sources for this speculation, as far as I can tell. If there are primary sources that can be cited, particularly ones I missed from that timeline, please add them to the article. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Check the new reference I added to the page. The other sources the timeline used I cannot locate.. It found its facts in an old issue of Time magazine, and other off-hand comments Lucas made to the media. The Wookieepedian 10:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Wow, that's insanely obscure, but it looks like it's there. (Page 141 of the appendices PDF from the linked timeline page, for anyone who wants to check the timeline page). Well, in that case, the speculation/conjecture needs to be trimmed, primary sources need to be tracked down and cited, and this probably needs to be merged (Star Wars speculation seems like a logical merge target). I've amended my vote in respect of this revelation. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      - Yeah, the guy who wrote that knows obscurity very well, as his timeline shows. I believe this page needs to be here to let everyone know that Lucas has in fact, based on his own former statements, planned to do such a trilogy, or triloggies at one point. Since he now denies he even considered such a thing, I thought it might be interesting to create a page using his own words against him. I don't knoiw if this would be considered speculation, except for the part about the name of Luke's son. This is more of construcing a basic storyline, based on Lucas' words. The Wookieepedian 11:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        It seems like this needs to be merged into Star Wars speculation as the source of the "What would the sequels be?" speculation, and smerged into Star Wars as a few sentences describing Lucas's change of heart about having/not having sequels. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Conjectural. Not a crystal ball. I find the fact Lucas mentioned it irrelevant. It doesn't exist until it exists. Marskell 11:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- The enitre purpose of the article is to give the reader a good idea of what he had in mind and let people know that he lies when he says he never even considered doing such a trilogy. The purpose of this article is not to say that he is going to make it, or speculate, just show what it would have basically been like, had he made one. It is notable. The Wookieepedian 11:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  - The problem is that the only facts here (as opposed to conjecture) are that Lucas was planning to make some sequels (the number varying, depending on the source and the time he was interviewed), and that he broached the subject of having Mark Hamill play an "Obi-Wan-type character." Other than that, nothing is verifiable (and a chunk of it was borderline fanfic and copyvio, and has been removed), so there's no real verifiable claim about what such movies would have been like if they had existed. Don't make this article out to be more than it is. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Here's basically what I want to do with this article: I want it to tell only the confirmed, verifyable facts first, in a section of its own. Then, based on these facts, I want to, along with help from others, construct the logical story based on these facts, noting that it isn't the actual story, just an approximation of what it would have been. The only time I will bring in the EU is when mentioning Luke's son, which I will use the name, "Ben," which has been established in The New Jedi Order. I will have a section showing proof of other sequels he has had in mind, but don't need their own page to be mentioned. I will then have one mentioning what many fans have considered the sequel trilogy in their minds (The Thrawn Trilogy for example). Finally, I will need to move the page, in order for its name to be consistant with the original trilogy and prequel trilogy articles. I hope this explains to you and everyone that votes and is involved with this issue what exactly I plan to do. The way it is in its current form isn't nearly what I had in mind. It was just a quick thing I created last night, without expanding it. If it survives deletion, though, I will expand it, becuase I strongly feel the subject is notable.
      - I'm sorry if you have serious plans on this one. "What he had in mind" is absolutely not a criteria for inclusion even if verifiable. Think about it. Every script that makes it to the talking stage of studio consideration could be included. Every plan or future desire of a notable person, subsequently scrapped, could be included. Every agreed upon role for an actor, declined at the last minute, could be included.
      - "Construct(ing) the logical story based on these facts, noting that it isn't the actual story, just an approximation of what it would have been" is absolutely a no go. I—and I'm sure not just I—would delete it in a second. It would actually constitute OR for one thing and the criticism about speculation would only be stronger. Marskell 17:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment I haven't got time to disentangle all of this. I will say only this. I'm not much of a Star Wars fan. I saw the first movie, then entitled simply "Star Wars," in 1977 on its first run in Boston and walked out before the end because I was getting just too irritated with winged spacecraft developing lift forces in a vacuum. Anyway, I certainly read interviews at the time, and in fairly mainstream places, possibly Time Magazine?, explaining that it was actually the fourth in a projected series of nine films. I've recently wondered when the seventh, eighth, and ninth will be coming out. Apparently Lucas has now backpedalled on this. Information on what has been said when about this third trilogy is legitimate, and ought to be included somewhere. This is a legitimate topic. I can't speak to whether the information currently in the article is well-researched or not. The article cannot be a reconstruction by a Wikipedia editor of what the third trilogy might have been. However, if a series of well-sourced, verifiable quotations from Lucas and others can be put together in such a way that the reader can construct a plausible storyline for him- or herself, that would be IMHO perfectly legitimate. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- That's exactly what my goal is. And in response to another editors comments that every author's screenplay or failed production should be listed if this one is, well, that's not exactly so. The talk of a sequel trilogy to Star Wars has been around since the late 70's. The talk of such a thing happening really habven't ceased. That is what makes it notable, the fact that people have known and discussed it for so long. I suppose I couldn't construct the story, but maybe explain, based only on what he has said, what was going to happen in these movies. And, by the way, the man who created the star wars timeline I list as a source is certainly not dubiou, as one said. His timeline is over 1,000 pages, as seen in the PDF, and he has worked it constantly, since 1997. He is sort of a Star Wars historian. Things he has in the timeline, are likely to be true. Also, he happens to be a high school history teacher with a intense interest in chronology. So his project is a pretty trustworthy source. Now, I won't actually construct a story, as in a plot summary, like the movie articles do, just basically what were to happen. I hope to do it in a similar format to the articles for the prequel trilogy and the original trilogy articles. The Wookieepedian 19:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Excellent summary by Dpbsmith. Following that logic, my vote would be to keep, rename as Sequel trilogy (Star Wars), and ruthlessly edit out any "reconstruction" that can't be traced back to things Lucas actually said or wrote. It is therefore likely to remain a very small article or a stub, but that seems appropriate. Bikeable 19:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep but retitle, maybe to Star Wars Third Trilogy or something a bit more useful. The fact Lucas planned a third trilogy is an historical fact dating back to around 1977-78 if not earlier, and considering the cultural significance of the Star Wars films, I think it's worthy of its own article. Any speculation regarding plot, etc. should be restricted to statements made by Lucas, though. 23skidoo 21:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- "The fact that Lucas planned a third trilogy is an historical fact"—hey sure. But there is no third trilogy and likely never will be. How are people dropping the logic ball so completely on this one? If you want to rename it go for: Speculation on the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy. That's all it can ever be. Marskell 21:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Oh, by all means rename it if it needs renaming. And... just being argumentative here, not serious... incomplete works are frequently completed by others, when there is good evidence of the author's intention. Many unfinished symphonies have been finished or reconstructed; Jack London's half-completed novel The Assassination Bureau, Ltd. was completed by Robert L. Fish; Raymond Chandler's novel Poodle Springs was completed by Robert B. Parker; various stories referred to within the Sherlock Holmes stories but never written by Arthur Conan Doyle have been written by others, and it goes on and on and on. If Lucas never makes episodes 7, 8, and 9, I think it is a virtual certainly that someone else will, someday, e.g. after he dies if his heirs see money in it. Of course it would require a crystal ball to write an article on that basis now, but the article could conceivably be more than speculation... someday. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    - And when somebody else does create them then add the page. My goodness. From Not A Crystall Ball: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Simple stuff.Marskell 09:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Star Wars speculation. With the merged material, remove the conjecture and keep it to just the evidence. Saberwyn 22:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't want to write this article in the form of a crystal ball. In its final form, I want it to basically be a place that tells only the story which is based off of facts from Lucas. At the beginning, I tell that these haven't been made, and I never try to speculate what they would be about. I don't want this to be redirected to the speculation page, I'm not speculating on what these films would be like if they were made, just telling what they could have been, according to Lucas. The Wookieepedian 01:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  - "Telling what they could have been" IS BY DEFINITION SPECULATION. Marskell 19:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    - As in could, I am referring to what they were going to be if he made them, not what I or others think they were going to be about. I was not using could to mean speculation, I was using it to mean what they were to be. The Wookieepedian 11:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
      - "I am referring to what they were going to be if he made them" You don't know what they would've been if he made them—it's as simple as that. "I'm not speculating on what these films would be like if they were made, just telling what they could have been" makes as much as sense as "It's not raining, there's just water falling from the sky." Marskell 14:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There are actually more sources than listed above or in the article: the Annotated Screenplays, for one. --Maru (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
weak keep, per The Wookiepedian -LtNOWIS 19:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment - it's an important part of the Star Wars history - deleting it smacks of a cover-up!
- Of course it's a coverup! Didn't you see my username? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Any speculation in this article will be stated in a way where it is presented as the opinion of an outsider, and will be clearly labeled as their opinion or contribution. For this, I will, of course, use the remarks of notable sources (Steve Sansweet, Lucas emploiyees, The Star Wars Timeline Gold). Any information like this will be there for informative purposes only, stating only what those in the know speculate the story would have been, based on their inside jknowledge and actual facts. THIS WILL NOT BE AN ARTICLE TO SPECULATE, ANY SPECULATION WILL BE A RECORD OF WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID. The Wookieepedian 13:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Conditional Keep - This can be an article of vifiable information on an encyclopedic topic. As long as sources are cited and there is no speculation nobody should have a problem. The assertion that "It doesn't exist until it exists." has absoultly nothing to do with the validity of the topic. There are many things that were planned but did not come to frutiton because of a vairety of reasons. Should we not inculde an article about Copland because there was no released product? As far as the public was concerned there was never a project so it does not exist. I'm sure that there are numerous articles about failed government or NASA projects that never got off the ground, should those be deleted too? Of course not. Assuming the information in this article is not merely speculation there is no reason to delete it. --Ctachme 16:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- If someone else have nominated this and I had voted after this, my entry would have been "per Ctachme." These are my exact feelings. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Looking at your example I don't see it as analogous given that it was an up and running project for two years. Granted, "It doesn't exist until it exists" is a touch didactic but it does have something to do with the validity of the topic: Copland "exists" as a scrapped project that reached a significant level of development, which is not the case here. "The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy was a film trilogy originally to be made by George Lucas" is arguably inaccurate. "The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy was a twinkle in the eye of George Lucas that fans really want to be made and really want to speculate about here on Wiki" has more truth. I can think of very few cases where we've opened the door to things that were never or are not now extant, and I think the bar should be high (i.e., World War III makes sense). Marskell 17:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    - A sequel trilogy was not sprung from fan fantasies, Lucas said on multiple occasions to several sources in the late 70's abd early 80's that he had plans for such a trilogy. No, it will never be made. On numerous occasions he has firmly stated he will never do another trilogy after this prequel trilogy he just finished. I'm arguing that since he did at once confirm such plans, and people like Gary Kurts have claimed that he even saw outlines for the stories, it is farely notable to eb put on here. We can't forget Lucas' statements in the 1994 release of Splinter of the Mind's Eye where he said "I reallized my story would take a total of nine films to tell." The Wookieepedian 18:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. per The Wookieepedian, Ctachme. This is a very well known part of Star Wars history/lore/whatever, the original plan was for Lucas to make 3 trilogies. This isn't knowledge just limited to Star Wars fans. --Kewp (t) 19:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. speculation. Basing speculation on "facts" doesn't mean it's not speculation. Ctachme's points are valid, but "removing speculation" would leave very little verifiable encyclopedic content, and what's left is best merged, along with Star Wars speculation into Star Wars#Conception, and whichever "expanded universe" topics might be appropriate, and mostly offloaded to the Star Wars Wiki. Dystopos 23:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect/or Expand As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with the facts of the article. Currently though, I feel that it either needs to be merged with the Star Wars speculation or expanded to cover more information.--FDIS 00:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- I plan on adding all known facts about the sequel trilogy to the article, with the help of others, of course. Like the prequel and original trilogies, I feel this needs an article of its own, since you can't really list a group of related facts as speculation, can you? Expand is the option I prefer, merging with the speculation article doesn't do the topic justice. It iswell known, as another user said, beyond the star wars fans. As I have said, it is something that has been known for almost 30 years, by both the fans and the general public. The Wookieepedian 00:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Why do bees get in bonnets? I don't know but I can't seem to get rid of this bee. "It is something that has been known for almost 30 years." No: "It is something that has been speculated about for almost 30 years" Marskell 01:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Many facts are not encyclopedic. Reporting that someone speculated is not encyclopedic without some other context. Lucas' statements about the number of films are marginally notable (and already covered in Star Wars#Conception). Fan speculation (even second-hand) about the content of any such films is trivia unbecoming to WP. How many "known facts" do you propose that there might be about these non-existent productions? Dystopos 01:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      - Exactly. Speculation from Al Gore about what he might have done as President does not deserve an article (even if it deserves a mention on Al Gore). This is an article about a might-have-been, not an extant topic. Marskell 02:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        Yes, but a might-have-been that is notable and widely-known. The Wookieepedian 13:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
KEEP: I found this page useful in uncovering needed info...even if it was just speculation.
KeepI think this is relevant because the sequel trilogy has been a constant thought of people whether or not they are Star Wars fans. I'm sure there are many people out there who would like to learn about the prospects of Episodes VII to IX, and would like to learn about that here. (Jamandell (d69) 22:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC))
Keep. It is an interesting article, but it needs to be expanded and need more sources. Carioca 22:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep and expand if only to prevent SuperShadow nonsense from taking over SW articles. Add a paragraph explaining that SuperShadow's claims on a sequel trilogy are entirely false. - Sikon 10:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Done. I made a section linking to his article and explaining that his own words have shown him to be a fraud. I have a bad feeling, though, that I will have to constantly revert SuperShadow editors who come by here and were "inspired" by his "revelations." The Wookieepedian 17:20, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Super atallia

Non notable band (with 10 songs) failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Also lookup The Denizens and End of Days (Band)which curiously have the exact same members and content. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. -- As per nomination, formed earlier this year, no website, no Google hits. Ben D. 05:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC — Kjammer ⌂ 05:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

JUST TELL ME HOW TO MAKE IT ACCEPTABLE FOR YOU GUYS! END OF DAYS IS IN THE SAME SITUATION AS US AND THEY GET A WIKIPEDIA LISTING! WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? tvlkinghevds@hotmail.com KEN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.182.133.108 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 3 October 2005.

EOD changed their name to the denizens like a week ago We have a website _KEN_ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superatallia (talk • contribs) 06:22, 3 October 2005.

- Ken, if you want an article, please go get famous first, then come back. Xoloz 06:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes. When you do become notable, you are more than welcome to having an article here. --FuriousFreddy 06:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Click on the WP:Music link at the top of the page. It is a roadmap for how to get included here as a band. Qaz ^(talk) 23:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete band vanity. Xoloz 06:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete band vanity. --FuriousFreddy 06:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, band vanity. — JIP | Talk 09:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as with all these others failing WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 12:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

How do you all you fools have so much time as to look for sites on wikipedia to be deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.37.14.33 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 October 2005. ouch... taste it wikipedia

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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!) 07:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] End of Days (Band)

another non notbale band failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Let be noted that End of Days (Band) and The Denizensare both bands with the same members and both articles have the same content. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete band vanity. Xoloz 06:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, band vanity. — JIP | Talk 09:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete still on the demo CD stage, as noted fails WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 12:39, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Denizens

yet another garage band failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Let be noted that End of Days (Band) and The Denizensare both bands with the same members and both articles have the same content. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete band vanity. Xoloz 06:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, band vanity. — JIP | Talk 09:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above, given they're the same band. Mallocks 12:40, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Span (band)

Fails WP:MUSIC ? Abstain. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I think they sort of slide right under the wire, if they had two major label recording contracts. Keep for now, send to cleanup, and if it doesn't get cleaned up, bring it back here and we'll delete it. --FuriousFreddy 06:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per FuriousFreddy's comments, appears at allmusic so can at least claim some notability. Mallocks 12:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep They have released 2 albums on a major label... just 2 different major labels. WP:MUSIC isn't really clear on whether or not the albums must be on the same label to satisfy #3. I'm inclined to say Keep for now. and per FuriousFreddy tag with a cleanup. If this article doesn't get some attention though it should be deleted.--Isotope23 17:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup as per WP:music. Capitalistroadster 23:16, 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 no consensus. Rob e rt 23:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belvedere (band)

fails to assert notability Delete per WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Cautious Keep I think this one's close enough to deserve it, if they don't meet point 2 on WP:MUSIC, being signed on Household Name heads some way to meeting point 3. For reference their allmusic page.
Delete Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. I'll admit they are close, but since they apparently broke up they will never meet the criteria.--Isotope23 17:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Isotope23 --JAranda | yeah 01:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. WP:MUSIC isn't policy. -- Spinboy 02:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete based on not meeting WP:MUSIC. The guideline seems to work. So if we want to bypass it, we should have a good reason. Vegaswikian 05:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Note that the afd notice was removed from the article on October 8, and not reverted by anyone until I noticed this just now (October 12 UTC). Would recommend that if possible, debate be extended for the equivalent amount of time. However, as far as I'm concerned, any band that has been on both the Warped Tour and the Groezrock bill (and therefore does meet criterion #2), has released at least one album on a relatively major punk label, and has have an allmusic.com listing is keepable by my estimation. Remember, the rule per WP:MUSIC is to meet just one criterion out of the list, not all of them simultaneously. Bearcat 00:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 07:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kurios

Non notable band failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete in agreement with nom. Mallocks 12:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Qaz ^(talk) 23:52, 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 07:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Ordinary Summer

another band that does not assert notability and fails WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, band vanity, unsigned. Mallocks 12:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Apyule 07:00, 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 07:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nineteen Ninety-Now

band that has only released 1 song, non notable -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, was evidently trying to make a case for point 5 of WP:MUSIC but with only a single track, I agree with nom. Mallocks 12:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, It seems that Nineteen Ninety-Now is no more as Rory has a new band called 'Amex'. Jb 007clone 21:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 07:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Nancys

another nn band. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination. Mallocks 13:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn --rob 17:00, 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. -Splash^talk 17:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Symmetry Breaking

band which hasn't released anything yet, per WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable as shown in nom. Mallocks 13:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Isotope23 20:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Band will release an album soon. Plus, 3/4 of the members are from The Animit which has two official releases, and an entry on AMG (if somewhat sparse and incomplete). Both bands have played at notable venues such as CBGB in NYC. - Aleron235 21:23, 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 09:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elevenses (band)

yet another non notable band failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. nn. --FuriousFreddy 06:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, self-distributing their music, nn. Mallocks 13:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Isotope23 20:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

How is this page hurting anyone or irrelevant? It isn't a joke entry or offensive, it's just an unobtrusive bit of information about an actual band.

Wikipedia has many pages about non-professional websites, so why should a band be disqualified? I've regularly tried to find information on unsigned bands, that I've seen play, and it would have been useful if there were on Wikipedia. Surely the more information available to people the better.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 09:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brennan's Grin

From the article: "The band has yet to release any material (and it has been suggested that little has even been recorded)", non notable. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"Look at them, they done told on theyselves!" Delete. --FuriousFreddy 06:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete for failing notability requirements. Mallocks 12:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--Isotope23 20:33, 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 09:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To Live A Lie Records

"a new and upcomming small thrash" which sadly fails WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete for failing WP:MUSIC. --FuriousFreddy 06:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, although it's a record label, so I don't think it fails WP:MUSIC as such, more it's nn on its own terms, having signed no notable groups. Mallocks 13:06, 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. Rx StrangeLove 17:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hunter Revenge

~~another music project failing WP:MUSIC~~ [7]. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge to Hunter Burgan per FuriousFreddy below -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to Hunter Burgan. --FuriousFreddy 06:41, 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 no consensus (6 keep, 1 delete, 5 merge). Rob e rt 23:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Billie Frank

See also Julian "Dice" Black, Timothy Walker, Rafael (Glitter character), and Sylk. All apparently characters from Mariah Carey's film Glitter. Since the film itself is of marginal notability (it is probably most notable for being a critical and commercial failure), its characters are certainly not notable enough for their own articles. I informed the author that he should do something about them (my suggestion, which I still recommend, condense to a paragraph each and add to the main article or one on Characters in the film Glitter or something similar). If that is not an option, I would vote for an outright deletion, lest someone think it's neccessary to write several articles on every character from The Five Heartbeats or something similar. FuriousFreddy 06:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge to Glitter. No need for a seperate article on this film's minor characters. Jkelly 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: This character is about as major as can be, if I am to believe the description. -- Hoary 05:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect all related articles back to Glitter (film)
Merge and redirect all related articles. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep too long to merge. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 18:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- An article's length has nothing to do with whether or not it should be kept. --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Anittas 21:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Why? --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Why not? --Anittas 00:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Because these characters are not notable or known enough to deserve articles of their own. See Wikipedia:Fancruft. --FuriousFreddy 07:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: As per WP:FICT, the articles should be merged, as none of the characters have had a major impact on society. --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Condense radically, and merge and redirect to the article on this awful-sounding movie. -- Hoary 05:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't delete. Either keep, merge to the movie article and redirect, or create a new article for all the characters together and merge them all there. For the other characters my personal preference is the last, but since Billie is the main character I might favor an outright keep here. I suppose there's a lot you could say about how Billie's story is semi-autobiographical, that kind of thing. Everyking 06:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- You could indeed. In addition to an article on Citizen Kane, you can and (to my mild surprise) do have a whole article on Charles Foster Kane (a better title than the somewhat recursive Citizen Kane (character in Citizen Kane)). But there are reasons for this: people have said a lot about C F Kane, and it has often been claimed that Hearst's recognition of himself in Kane is what, via Louella Parsons, blighted Welles's career: no trivial matter if true. Anyway, Citizen Kane is in a different league from Glitter (which admittedly has a more comely star) and of much greater and more lasting interest. If people want to write at huge length about the real-world precursors (etc.) of the characters in humdrum Hollywood flops, they're entirely free to do so, on other websites. Nobody is begrudging Glitter an article, and WP is of course not paper -- but hard drive space isn't unlimited either. -- Hoary 06:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep OmegaWikipedia 06:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Because? -- Hoary 06:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Glitter (film). Wikipedia:Fiction states, "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice." The main Glitter article is only around 6kb long. Extraordinary Machine 11:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Doesn't really need to be merged or deleted. Don't ask me why, because I won't answer. I think it looks acceptable separate. Winnermario 20:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- You should justify why this article should be kept, otherwise your vote might be discounted. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. --FuriousFreddy 22:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Second comment Can we get some more votes from neutral parties here? Every person who voted "keep" is associated in some way with all of those troubled Mariah Carey articles. --FuriousFreddy 22:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- That is surely less of an issue than the fact that the "keep" voters made little or no effort to explain why the articles should be kept. (Perhaps they're under the impression that WP is a democracy.) -- Hoary 02:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Musicpvm 20:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 (6 keep, 1 delete, 4 merge). Rob e rt 23:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Julian "Dice" Black

See discussion above. FuriousFreddy 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge to Glitter. No need for a seperate article on this film's minor characters. Jkelly 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Anittas 21:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Any particular reason? -- Hoary 05:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge, following Jkelly -- though this is actually a major character in this ludicrously awful-sounding movie. -- Hoary 05:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC) PS I meant by thta: Condense radically, then merge and redirect. -- Hoary 02:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep OmegaWikipedia 06:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't delete. Either keep, merge to the movie article and redirect, or create a new article for all the characters together and merge them all there. The last would be my personal preference, but I think any of them would be acceptable. Everyking 06:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Glitter (film). Wikipedia:Fiction states, "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice." The main Glitter article is only around 6kb long. Extraordinary Machine 11:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep too long to merge Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Too long to merge. Winnermario 20:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: if it is too long to merge, that's because it's unacceptably prolix. So condense it. -- Hoary 02:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Musicpvm 20:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Any particular reason? -- Hoary 02:14, 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 no consensus (6 keep, 1 delete, 3 merge). Rob e rt 23:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Walker

See discussion above. FuriousFreddy 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge to Glitter. No need for a seperate article on this film's minor characters. Jkelly 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Anittas 21:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Why? --FuriousFreddy 00:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Why not? --Anittas 00:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Because Timothy Walker has no significance outside this single movie, whose own significance is a mere sad footnote to a history of Hollywood pap. However conscientiously written and well-intentioned, it's fancruft. -- Hoary 05:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Condense radically, and then merge and redirect to the article on the movie. -- Hoary 05:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't delete. Either keep, merge to the movie article and redirect, or create a new article for all the characters together and merge them all there. The last would be my personal preference, but I think any of them would be acceptable. Everyking 06:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep OmegaWikipedia 06:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Glitter (film). Wikipedia:Fiction states, "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice." The main Glitter article is only around 6kb long. Extraordinary Machine 11:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep too long to merge Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Too long to merge. Winnermario 20:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Musicpvm 20:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 (6 keep, 1 delete, 3 merge). Rob e rt 00:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rafael (Glitter character)

See discussion above. FuriousFreddy 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge to Glitter. No need for a seperate article on this film's minor characters. Jkelly 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Anittas 21:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I note that Anittas provides no reason whatever for this recommendation. -- Hoary 05:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: He does not need to. If he votes keep, that means he must like it. Winnermario 20:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Yes. But this is a discussion rather than a vote count. -- Hoary 02:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Condense radically, and merge and redirect to the article on this sorry film, as this is mere fancruft, however conscientiously written and well intended, and because the character has no significance other than via the film (and probably none via that either). -- Hoary 05:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't delete. Either keep, merge to the movie article and redirect, or create a new article for all the characters together and merge them all there. The last would be my personal preference, but I think any of them would be acceptable. Everyking 06:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep OmegaWikipedia 06:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Glitter (film). Wikipedia:Fiction states, "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice." The main Glitter article is only around 6kb long. Extraordinary Machine 11:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If some extra information can be added, and perhaps an image, it would make this article look better. Winnermario 20:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: That's a valid point of view. My own point of view is that any extra "information" added to this article would be likely just to make it more absurdly bloated. What kind of "information" do you have in mind? -- Hoary 02:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge --Musicpvm 00:44, 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 no consensus (6 keep, 1 delete, 3 merge). Rob e rt 00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sylk

See discussion above. FuriousFreddy 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge to Glitter. No need for a seperate article on this film's minor characters. Jkelly 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Anittas 21:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Why? --FuriousFreddy 00:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Why not? --Anittas 00:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Because it's fancruft that's of no interest outside Glitter. -- Hoary 05:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Condense radically, and merge and redirect to the article on this Hollywood flick. -- Hoary 05:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't delete. Either keep, merge to the movie article and redirect, or create a new article for all the characters together and merge them all there. The last would be my personal preference, but I think any of them would be acceptable. Everyking 06:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep OmegaWikipedia 06:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Glitter (film). Wikipedia:Fiction states, "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice." The main Glitter article is only around 6kb long. Extraordinary Machine 11:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep too long to merge Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Add some information and an image, and the article should come together. Winnermario 21:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
- What kind of information might this be? -- Hoary 02:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge --Musicpvm 00:45, 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 09:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eyeball Skeleton

This one I liked, but sadly, nonnotable failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete This one marks a bit of a milestone for me: Of the hundreds of bandity articles I've looked at here at WP, this was the first time that one of them has been interesting enough for me to check out their website in search of more info out of interest rather than just verifying facts. It does seem, alas, that they don't quite pass WP:MUSIC yet... they've been signed to a micro-indie label and released one album so far. As a side note, congratulations to this guy for doing something truly creative with his kids, and I wish him and the band the best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, sadly nn, if sweet. Mallocks 13:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete for failing WP:MUSIC... and I too wish them success. Cool idea.--Isotope23 20:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Okay, I surrender. After looking at all the facts, it seems Eyeball Skeleton are non notable and don't pass YET. *Sigh*. I guess after they release another album and it gets a second review from a a notable site such as All Music Guide, this article can come back, right? In the meantime, I guess the article will have to go for now. Fanficgurl 3:45 December 1 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Hong Kong

Most importantly, neither the earthquake nor the tsunami actually hit Hong Kong. Information about affected Hongkongers is already in Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, and all information about relief is already in Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Coffee 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as above. 23skidoo 21:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If we are justifying an article by whether the place was hit by the earthquake or the tsunami, the articles on some other countries have to be deleted too. The rationale mentioned above failed to justify deletion. — Insta ntnood 05:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. Conversely, articles would have to be created for many other countries/territories which are similarly effected, if not more. This article is the only one existing for an entity not directly affected by the Tsunami, and its singular existance skews the overall perspective of wikipedia too much in one small direction. In addition, some of its statements, such as "The catastrophe had a large psychological impact" appears exaggerated and overly emotive for an encyclopedia article.--Huaiwei 06:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Is " [t]his article is the only one existing for an entity not directly affected by the Tsunami " justified? — Instantnood 06:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment. Yes, if it clearly has no room for further growth, and no similar articles are likely to be writtern for other entities since the full articles as mentioned by the nominator has served their purposes well and there is no current pressure to expand and split them.--Huaiwei 07:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Alright. May I know if Norway was hit by the tremor or tsunami? And if yes, in what way it was hit? Thanks. (Here's a locator map of Norway.) — Instantnood 07:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      - Oh hell yes. The wave slamed into the Indian subcontinent, was uplifted into the air by the Himalayas, and smashed squaringly onto poor Norway. No one could explain why only this particular Scandinavian country was hit, and was indeed a freak chain of events certainly worthy of its own article. Did anything similar happen to HK?--Huaiwei 07:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        Thanks for telling what'd happened. (So Hong Kong is the only country not directly hit to have such an article, since Norway was directly hit. Am I right?) — Insta ntnood 08:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        Not exactly correct. There is no country called "Hong Kong".--Huaiwei 09:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        From your declaring that Norway was directly hit by the tremors and/or the tsunami, and therefore it deserves its own article, it's pretty obvious that you're twisting some facts to fulfill your targeting on Hong Kong-related topics on Wikipedia. — Insta ntnood 10:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        If you wish to use sarcasm/humour in otherwise serious discussions in wikipedia, then others are probably excused for expecting you to be able to accept it too. Once again, your paranoia with regards to others' targeting on certain topics has played a bigger part then it should in your editorial judgement, hence again raising questions on your claimed "fairness" and "maturity" in wikipedia [8]. When I voted in this article, I did so on the simple reason that the earthquakes effect on HK is marginal at best compared to many other countries/territories without seeing a need to create a similar article. What is written for this article can easily be had in others. I did not notice the existance of an article for Norway until you pointed it out, which I found was an unfotunate occurance as I am afraid individuals (like yourself) would then take it as an excuse to create similar articles on every territory on earth no matter how small the effect actually is.--Huaiwei 10:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        You were the only person to have mentioned fairness and maturity over there. — Insta ntnood 10:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        There is such a thing called synonyms. Your sense of denial is amazing, especially when I am clearly not the only one who specifically used the word "maturity", for eg.--Huaiwei 11:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        Glad you know this word (a word that I mentioned frequently when saying country and sovereign state have to be distinguished). Could you please kindly tell what are the synonyms of maturity and fairness that I have used to claim myself to be? Thanks. — Insta ntnood 11:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        Just curious, but are you aware what this page is? Do you not feel any sense of shame in displaying this kind of behavior for all to see? If you spent the time to engage in wiki-soap operas on explaining the significance of this article, or adding good content to any other wikipedia article, I would think all will be better off. I refuse to further engage in senseless discussions.--Huaiwei 11:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        All these would not have happened if nobody boldly declared " [t]his article is the only one existing for an entity not directly affected by the Tsunami " [9], and carried on by distorting facts by saying Norway was directly affected [10], then continued to put forward her/his very own point of view that only sovereign states are countries [11]. May I know who's not aware of what? Who's staging "wiki-soap operas"? And who should be feeling shame for her/his behaviour? — Insta ntnood 12:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        I see. We have (yet another) instance of instantnood refusing to accept any responsiblity whatsoever in any contentious issues concerning wikipedia. All of a sudden, I am now being portrayed as a "troublemaker" who caused the above exchange single-handedly. Suddenly, instantnood's role dissapears completely from view. Do I need to clear my name? Hardly, because I dont attempt to shun responsiblity the way instantnood does, almost like its an inborn habit of his. I am more then willing to say that I felt ashamed that I was participating in this kind of low-level exhange in a page like this. If I hadent felt this sense of shame or guilt, I wont be asking him if he felt the same way. I call this exchange a soap opera, because it reads embarrasingly like one. Who is blaming who for "staging a soap opera", whatever that means? I suppose he dosent seem to feel any remorse based on his ceaseless attempts to be a real pain anywhere in wikipedia, even in a page like this? --Huaiwei 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        Huaiwei did not express his feeling of shame or guilt when he was asking me that question [12], and I have not said a single word on whether I have shunned any of my responsibility that resulted from my responses to what Huaiwei has said. — Insta ntnood 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        
        From this response, I could only conclude that either it confirms his chronic inability in accepting responsibility (he practically ignored what I just said and insisted he was still innocent), or he has some difficulty in comprehending the English language. I rest my case.--Huaiwei 14:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No. Gamaliel 11:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
FYI, the similar article for Norway is now nominated. — Instantnood 13:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- I see. I remember this strategy before. When an article/category which instantnood wants to keep is nominated for deletion, he gets every other related article/category nominated too, in his bid to swing the votes around in his favour, even if other similar pages may be far more deserving to remain. This is becoming yet another example of instantnood's constant manipulation and gaming of wikipedia rules/mechanisms, and I do hope other wikipedians and admins may take note of this.--Huaiwei 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  - If an article or a category should be deleted, the same reasons would very likely be applicable to other similar articles or categories. How much similarities do the articles share, and whether such similarities merit the same or similar action, are to be decided by the community. Each wikipedian can make her/his own decision, don't think votes can be swung or manipulated. — Insta ntnood 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment IMHO that nomination is very close to violating WP:POINT, wether or not other nations have seperate articles should have no impact on wether or not this article about Hong Kong should be kept. I'm actualy a little supriced Germany or Sweden (and others) doesn't have seperate articles, they lost a lot of people too and probably raised simmilar debate and critisism as we had in Norway about how to handle major disasters involving our citizens abroad. The lack of or exsistence off other articles should have no bearing on wether or not this should be kept or deleted. If it contains information beyond what is in other articles it shouold be kept, otherwise it should be deleted, simple as that. Deleting it just because Hong Kong was not directly hit is just as bad a reason as keeping it just because Norway have a simmilar article. --Sherool 14:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Length of an article may or may not be relevant in deciding whether an article should be deleted. If the two articles share substantial similarities, and if the arguments mentioned in this page are readily applicable other similar articles, it would be better to assess them together. — Instantnood 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Article length is an often-used criterion in deciding whether an article is deleted or not, and it is a relevant criterion in this instance, since its length does not justify its existance when its information could fit into other articles easily.--Huaiwei 14:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, centralizes information that is otherwise buried in other articles. No useful redirect because the information is in more than one place. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Sub-trivial subset of larger, more important article. I was in Hong Kong (briefly) a week after the tsunami, and the biggest issue in the local paper seemed to be a) priority treatment of VIPs by Hong Kong authorities; and b) whether Jet Li was safe. --Calton | Talk 07:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd be interested to know which papers you read. :-P Were all newspapers, TV and radio news, etc., talking only about VIPs and Jet Li? — Instantnood 15:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: what Calton said could also be partly observed elsewhere. The only time HK was mentioned in the Singaporean media was whether some HK celebrities were alive for being caught in that region, in stark contrast to much more pressing and elaborate discussions related to other countries/territories.--Huaiwei 15:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Hmm.. Norway, as well as countries like Somalia, Réunion, Burma were rarely mentioned in Hong Kong during that period, comparing to Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. — Insta ntnood 16:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Additional information: Many information were removed by user:TheCoffee [13] before the nomination for deletion (see edit history [14]). — Instantnood 15:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Additional observation: Much of the information "removed" by user:TheCoffee actually involves moving relevant information to their respective articles, Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. The rest of the old article includes information not fit for a wikipedia article. "Hong Kong Relief Information" and "How to donate" are examples of what wikipedia is not.--Huaiwei 15:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Donations information was considered necessary at that time, and in fact there was an article titled donations for victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, until voted to be changed as a redirect in May. For other information, they should not be merged into articles until there's a clear consensus here to do so. — Instantnood 16:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    - If I may quote from User:Kingturtle's comment in [15]:
      - this article violates all sorts of wikipedia standards, but it was created to assist in donation efforts. in its creation, this article was meant to be temporary - and now it is time to delete it. although relief fund-raising continues, it has fallen off, and wikipedia *must* get rid of this article which violates all kinds of policies and standards.
    - The subsequent voting process was overwelmingly in his favour. That vote took place May, and it is a wonder why this page continues to display information considered temporary and a rare exception for humanitary purposes. user:TheCoffee's removal of this content is a step in the right direction, and lends no weight to user:Instantnood's claims that his deletions are disputable and hence should be restored in this article. On the contrary, it all the more highlights the fact that this article has nothing much to discuss beyond what is left behind.--Huaiwei 16:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  - I have no objection that donations information on this article should be removed. Nevertheless, other information from this article should not be merged to other articles until there's a clear consensus here. — Instantnood 16:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    - If you remove those two sections, what is left remaining is basically what you see there now. Did he remove any important information? Please feel free to highlight them here.--Huaiwei 16:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  - My comment was made based on your "additional observation": " Much of the information "removed" by user:TheCoffee actually involves moving relevant information to their respective articles, Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake " [16]. — Instantnood 17:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    - And my comment was based on your "Additional observation": "Many information were removed by user:TheCoffee [17] before the nomination for deletion" [18]. So what are you trying to say now?--Huaiwei 17:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Apart from the information on how and where to donate, the figures showing the trend of amount of money collected were removed. — Instantnood 17:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Is this the only information you would consider important enough for this page to be kept?--Huaiwei 18:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The article has now been reorganised and expanded. — Instantnood 19:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment on expanded article: The only significant expansion we can see in this article is the "Responses of the government and other organisations" section, which quite unfortunately is simply non-relevant to this article which talks about the effect it has on HK. The only other non-dorectly affected country article, Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Norway makes no mention on relief efforts at all, as all these should be in Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. As for the section on Impact, which should be the gist of the article, it again suffers from exagerated comments, not surprising since we have members here fighting to keep it around and make it appear "significant" enough. The reduction in travel to the region affects the entire global tourism industry, and there is nothing notably different in this text. The humanitarian response and show of emotional care is to be expected in any civilised society. Anyhow, saying "Thai and Indonesian culture is highly visible in Hong Kong" is itself debatable, besides the question of just what kind of and the extend of its impact it can have on HK itself. To sum up...what has actually been contributed to the article besides the obvious?--Huaiwei 19:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Thanks for the comments. Agree the article needs further improvement. In fact some of your comments are also applicable to the Norway counterpart. Response are results of the effect. The Norway article talks about impact too. — Instantnood 22:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Humanitarian efforts as a result of the "effect", if any, will have to directly addressed to the reader, or else no one is going to make this assumption. Does the degree of "effect" have on the amount of $$$ donated internationally? Please illustrate. The Norway article talks about impact, and rightfully yes it should, because this is mainly what an effect is all about. It does not, however, devote a sizeable chunk of its text on humanitarian responses thou, and there is no reason for it to.--Huaiwei 23:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  - This article talks about impact too. — Instantnood 00:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    - If you actually read what I wrote above, I made quite alot of commends on it. You sound like I want the entire section deleted for being irrelevant, when I was saying it was far from adequate and noteworthy to deserve its own article.--Huaiwei 00:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Ummm.. but you failed to justify why Norway is not far from adequate and noteworthy to deserve its own article. — Instantnood 00:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Am I compelled to comment on another article in the first place, and how should that be relevant in this discussion? Clearly, it is not just me who felt the need to delete one and keep the other. Tells you alot on just how irrelevant the two articles are.--Huaiwei 01:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  - So far nobody has shown why the reasons to keep that article are not applicable to this one, and the reasons to delete this article not applicable to that one. — Instantnood 09:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Whatever. Let the community decide, and learn to accept community concensus.--Huaiwei 11:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
沖洗它喜歡從我的靶垛出來的船尾 or, er, delete SchmuckyTheCat 17:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete or redirect. GhePeU 10:12, 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 DELETE, as it was transwikied into Wikibooks. Rob e rt 14:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atmospheric pressure demonstration

Delete, a how-to that's already been transwikied to Wikibooks Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete - I've completed the integration into Wikibooks School science -- Egil 11:00, 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 DELETE. Presumably Kjkold doesn't object to deletion either. I'm not going to make the redirect myself, though, as I don't think it's useful. -Splash^talk 17:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Viral Lode

band created early this year, nn. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to viral load, perhaps? -- Kjkolb 08:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless a redirect is considered sensible, but I'd have thought in general people would spell 'load' sooner than 'lode'. Mallocks 13:10, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] School Science Experiment - Demonstrating the properties of waves on an Oscilloscope

Delete this how-to that's already been transwikied to Wikibooks. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete; WP:NOT a how-to. MCB 07:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. Qaz ^(talk) 14:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I've completed the transfer in Wikibooks and put the images on common -- Egil 11:03, 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 DELETE. -Splash^talk 17:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Farassoo

Not notable. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn/advert. MCB 06:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, advertising. — JIP | Talk 07:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Advertising.--RicardoC 12:44, 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 14:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lawaloca

WP:NOT a web directory. Although this weblog claims to be famous, looking at the number of comments on articles on the front page (single digits), I don't think this can be the case. Alexa rank 1.3million+ — brighterorange (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

As seen above Lawaloca was nominated for deletion on September 24, but since then no further input has been received. Since I am cleaning out the September 24 list, this can no longer wait on that list and I am bringing the debate back to the October 3 list for further discussion. No vote from me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Stormie 10:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete claim to be famous all ya want, but the Alexa rank speaks otherwise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Saberwyn 22:56, 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 14:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UARM

It's a t-shirt company. Enough info so that I couldn't tag it as empty, but still basically just a link to their webpage. Wikipedia is still not a repository of links... Jkelly 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, linkspam. — JIP | Talk 07:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article is fundamentally a malformed link to a promotional web site. Sliggy 18:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
WTF??, will someone please rule on this?? Either delete the article or get off the pot. BretPittman 22:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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!) 07:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tee Eff Eff

Non-notable band. Delete unless notability can be established. — JIP | Talk 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I know about them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lisandru (talk • contribs) 07:14, 3 October 2005.

Delete, unsigned, fails WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 13:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete agree with nom -- (☺drini♫|☎) 21:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
For a parallel discussion of the very same band, see Tff (band) (AfD discussion). Uncle G 12:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom --Qirex 13:04, 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 Speedy delete under criteria A1. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eleven food stubs

These were all recipes that have since been transwikied to the Cookbook at Wikibooks. At the moment they tell us absolutely nothing at all about the item in question except that it is what its name says it is:

Lettuce soup is a soup.
Minestrone alla Casalinga is minestrone.
Tarragon sauce is a sauce.
Ham sauce is a sauce.
Genoese sauce is a sauce.
Neapolitan anchovy sauce is a sauce.
Neapolitan soup is a soup.
Mushroom sauce is a sauce.
Mirepoix sauce is a sauce.
Soup alla Maria Pia is a soup.
Soup alla Lombarda is a soup.

If anyone can expand any of these into at least a stub discussing the historical and/or cultural relevance of the food in question, I'll retract my nomination for that item. Otherwise, delete them all. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd say they'd all be Speedy candidates under A1. There certainly isn't enough here to merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment, well I was tempted to speedy them, but I thought I'd let people have a chance at expanding them first. Most if not all of them certainly have potential for encyclopedic growth, but if some doesn't happen soon, they have to go. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete all as A1. These aren't even stubs. android 79 12:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete all as A1. ~~This is what I call "article-creation vanity." They provide no information that isn't in the title.~~ Unlike some other food articles, these are not of any particular cultural significance, and if expanded would probably be no more than cookbook entries, which are not suitable for Wikipedia. If anyone thinks I'm wrong about that, then they should still be speedied but should then be entered as requested articles. That serves the "placeholder" function but keeps them out of the main namespace until someone has the time to write a decent paragraph about them. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete all, contentless. Sheesh, they could at least say, e.g., "Lettuce soup is a soup made with lettuce"; "Ham sauce is a sauce made with ham". -- BD2412 ^talk 13:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete for lack of content. Qaz ^(talk) 14:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete all. Comment: Remember, the history of these articles is that they used to be recipes, and only after transwikification to the cookbook have they become virtually empty. So complaints about vanity, etc. seem off the mark. I took a serious look at trying to expand Lettuce soup, but didn't have any luck - a lot of recipes for different styles of lettuce soup exist out there, but very little exists on the culture, history, or importance of it. Bunchofgrapes 15:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
'Delete all for now. (Unless any get exapanded in the meantime, in which case disregard this vote) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Bunchofgrapes. A speedy seems inappropriate, due to the fact they started as more the one-liners. A delete is appropriate, since we're not a cook book. --rob 17:09, 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. Rob e rt 01:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Progressiveislam.org

advertising. Website does also not follow the guidelines set in WP:WEB. -- SoothingR 07:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, advertising. Free clue to author: Encyclopedia articles are not written in first person. — JIP | Talk 07:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per both of the above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:54, 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 speedy deleted. — JIP | Talk 12:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glasspool, Jeremy-James Edmund Thornton

Delete Nonsense--MONGO 07:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as per MONGO - Anetode 08:38, 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 DELETED by RHaworth after a copyvio rewrite. -Splash^talk 17:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "mavalli tiffin rooms"

Notability is not asserted. Appears to be borderline notable. Text reads like an advertisement. The article name is very unorthodox. There seems to be some salvageable content, but there's so much wrong with this article that IMO it would be easier just to delete it than to fix it. I would love to be proven wrong, though. :) Ashenai 08:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, I don't see much hope for this. --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Research proves that there's plenty of hope, and Ashenai is partially wrong. Deletion is only required because the text is a copyright violation, lifted word-for-word from an article in Chennai Online. If it were not for that, one could simply blank and rewrite from scratch (and I started off by doing exactly that until I reached the fourth source on my list and discovered the copyright violation). This famous Bangalorean restaurant satisfies the WP:CORP notability criteria by a comfortable margin, with plenty of independently sourced material having been published about the institution. See the references listed in the rewrite article at "mavalli tiffin rooms"/Temp for starters. Keep (the rewrite article) and rename to Mavalli Tiffin Rooms. Uncle G 12:42, 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. Rx StrangeLove 18:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Animatrick

Non-notable. Ashenai 09:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non notable website, no Alexa ranking. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 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 15:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Sajecki

Non-notable director, no IMDb entry, 29 unique Google results. His two films, Delusions of Grandeur and Something/Anything, are also not on IMDb. -- Kjkolb 09:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Delusions of Grandeur is right - the films aren't listed on IMDB because you can't buy them - they are amateur films with copyrighted music, so delete the film articles as well. Average Earthman 21:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Do not Delete I checked with the Novim Production company which is involved with Mike Sajecki. Something Anything in fact is available for public sale if you go to the website. It has licensed music and does not violate any copyright issue. Delusions of Grandeur was shown in independent theatres and colleges in the northeast US. However there was difficulty releasing for public sale on home video because of a problem with a licensed song from Peter Frampton. They are working with the artists lawyers to negotiate terms. They do wish to have the DVD available, even if it means omitting that song. On the issue of Imdb.com, they immediately submitted credits for their production. However, they say it will take a few weeks to be processed. Mike Sajecki is a relevant director following in the footsteps of Vincent Gallo. Mike has established a local celebrity in his native Buffalo, as well as pockets of interest in Toronto, New England any many of the college towns of the Northeast. The 2006 film from him will be submitted at several national festivals. He hasn't submitted at the elite festivals yet because he hasnt had the popularity then that he does now. -Rich 3 October 2005 (UTC)(preceding comment by 128.205.238.183 (talk • contribs) )

Delete, Wikipedia is not the right place to create notability. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

AfD Tag Deleted? It appears that the IP address that has been editing this article has removed the AfD tag, see comparison between revisions. I didn't want to add it again on my own, as I am new and something benign may have happened to it. Cpaliga 03:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

User is definitely deleting AfDCpaliga 03:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Under most (I can't think of any exceptions) circumstances, if an AfD tag has been removed from a page without the AfD itself having been flagged as closed by an administrator (usually after five days) this is a form of vandalism, usually in a desperate attempt by the page creator to defend the page. Such AfD tags should be replaced. Usrnme h8er 07:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vanity page. The praise is unsourced etc. (I've reverted the vandalism of the AfD page). KeithD (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, vanity. Usrnme h8er 07:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete the film-maker is currently non-notable and the article is advertorial in tone Anetode 08:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 12:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete him and his movies. This sure looks like an attempt to use Wikipedia to gain legitimacy. Friday (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn-bio. There are lots of movies available for public sale, but that doesn't make them or their writers/directors/producers/actors notable. Film is a hard thing to break into and achieve any real measure of success and Mr. Sajecki may be following in Vincent Gallo's footsteps, but until he makes his Buffalo 66 he doesn't deserve an article here.--Isotope23 18:16, 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. -Splash^talk 17:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Methods of Teaching Tennis Groundstrokes

A how-to guide for teaching tennis. Transwiki if anything can be salvaged, delete otherwise. -- Kjkolb 09:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete here and move to sister project if material is not already there. Qaz ^(talk) 14:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Kjkolb and Qaz. --SoothingR 07:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
delete. --Woohookitty 11:34, 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 Transwiki. Rx StrangeLove 19:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tennis Progressions for Teaching Groundstrokes

How-to article, transwiki if possible. -- Kjkolb 09:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikibooks Sam Vimes 17:29, 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 15:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Stevens

Hoax. No relevant Google hits. Delete Lupo 10:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No Amazon hits on the author or book he supposedly wrote either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Probable hoax from the author of Will Lewis also up for deletion. Dlyons493 Talk 15:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Zero Nexis hits for book either. --Lord Vold e mort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 18:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as probable hoax. Hall Monitor 19:05, 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 15:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Will Lewis

Probable hoax. Delete unless verified. Lupo 10:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Probable hoax from the author of Oliver Stevens also up for deletion. Dlyons493 Talk 15:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as probable hoax. Hall Monitor 19:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete Genuine. Verified by Princeton University research department Lupo 19:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Above vote for do not delete was added by User:217.41.241.254 who created the article. CambridgeBayWeather 09:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've stricken out the fake vote [19]. Lupo 10:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Hoax. CambridgeBayWeather 09:35, 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. -Splash^talk 17:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Rumours

Non-notable student band The Land 10:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Looking at their webpage, they've formed and might get signed. But no music in the charts yet. Delete as non-notable (you never know they might be this time next year!). The Land 10:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

keep - I understand your concerns with the article but they are not a student band; they worked full time throughout the past few months and are scheduled to release their debut EP in early 2006 and album in September 2006. The article has relevance to existing articles in the database (including Menswear, Liam Watson (which seems to have been already deleted), producer of number one 2003 album Elephant by The White Stripes). As such, I believe this article should not be considered for deletion. JDW 10:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- There are guidelines on what is and isn't notable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines. While I have nothing against the band, they need to be more famous before they can be included in the Wikipedia. Thye may well be as notable as the White Stripes next year, but not now. Liam Watson was deleted because its sole content was an image; if what you say is true then there's scope for an article about him. The Land 11:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable. Their manager Chris Gentry was in Britpop band Menswear who were very famous in the mid-90s. The manager is most definitely a member of the band. Another member of the management team is Howard Gough, manager of Hope Of The States and Komakino. The stuff about Liam Watson is true and was already mentioned on The White Stripes' entry. JDW 11:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    - In that case I'd definitely start a new Liam Watson entry, with more content than one photo. I'm personally unconvinced that Menswear count as 'extremely notable' and that they justify having The Rumours in. Howeve,r I'll now wait for the views of others. The Land 11:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I have that Menswear album (Nuisance) and as I remember, Menswear were very famous in 1995ish for being the architypal britpop band - they were signed because they simply looked the part! I'd say Gentry's link to this is enough to warrant this rumours article, but with those links to Watson and the White Stripes I personally don't think there's much doubt this band deserves an wiki-article. --Harlem4 11:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, that's a point of view, but one that would certainly carry more weight with me if you had edited wikipedia before other than to make that point. Please bear in mind that using sock-puppets on these pages is very much frowned upon. The Land 12:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  - I don't think that's very fair. I read those guidelines you posted above and my interpretation is that there's a case for this. I suppose it is just a matter of interpretation. I have edited Wikipedia before but forgot my sign-in details and had to re-register. My main reason for suggesting the Menswear thing was grounds for it was that I do actually have that album! And I don't have that many albums...--Harlem4 12:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Fair enough. There's a procedure somewhere for having previous edits attributed to you. I'm sure an administrator will be along in a minute who will let you know what it is. The Land 12:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not convinced of notability or of import of link with Gentry/Menswear. Marcus22 13:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Notable producer aside, band still does not meet the WP:MUSIC criteria, based on what is written here. When they meet that criteria I will support their right to have a wiki-article; until then though, delete.--Isotope23 18:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The band doesn't meet the requirements, and Menswear didn't exactly bestride the UK musical scene like a colossus. Extremely notable is the requirement - which to me says Blur levels of britpop standing, not Menswear. Average Earthman 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oh yes, I'd consider from the description of Q Sheet that a track on the cover is more likely to be promotional advertising than a sign of notability. We're not in the business of predicting which newly promoted bands will achieve wide airplay and commercial success and which ones won't. If we were good at it, we'd be in the music business... Average Earthman 21:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article - although you seem to feel that none of these criteria have been met, I'd say that firstly it's entirely one's opinion that estimates the level of notability (referring to Menswear at the moment). With this in mind, and coupled with the genuine level of integration with existing relevant articles, I feel this is reason enough for the article to remain. Besides which, it's only a matter of months before the guidelines will be unequivocally met. QSheet is not an advertising gimmick, it is simply an indication that the band in question have already had a release into the industry, and with their notable management and production team, there's little question they're going to make a big impression over the coming year. Further, I don't see how the comment concerning the prediction of of wide airplay and commercial success is relevant. If that were the case, I'd have sent in one of their tracks. It's not an audition, it's an encyclopedia article. --Jdwhite 13:34, 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. Rx StrangeLove 19:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RedDot

Non notable Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 10:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep nearly a million Google hits. NSR (talk) 10:59, 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 speedy delete, as performed by User:JoJan. Hall Monitor 20:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen La Roche

Rnon notable person -- SoothingR 11:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete or Speedy nn student Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unfortunatelly, there is certainly claim of notability, so csd A7 is not met. Speedy Delete, on second thought, there is no claim of notability beyond running for a university elected office and writing submissions to a campus newspaper... Usrnme h8er 11:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete quickly, speedy deletion candidate in my opinion. Hall Monitor 19:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedied JoJan 17:38, 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. Rx StrangeLove 20:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Media audiences

Not much substance to this article, not really informative or encyclopedic. -- Curps 11:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete - looks like cut n paste from an undergrad's essay. --MacRusgail 13:31, 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. Rob e rt 01:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECTED to Alien language by Theresa Knott. Rob e rt 15:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Astrolinguist

110 google hits does not a job make... unless there is a reference to where this term has been used seriously, and the community feels it warrants an encyclopaedia entry (rather than just being dicdef)... Delete Usrnme h8er 11:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

On closer inspection, that should be 14 unique hits... Isn't it called a xenolinguist anyway? Usrnme h8er 14:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Ridiculous. Enochlau 12:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to "Alien language" - such people do exist, i.e. in preparation for first contact, but I believe the "Alien language" article is much superior. --MacRusgail 13:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Done Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:24, 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 Speedied. android 79 16:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Wyeth

Possibly not notable. -- Curps 12:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity article. CambridgeBayWeather 12:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn Dlyons493 Talk 16:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as an A7. If that doesn't work, delete slowly. Friday (talk) 16:02, 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 Keep Mallocks 20:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sascha Spesiwtsew

Hoax? I can't find a reference in google to this person except on wikipedia and pages that take information from wikipedia, and I would think that such a recent case would have ganered more interest. I'm perfectly prepared to accept it as real, I just felt it deserved scrutiny. Mallocks 12:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Revised to Keep given comments below. - Mallocks 12:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, it's a transliteration-from-Cyrillic thing. I tried spelling it "sasha" instead of "sascha", and deleted the last name; searching for sasha + cannibal + siberia -wikipedia led me to [20], which indicates that his name was more often spelled "Sasha Spesivtsev", and googling for that (minus wikipedia) shows that his name was actually Alexander (or Aleksandr, or...) Spesivtsev, with "Sasha" being his nickname. He's also sometimes mentioned in the context of his mother (who was apparently his accomplice), so "Sasha and Ludmilla/Lyudmila/etc Spesivtsev". Definite keep. DS 14:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

- And, given that the nomination has been withdrawn, I think we can close this debate, yes? (Plus I'm going to be bold and move it to Sasha Spesivtsev) DS 14:55, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to keep the article. Keep: no consensus

[edit] Kalakat Illam

Seems to be some kind of personal genealogy or family history page. -- Curps 12:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Userfy to user myashu. He provides a link to illams [21] but it's not very specific. Can anyone explain just what God's bhoothaganangals are? Dlyons493 Talk 16:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

bhoothaganangals = demons. Theyyam will give you an idea what these figures look like.

Manthravaadam and Thanthram = sorcery, wizardry

Hope this helps *grin* Tintin 16:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Its not intended to be made a family history, its a piece of valuable information that might get extinct after couple of years, hence getting tailored to the pedia.

Comments To Myashu : Please sign your posts with four ~s. The article could do with a lot of cleanup and translation of Malayalam words to English.

I have no clue what to vote for. I am from Kerala;I have heard about the legend of Parasurama mentioned in the article, but haven't heard of this house. But that does not necessarily mean that the subject is not noteworthy. My criteria for voting on articles related to Kerala and Malayalam is whether they are important enough to make it to a Malayalam encyclopaedia. This article would be a borderline case. Tintin 23:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Tintin, Wikipedia entries have to be verifiable. As currently written, I'm afraid I don't even understand much of it. If there is an encyclopedic topic here, the article could perhaps be salvaged with a rewrite. -- Curps 17:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

192.94.94.105 12:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC) Tintin, According to the legend, there are 7 namboothiri manthravaadam family illams that had been created by Lord Parasurama. A few are Kaattumadam, soorya kaladi, kalakat,panthalakkottath, kalloor, pullancheri. Probably you have not heard because of the pronounciation of the word KALAKAT in english(some people read it as the house name of famous kunjan nambiar, probably thats a draw back of english language.) There are treatments for "Baadha Ozhippikkal", "Apasmaaram" etc. Earlier this family had Ayurvedic treatments too. Later down the lane of generations it wasn't getting carried over and it ended with late Sreedharan Thirumump. More stories are still there to be updated. Collecting data. Hopefully this article might be usefull to put light on other namboothiri families who are maintaining the same status. More info can be obtained from the famous book, aithihyamala, the garland of legends...

Translation

"Baadha Ozhippikkal" - exorcism

"Apasmaaram" - epilepsy

Aithihyamala - lit. 'A garland of legends'. A massive book written in early 20th century which contains some 100 essays on the legends and folklore of Kerala. Tintin 20:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I would have normally abstained from a topic that I know so little about. But since the others are in no better position than me, I guess I have to vote. I have no reason to doubt Myashu's honesty or earnestness but still, since there is no opportunity to verify the contents and as the article needs a lot of rework, I have to go for a userfy.

To Myashu : Userfy is not the same as delete. It means that it will be moved to your userspace, ie, to wiki/User:Myashu/Kalakkat Illam. You can continue working on it. Once you have completed writing, we can make it more encyclopaediac, and translate all the Malayalam words to English. I can do that for you.

As Curps mentioned above, verifiability is critical for articles in Wiki. So see if you can find references to your Illam in encylopaedias like Akhilavijnanakosam, Sarvavijnanakosam or Visvavijnanakosam, Aithihyamala, newspaper articles, or any book on Kerala heritage and add data from there. If Kalakat Illam has an article of its own in any one of these three encyclopaedias, that alone should be sufficient to make it eligible for wikipedia.

Once this is done, we can look at moving it back to its current location. Please don't get disappointed, and do continue to contribute.

Please try to login when you contribute. It is always easier to communicate through your talkpage than posting here. Tintin 20:05, 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. Linuxbeak | Talk 14:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paradigm Associates

This is an article on a website with an Alexa ranking of 750000 where "Affordable Life Coach Certificates" are on sale. Pilatus 12:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Spam. —Cryptic (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. non-notable.--Gaff ^talk 01:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Linuxbeak | Talk 14:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oddfellows casino

The article admits that this band is "little known"; it is therefore not encyclopedia-worthy.--Carabinieri 12:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment My vote would depend on how large a label they are signed with. Having two albums would meet WP:music standards as long as the label is not a home garage type of business. Qaz ^(talk) 13:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- See [22] —Wahoofive (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: As of right now, there is nothing mentioned in the article to indicate that the band is notable.--Carabinieri 14:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. They have two albums and a single listed on the Pickled Egg Records website. Looks like they are a legit band. The indie label has several bands in its roster and lookks like has been around since '97.

From wp music guidelines:Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)

Looks like they are a legit band. The indie label has several bands in its roster and lookks like has been around since '97.—Gaff ^talk 02:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. H e rmione1980 00:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hengoed railway station

No claim to notability--Carabinieri 12:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I am indifferent about this deletion - but in its defence, see Valley Lines page which (someone) pointed railway links for many such pages. Plus, there are a lot of railway enthusiasts in this country who might expand this page a lot. --Gedge67 13:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment I don't know if railway stations are kept as a matter of form. If they are, then this should of course stay. Otherwise, as stations go, this one appears to be just about as unremarkable as it's possible for a place to be! Unless someone can prove otherwise, I say Delete OK. I'm persuaded. Keep Marcus22 13:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep railway stations. Even though this is a very short stub, I think it is valid since context is provided by specifying which railway it lies on. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Cities_and_villages which says that subway stations are inherently notable by precedent, I think railway stations are of comparable notability. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silver Street railway station for another deletion debate on a small railway station. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Railway stations have the potential to become decent articles. When was the station first opened? How many people use it? Who designed the buildings? Have any famous trains passed through it? How often to trains run and where do they go? Have there been any accidents at the station? and so on. There's lots a railway enthusiast could add. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Lack of notability is not a valid deletion criterion for railway stations.--Nicodemus75 18:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per Nicodemus75. Carioca 22:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Theresa Knott —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apyule (talk • contribs) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC).
Comment: I still don't understand what makes every railway station notable. Wouldn't that require us to write thousands of articles in order to have an article about every railway station in English-speaking countries, let alone the whole world? Couldn't the same concept be applied to, e.g., post offices or malls? What sets railway stations apart from other buildings that makes them particularly notable?--Carabinieri 19:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- The question of whether we should have an article is different from the question if we can have an article. I don't believe that we need to have articles on every railway station in the world, but when such station articles come, I think we can keep them. Regarding shopping malls and post offices, I think there is some disagreement among Wikipedians, personally I don't find them very notable because what is in them are very mundane, ordinary thing (shops, offices and paperwork). One might argue that a railway station also is mundane, but for some reason there are several rail enthusiasts while there are very few shopping mall enthusiasts (i.e. people interested in the mall itself). Several webpages endeavor to provide info on various stations, which illustrates that there are several people interested in such information. One might also argue that many of these station articles will be little more than stubs and should be merged with the railway line (which I think most would agree, are inherently notable). I have some sympathy with that view, but merging in a railway station which lies on more than one line can be quite awkward. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:13, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge Karmafist 17:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Tally Explanation on Talk Page

[edit] Lutenblag

Sure, it's a hilarious book, but this article is completely unecessary - it's just a rip of information on the website. [maestro] 12:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Funny book; pointless article.--Isotope23 17:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge This should be merged with the Molvania entry. (Alphaboi867 03:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC))
Merge. I can;t really see justification for creating a travel guide for the country of Molvania. Granted the ice planet Hoth from Star Wars series is noteworthy, but this seems on a much lesser scale of fictional place.—Gaff ^talk 02:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC) tally exp. on talk page

[edit] East Los Angeles Chapel of Satan

Appears to be an article created primarily to support his other article Marvin "Knife" Sotelo which is also marked for deletion. Minimal Wikipedia value. Cpaliga 13:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Yet more apparent vanity. non-notable.--Isotope23 17:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete agree w/ isotope.—Gaff ^talk 02:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 as COPYVIO it's been listed there for >7 days and hasn't been rewritten. -Splash^talk 17:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blood In Blood Out

Appears to be an article created primarily to support his other article Marvin "Knife" Sotelo which is also marked for deletion. Minimal Wikipedia value. Cpaliga 13:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

~~Keep and rewrite~~. Popular (enough) movie. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it non-notable.--Myles Long/cDc 15:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Changing vote to Move to Blood In, Blood Out or Bound By Honor ([23]) and rewrite. Popular (enough) movie (250,000 google hits - sure, not all of them relate to the movie, [24] but more than enough do, imo). I have no opinion either way on "Knife" and his supposed connection to the movie, but the movie is notable. --Myles Long/cDc 15:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Move and Rewrite. I agree; I was wrong. It seems to be a reasonably popular movie and the purpose of the author should not have caused me to recommend for deletion a possibly valuable entry. I also agree that it should be moved and rewritten. I apologize for my presumption.Cpaliga 16:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem on the presumption; I apologize as well, since my "Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it non-notable," in retrospect, sounds much harsher than I'd intended. --Myles Long/cDc 17:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep provided it gets a complete rewrite. Also, I cant verify this right now due to a filter, but it appears this text may be a copyvio of [25]. Anyone want to verify and tag the article if this is the case?--Isotope23 17:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Verified and tagged as copyvio. --Myles Long/cDc 18:01, 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 04:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] His Story: The True Biography of Anton Szandor LaVey

Appears to be an article created primarily to support his other article Marvin "Knife" Sotelo which is also marked for deletion. Minimal Wikipedia value. It is important to note that this is an actual book, although self-published by the article's author. Cpaliga 13:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity article about self-published vanity book.--Isotope23 17:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We have an article on Anton Szandor LaVey. This book is not important enough need an article of its own. The title is not useful as a redirect. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment. If more info on the book can be found (publisher, ISBN, etc.) then consider adding to LaVey page as part of the "Books about LaVey" list? Crypticfirefly 04:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sure, but I want that to be an independent edit, because I don't want to get into the issue of GFDL-compliant-merge-and-deletes being difficult to do. There isn't enough in this article to be worth that hassle. If someone wants to add the book to the article Anton Szandor LaVey in the way you suggest I'd support that. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I could find no record of the book in the Library of Congress database or WorldCat. The book is self-published and available for sale (or as a free download) from lulu.com, but apparently isn't high enough on any library's radar screen to collect a copy. This would argue against notability . . . Crypticfirefly 03:55, 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. Rob e rt 15:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sinagogue of Satan

Appears to be an article created primarily to support his other article Marvin "Knife" Sotelo which is also marked for deletion. Minimal Wikipedia value. Cpaliga 14:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I think you're being generous saying this has even minimal value. Generates a fair amount of chatter on the internet, but it's message board and blog chatter; primarily written by self-professed members or by online christian groups attacking them. They have a website, but all in all, it seems about as notable as OS 012 which just went down in an AfD.--Isotope23 17:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. per nom, unencyclopedic, not notable. --Kgf0

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. All keep votes, despite appearing to be by noted Wikipedia users, are by sock puppets. See edit history. — JIP | Talk 04:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lightning War

Not notable group with one? release. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. feydey 14:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep "6. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop)"... Looks like it does to me, the article mentions that they "found infamy in the local area". ~~Wahoofive~~ actually posted by 172.200.189.73 — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for correcting the record, Lomn. No vote. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Without citation, the above "found infamy" quote reeks of band vanity. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I also like the clean redirect to blitzkrieg per Marskell. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Almost reads like a hoax. Vanity and not up to WP:MUSIC in any case unless notability better asserted. After deletion re-post as a clean re-direct to Blitzkrieg (note if this is kept it should be a disambig between Blitzkrieg and the band). Marskell 17:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, they do not meet WP:MUSIC. An unsourced assertion of "finding infamy" is so very not an indication of meeting criteria 6. Give me something verifiable to suggest they meet the guideline, and I could change my mind. A redirect to Blitzkrieg per above sounds OK by me. Friday (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete content and redirect to Blitzkrieg. Djbrianuk 22:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Changed 'infamy' to 'much opposition' because for some reason people around here have an aversion to the former.Anonymous, 10:49, 6th October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC. Prozak, 12:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. As Above. User:Piccadilly, 11:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity. No evidence of notability. Should be redirected to Blitzkrieg as per above [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent^†_∈]] 10:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per Marskell. --JoanneB 10:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, No evidence of vanity. Jonny2x4 19:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. 23skidoo 22:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, does meet WP:MUSIC as stated. I added a bracket after "(or 'cybergrind' band" where it is clearly required.
Comment: I just read the article again. I still see nothing to indicate that this band meets WP:MUSIC guidelines. Can anyone explain? Friday (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, it does meet WP:MUSIC as has been explained previously. Death, 09:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Rob e rt 23:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fruitpunch

article does not pass WP:music standards Qaz ^(talk) 14:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I believe it does pas WP:music, just the page needs to be expanded a bit. Karol 18:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Delete. I tried :) Karol 19:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom, unless Karol can provide some indication on how it does pass the notability requirements, it's an unsigned band without as yet an album release. Mallocks 20:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination; the article and band's web site indicate that they have released an album, but one independently distributed album is not enough to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. If they actually do qualify under WP:MUSIC and the article is revised to prove this, I will reconsider. --Metropolitan90 19:11, 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 Speedied. android 79 16:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Henry_Zellman

Vanity Page, Non-notable Person 192.88.212.38 15:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as a nn-bio. KeithD (talk) 15:20, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minowitz

Possible Hoax. Article claim subject is a fishtorian and ran like the fish with his high sock. Hurricane111 15:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Hoaxtastic. KeithD (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. Dlyons493 Talk 16:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete — Another fishy story for the halibut. It flounders a bit toward the end. :) — RJH 20:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable if given the benefit of the doubt, patent nonsense if not given such. --Icarus 06:02, 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 DELETE. -Splash^talk 17:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xboxphreaker

Completing an unfinished AfD by an anon user, but also voting Delete. Advertising. KeithD (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Fansite for a single Xbox game? I see no expansion potential for this article beyond the web address and one line blurb that it currently contains. Saberwyn 23:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete its not notable. — Wackymacs 20:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 04:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World Modeling Agency

Doesn't assert notability. KeithD (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy A1 Dlyons493 Talk 16:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete — per nom. — RJH 19:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. This is a substub at the moment, but at the risk of displaying a bit too much knowledge of the subject matter, World Modelling Agency is one of the main casting companies for the adult film industry in Hollywood and is often featured in documentaries and the like on the subject. But I don't know enough details to do any sort of expansion of the article. If it's just going to be a sub-stub then KeithD is correct that it doesn't assert notability as it stands. 23skidoo 21:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable — Wackymacs 20:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. -Splash^talk 17:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marcin mazur

Not english, and more importantly: Subject was deleted at the Polish Wikipedia. Punkmorten 15:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Violation G4 as per nomination --CastAStone 18:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator. Hall Monitor 19:08, 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 04:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Littl'ans

Excerpt: The Littl'ans are an English alternative band who have had marginal success in their short time performing. Punkmorten 15:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral. They are currently supporting Babyshambles and are due to release a single with Pete Doherty, so may be notable for those reasons. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 15:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Borderline notability, but supporting Babyshambles, and releasing a single with Pete Doherty is just about notable enough in my book. KeithD (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Give them the benefit of the doubt, since they seem legitimately up-and-coming. Xoloz 05:20, 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 no consensus. Linuxbeak | Talk 14:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rhombus (musical group)

Article does not establish notability. Google search for the band Rhombus (the one from New Zealand) gives few hits. They have an allmusic entry [26], but there's nothing of value there. Punkmorten 15:53, 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. -Splash^talk 18:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cypress Ventures

Commercial spam, makes no attempt to establish notability. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per above. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio from [27]. See also Giacomo Marini and Pierluigi Zappacosta Dlyons493 Talk 16:23, 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 04:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology alteration

"Terminology alteration" appears to be a neologism, unused elswhere in this context, except on Wikipedia mirrors. The article itself is a pure original research essay lacking any credible citation. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Jayjg. Also delete The Holiday, which is only linked (in this context) from this article and is just a redirect back to this article. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I too can't find anything outside Wikipedia and its mirrors.--A bit iffy 18:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This article is informative in regards to the present anti-Christianism, and is proposed to be deleted by the same users who vote to keep neologies such as "Common Era" on Wikipedia. Also these same users propose to delete "The Holiday" article, thus being the only other article (besides this one) in which I have created, and revert every single edit I make in regards to Christianity, therefore I am assuming they propose to delete this article only because I have created it. However, since Wikipedia has sadly equipped morons like those folks as Administrators, there's really nothing that can be done to cease this ludicrous activity. Jordain 18:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC).

A term like "Common Era", which has been in use for a century, and gets over 366,000 Google hits, is hardly a neologism. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
And this article actually includes the Common Era debate, which you have just ADMITTED is not neology. As for the anti-Christmas portion, there has long been hostility against Christmas because it is an exciting holiday in which obviously not everyone can enjoy. Let's not forget that Hanukkah only became popular because of Christmas (it's only a very minor holiday on the Jewish calendar), and Kwanzaa was only created in 1966! to provide an alternate late-December holiday for non-Christians and non-Jews. Jordain 18:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Jordain, I see now there's a history of editing disputes between yourself and Jayjg. However, I do honestly believe Jayjg is correct in this case: quite simply, the term "Terminology alteration" is outside the scope of Wikipedia because it is a neologism and original research - unless you can demonstrate otherwise.--A bit iffy 18:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- If you believe this to be a neologism, would you also classify "Common Era" as a neologism? If not, what exactly is the difference? On the page of Political correctness, there is an sub-article defined as "Religious inclusiveness", which is what the Terminology alteration page was once called. Should it be renamed to this? Or maybe you should also vote to delete the Religious inclusiveness portion of Political Correctness, which Jayjg himself edited, but did not motion to delete. It's the exact same material as here! Jordain 18:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Obviously, every term was a neologism once. However, the point is that Common Era is well-established outside Wikipedia, but there's no evidence that "Terminology alteration" is well-established outside Wikipedia, and makes me think someone's come up with the term for the sole purpose of doing an article. Now, to be honest, Wikipedia's "policy" on Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms is actually just a guideline, but in this case the complete lack of precedent for the use of "Terminology alteration" means the article of this name shouldn't exist.--A bit iffy 18:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
This page could be considered as a form of political correctness, but I don't think it should be deleted. Moved or renamed, yes possibly, but not deleted. Jordain 18:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC).
Delete as neologistic term. Article also appears to contain an element of original research and a POV slant.--Isotope23 20:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Isotope is correct: pure neologism, OR and POV - hence, unencyclopedic. Dottore So 22:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per basically everyone else. WTF does "terminology alteration" really mean, anyway?--chris.lawson 23:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
delete. blatantly pov. ericg ✈ 00:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
delete. Original research, POV. Jesus loves political correctness, because Jesus doesn't like for anyone to use the N word. Seriously, I asked, and He told me last week. Xoloz 05:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research... or tedious Bible-tapping (like Bible-thumping, but quieter)pseudo-rant, if you prefer. --Last Malthusian 08:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete: checking book title links from the Richmal Crompton article and following one called The Holiday (it's a book: why is it redirecting?), I was intrigued to be redirected to this! I can think of many meanings for "terminology alteration", but this is far from the first I would come up with: and Google agrees. Telsa 09:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Seems a shame to get rid of it because it's hilarious, but sadly not in line with our policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: the page has been moved by its creator to Religious terminology debate. The AfD notice has been transferred successfully, also by Jordain.--chris.lawson 04:10, 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. -Splash^talk 18:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flora Ogilvy

The article tells us nothing about her, only about her relatives; is the fact that there are thirty-four people between her and the throne significant enough to warrant an article? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, or merge into some sort of genealogical list of heirs to the throne. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Line of succession to the British Throne covers this information perfectly adequately. I note that the line of succession article has lots of links to articles that are equally or more banal, for example Kelly Knatchbull or Peter Liddell-Grainger, plus a whole bunch of red-links that could easily prompt more... Sliggy 19:10, 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. Not a lot of debate, but this is indeed why we have categories. -Splash^talk 18:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charnel Music catalogue

A list of records by the label Charnel Music. JoanneB 17:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

KeepBut tidy up and make a bit more attractive also maybe put in a little paragraph abour Charnel Music becuase if you didnt know what that was you would be a little lost there user:Redconverse
Delete, this is what categories are for. --fvw * 17:10, 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. -Splash^talk 18:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yeshewuawork

According to Google, the term doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia. At least not on the internet... JoanneB 17:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete It's a dictionary Definition, Wiki is not a dictionary. CastAStone 18:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete or maybe redirect to Shewa since that part does seem truthful. I just don't know about the ancient history of that region, I can't verify or disprove other info here. That said, I'd still delete, unless a better rewrite could occur. -- Malo 09:23, 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. -Splash^talk 18:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Winter pop

Is there really such a thing? Deb 17:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Conditional Delete I cannot find any evidence that such a genre exists, so I'm guessing this is a neologism... BUT I don't live in Japan and since the author has stated this is primarily a Japanese phenomenon, I will change my vote if someone can cite sources (preferably in English) that this is an established genre of music in Japan.--Isotope23 18:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: i found a page that is presumably about it, and there is a snowman (?) and snowflakes on it; but I don't know japaneese, so I can only gues what's written there. Karol 18:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- I saw that too, but I can't read Japanese to save my life. Any established editors out there read Japanese?--Isotope23 20:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The web adress shown below belongs to Konami Gateway on Pop'n Music 7 from where this music genre appared. Please keep the page for the sake of learning something new.
Delete. pop'n music has many genres that are made up specifically for the game. Winter pop is just their name for a pop song related to winter. Other bullshit genres include miracle, precious, sunny and des-reggae (death reggae). --SPUI (talk) 01:02, 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 REDIRECT to Beg for Mercy. — JIP | Talk 04:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beg for mercy

Normally, I don't touch band articles as I have very limited knowledge of music. However, I coincidentally happened to come across the guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines, and it's clear to me that Beg for mercy meets none of the criteria for notability there. A bit iffy 17:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria.--Isotope23 18:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to notable album Beg for Mercy by G-unit. Karol 18:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as suggested by Karol. Mallocks 20:47, 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. Rob e rt 23:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zap me

Delete - appears to be vanity page and unverifiable at best. MakeRocketGoNow 17:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree, delete. Even if this is genuine, I can't see it being anything more than a dicdef. --A bit iffy 17:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as insignificant. Zap it! :) Karol 18:36, 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 keep. H e rmione1980 00:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign born

Dicdef. I don't really see anything to do with this at WP (the foreigner page, for instance, just has a link to Wiktionary). Note that the nominated revision is mine, the original was US-centric and I fixed that much regardless of the article's fate. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Revision looks great, thanks Marskell! — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Expatriate has an article and I don't see that this shouldn't. It could certainly be expanded to include more the than the dicdef. See for instance Second class citizen. Foreign born aren't necessarily foreigners incidentally. Marskell 17:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to alien (law). Karol 18:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Keep. You got me. Karol 20:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Similar to above, foreign born are not necessarily aliens. I emigrate, I acquire citizenship—I am a foreign born citizen not an alien. Marskell 22:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Note Think it's saved now. Marskell 22:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Article is now beyond a dictdef and the general concept is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 23:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep - distinct concept, as one can be foreign born and yet not an alien. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep For USians, constitutional prohibition on foreign born presidents (not just aliens) makes this distinction extra-notable, and subject of debate, as with Gov Swartzenegger recently. Xoloz 05:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand, as per Marskell. Carioca 06:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand, as per Marskell --Apyule 07:08, 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. Rob e rt 23:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polom

Dicdef for an obscure slang neologism used on IRC, with a few links to Google searches at the bottom. Not really an encyclopedia article, IMHO. — Ливай | ☺ 17:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The villages mentioned at the bottom might be notable, but the "greeting" is not. Karol 18:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for moving to wiktionary. This is a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article.

Delete I wouldn't even move it to wiktionary as it is more urbandictionary slang than a real term. I'd also support retaining the page as a disamgig for the names of the places mentioned at the bottom if someone wanted to watch this article for content and make sure the spurious slang def doesn't work its way back in.--Isotope23 20:09, 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. -Splash^talk 18:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of free churches in Germany by dialect area of seat

list is just taking up space. also it doesn't make much sense to list churches based upon dialect area. Abstrakt 18:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment In Germany, as in China or India, I believe that it does make sense to order churches in this manner, due to the dialectical nature of the nation. I do not have an opinion, however, on it's wiki-worthiness. CastAStone 18:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Makes sense to me, CastAStone, and I think, like you being unsure, that the default is to keep. Xoloz 05:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I must admit that the by seat part escaped my notice until Angr's comments. That stipulation does make this list absurd. Xoloz 11:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It seems important to me. Carioca 06:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this "information" is completely useless. Most of these churches have a nationwide presence anyway, and most Germans avoid using their local dialect in formal situtations like going to church. The local dialect of the town where the church happens to be headquartered is utterly irrelevant. And above all, the two concepts brought together on this page have nothing to do with each other! We might as well have a List of supermarket chains in Germany by average annual rainfall of corporate headquarters. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Question. Angr, has the avoidance of using local dialect at church always been the case? If not, this arrangement might be of use to someone doing historical research. The reason I ask is that I know there is at least one Church in Illinois where services are conducted in some obscure German dialect, presumably a carryover from when the church founders came over from Germany in the 19th century.
  - Probably not, but this information would not be of use to anyone doing such research, because it's based solely on where the church today happens to have its seat. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per the arguments of Angr. --G Rutter 10:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per the arguments of Angr. My point exactly. - Abstrakt 20:28, 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. -Splash^talk 18:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Charismatic Churches in India

Is this list really that necessary? Isn't there already a list of Christian churches in India? And aren't most of these churches on that list as well? I mean most of the churches listed are red links, and the blue links are mostly redirects. Abstrakt 18:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Abstrakt 20:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:12, 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 18:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Williams Record

A small student newspaper, I really don't see the need for an entire article devoted to this. I have taken the time to add it to List_of_college_newspapers. However most of the papers there don't have an article devoted just to themselves. Malo 18:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Expand or get rid of every last college newspaper. I think as a real media source they have encyclopedic value, that is, albiet minor, above the level of cruft. CastAStone 18:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete or merge school newspapers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest merge with Williams College, except that seems to have more information already. No evidence it can be expanded any further without descending into waffle. Average Earthman 20:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Per Earthman's point, delete it then. Dottore So 22:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Williams College. I was going to concur with deletion per Average Earthman. But there are two issues: having the information and finding it. When I do a Wikipedia global search on "Williams Record", Williams Record is the first hit, and Williams College does not come up at all in the remaining twenty hits. Therefore if someone actually searches on "Williams Record," they will find it if we have the redirect and they will probably not find it if we do not. (On the other hand, when I do a Google search on Wikipedia for "Williams Record" I get the relevant part of the Williams College article, so deleting this article wouldn't affect anyone trying to find the same information via Google.) Dpbsmith (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The page claims that the publication is independent of the Williams College, so it doesn't seem quite appropriate to delete and merge it with the page of the college. There are a bunch other articles on student newspapers (w:Category:Student newspapers) and this one does not necessarily seem less relevant than some of the others. The article certainly has the potential to be expanded and it can easily be verified that it is a legit source of news [28]. Btm 04:36, 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 River Club. Linuxbeak | Talk 14:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Riverclub

Article already exists, in its properly spelled form, River Club, which is also a larger article 196.2.124.250 18:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

196.2.124.250 Delete
Merge with River Club. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:duplicate articles is outside, along the hallway, third door on the left. Uncle G 22:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I added this to duplicate articles per Uncle G. There's quite a backlog over there, however, and I really don't see anything to merge, so I think the thing could just be speedily redirected. Chick Bowen 23:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to River Club, Gauteng. --taestell 18:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Golden mean. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Mean

This article is a crime. First it has four long paragraphs saying the golden mean is something in mathematics that is much celebrated, without the slightest attempt to even hint at what it is, even getting into a poet's view of the matter without having attempted to inform the reader of what it is, which would be very easy. A different article, golden ratio, already gives a very clear account of this concept. Then it goes on to a section on the Pythagorean theory of music, which is not even tangentially relevant, but looks (very) superficially related only because it deals with ratios in esthetics. The rest of the article doesn't look as if it informs the reader of what the golden ratio is either. Michael Hardy 23:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment (not actually a vote, since I expressed myself above): Looking at which pages link to this execrable article, I find two entirely distinct topics, both sometimes called the golden mean. Maybe this should become a disambiguation page. Or redirect to golden mean with a lower-case m, now a redirect page to golden ratio, and make golden mean a disambiguation page? Michael Hardy 00:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
So I take it you don't like the article? I'm voting Conditional Keep on the basis that this has been flagged for attention for 1 day (by the AfD nominator) and now is being AfD nom'd. I agree that the article is a complete mess of random topics and is in need of some serious editing, but you cannot expect that to happen in 1 day. If after 30 days this article doesn't get updated into a coherent article with a point, I agree it should be deleted, but for now I'd say let the article have on last chance to be cleaned up.--Isotope23 19:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

*Well, keep the article title, if only as a redirect, and perhaps after moving it to Golden mean? AFAIK "golden mean" is a legitimate synonym or near-synonym for "golden ratio" and a plausible entry term. The golden ratio article is heavy on math and light on aesthetics, philosophy, etc. The golden mean article is, uh, completely free from math and heavy on rather soft aesthetics and philosophy. I'm not enough of a classicist to judge its quality. And I haven't combed through the rest of Wikipedia to see how much of the material here is adequately treated elsewhere. Phyllotaxis is just a stub! But I don't see deleting all the content in this article. There needs to be some kind of refactoring and redistribution of its content, quite possibly deleting some of it, merging some of it elsewhere, and quite possibly leaving nothing but a redirect. The Pythagorean stuff needs to go elsewhere or just go. What sort of musical interval is 1.618? A minor sixth and change? Mmmm, mmmm, not good. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Try to clarify, see below

Merge with golden ratio. This will require quite a bit of cleanup but I think there is some salvageable information in this article which is not covered in the other. ESkog 20:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to golden ratio. This article is one of WHEELERs leftovers, and doesn't contain much worth merging. - SimonP 21:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the Golden Ratio article is much more concise. I vote to move the few unique bits from the Golden Ratio article to the Golden Mean article. Because the word ratio is more descriptive of its definition, it seems that Golden Ratio should be the title and the alternate names Golden Mean, Divine Proportion, and Golden Section should appear in the first few lines of the article. Tr0gd0rr 21:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to golden ratio per SimonP and Dpbsmith. Dottore So 22:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP. Do not redirect Besides the mathematical definition, there's Horace, the Roman poet, and his use of this term philosophically. This is the sort of thing even Brittanica would have as disamb. for. Kill the current content as you wish, but this needs to be kept for clarification and probable disamb. -- or maybe expansion, since ratio is more precisely mathematically, but mean is exclusive philosophically. Xoloz 05:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with golden ratio. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge with golden ratio unless someone knows about the whole Horace useage mentioned by Xoloz and is willing to put it in the article. --Apyule 07:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Please don't merge or redirect: I agree that this article needs substantial improvement. However, most of it deals with the philosophical meaning of golden mean (essentially not too much, not too little), which has nothing to do with the mathematical subject of the golden ratio article; therefore, it should not be merged with that article. The confusion, which is not of our making, is that the outside world uses golden mean ambiguously: sometimes in its philosophical sense (above); other times as a synonym for the golden ratio. Golden ratio, on the other hand, is unambibuous: it refers only to the subject of the golden ratio article, which is another reason that the articles should not be merged. The Wikified solution for dealing an ambiguous term is disambiguation, and that is part of the solution for this article. Indeed Michael Hardy, who made the first post on this page (does that mean he is the one who nominated the article for deletion?) raised much the same point in a comment following his original post. The rest of the solution is (1) to delete from this article all discussion of material that is treated in the golden ratio article (and treated much better there), with an appropriate cross-reference on this page to golden ratio as another meaning of golden mean; and (2) to edit what is left of this article, dealing solely with the philosophical meaning, to improve its quality. Finell 10:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, then redirect to Golden mean and make that into a disambiguation page. -- Egil 13:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, let me see if I can be coherent. Basically: concur with Finell. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the article title itself, since I think the term really is frequently used with that capitalization.
- Keep the article Golden mean, which currently happens to be a redirect to Golden ratio.
- Hope for a quick edit of the article to remove anything obviously erroneous or less useful than Golden ratio, and clarify whatever relationships there are between the Golden Mean and Golden ratio articles. Basically, separate them into a philosophy article and a math article even if there is really some overlap in the respective concepts.
- Keep a cleanup tag on the article.
- Copy Finell's comment above to the Talk page as a reasonable program for what needs to be done.
- Hope for editing of the page by people knowledgable in classics and philosophy
- Defer all the issues of which pages should be redirects, which should be dabs, etc. as normal editing issues. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge (if necessary) and Redirect Golden Ratio is a good article, but I call it the golden mean (or the Golden Section at times. The entry is perfectly valid, but the concept isn't really different from Golden Ratio McKay 17:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As per Finell. It also needs to be moved to "Golden section" a more correct title, IMO . ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 02:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: In addition to the above, I know that Aristotle uses the idea of the "golden mean" as the point of virute in his Nicomachean Ethics. One example: He describes courage as the virtue being at golden mean between cowardice and fool-hardiness. David Bergan 04:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep There needs to be better disambiguation between this article and Golden Ratio/golden mean. A new introductory paragraph should be put in to make clear the different uses of 'golden mean' (not just mathematical term), and its relationship with 'golden ratio' and perhaps difference from 'golden rule'. I agree with the above comment that more work on the philosophical section needs to be done too. Perhaps some of the sections should be merged with appropriate articles--golden ratio seems a good target for this--but in general, the article still needs work but should be kept. WhiteC 14:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New complication

Now there is a new Golden mean article that is solely a redirect to Golden ratio in addition to the present Golden Mean article (note the difference in capitalization) being discussed here (which no one will find in a search now unless they capitalize Mean). Talk about a need for disambiguation! Angela, a Board of Trustees member, apparently created the new Golden mean redirect page. I will leave a note on her Talk page. Finell 20:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't sound like a serious complication. It can all be dealt with as normal editing. But we might as well start tabulating just how many pages should be involved. I just checked and Golden Section and Golden section both redirect to Golden ratio. Good. And Phi is a dab with Golden ratio as the first alternative. Also good.

I think we need about two separate articles, with math in one and philosophy/classics in the other. Not sure which one aesthetics best belongs in. I don't think it much matters whether there's a "central" disambiguation page, or whether each of the two articles has a short, pithy cross-reference to the other. What matters is that a reader searching for any of this stuff should be able to type in any of these terms and find what they're looking for. And that the articles be good.

Phyllotaxis should be woven into this web, too.

Do we have an article on the Goldena medina? Apparently not... Dpbsmith (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Than can be easily fixed after the conclusion of the AfD. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 02:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: Angela responded, on her Talk page, to Finell 20:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC) as follows:

Sorry, but I don't remember why I moved the page to that title. I have no opinion on whether it needs deleting. Angela 14:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

In view Angela's response, and to reduce confusion of users who search for "golden mean," I edited the Golden mean page to redirect to the Golden Mean article. However, consistent with Wiki capitalization guidelines, Golden Mean should be renamed Golden mean. Because Golden mean already exists, this change requires an Administrator. Finell 04:58, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quagmire Solutions

Non-notable web design company. Quale 18:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete nary an attempt to establish notability.--Isotope23 19:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete spam, borderline speedy. —Cryptic (talk) 07:46, 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 DELETE. -Splash^talk 18:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RB20E

Single line (not even a sentence) substub with a cleanup-date tag on it since July 27. "nissan engine producer from the late 80's, single cam 6 cylander, belt drive, 2.0L.". Quale 18:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable engine model number (I don't think it's an engine producer). If someone wants they can merge it with a Nissan-related page. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Good point. It may well be a typo. Perhaps "nissan engine produce[d]..."? Quale 06:06, 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 speedily deleted by me. Scimitar ^parley 20:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Anderson

The assertions of notability (taco eating, kindness award) look to be hoaxes; I can't find references to either. Without those it's just another nn-bio. Delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 19:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. NN-bio peppered with hoaxes. KeithD (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy as a hoax OR nn-bio. 27 tacos in 10 minutes? Not even close to the record... Sonya Thomas is the record holder with 43 in 11 minutes. Nice try though.--Isotope23 19:27, 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 04:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snackmosphere

Neologism for the empty air that makes potato chip bags seem full when they're really not. Clever, but not notable. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Neologism. KeithD (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism not in wide use. Even if it was that would just make it a wiktionary candidate. Average Earthman 20:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it's factually incorrect anyway - it's Nitrogen, not air. - Stillnotelf 21:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. (Although a Wikipedia article should be made on the packaging technique, if there isn't one already.) Andrew pmk | Talk 00:41, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smallfort

A user-created game level for Half Life created in 2000. Non-notable. Quale 19:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable add on.--Isotope23 20:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Dottore So 22:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:42, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Norh

Gamecruft neologism. This really isn't necessary. Delete, as I don't think it rates a merge into Stunts (computer game). — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. If a redirect was useful, I'd suggest that instead, but I don't see that it is. Friday (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Dottore So 22:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. per nom. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:44, 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 redirect to Dover Castle. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dover_castle

Badly titled page, it should be called "The Dover Castle" to avoid collision with a page on "Dover Castle" (the castle in Dover, not the pub. I've moved the pub's page to "The Dover Castle" and want to remove the old page PeterArnold 19:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with where the redirect points. I would suggest that a fortification involved in the defence of England for centuries is more important than a pub in Leicester. Average Earthman 20:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
AFD is not the place for this. Deletion is not involved in solving this problem. PeterArnold and Average Earthman both apparently want the redirect to point to Dover Castle instead of to The Dover Castle. The answer is just to edit the redirect, then. No administrator privileges are required. Indeed, one doesn't even need to have a user account to be able to do this. There's not even a disagreement as to where the redirect should point (for which the article's talk page would be the place, not AFD). Uncle G 22:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect both to "Dover Castle" (the castle). The pub is non-notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that there are two pages: "Dover_Castle" (the fortification in Kent) and "Dover_castle" (the old page for the pub that currently redirects to the new page for the pub). I feel that it would be cleaner to delete the "Dover_castle" page rather than redirecting it to the fortification page. For the moment I have redirected the "Dover_castle" page to point to the "Dover_Castle" page. PeterArnold 07:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Another issue is that a search for "Dover Castle" finds the fortification page but a search for "dover castle" finds the redirection page. I would say this is another reason for deleting it. PeterArnold 07:11, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Applesquash

Hoax veggie. Google shows 23 uniques, nearly all of which are for one Hiram Applesquash. The rest are for apple+squash recipes. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete this hoax. Friday (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax. (I wish it were true though. Yum). KeithD (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it should stay, I've heard of this from my cousins in Southern Ireland. Sounds tasty :) AWESOME VEGGIE I LOVE ITTTTTT keep it. (Unsigned comments from User:24.128.23.21 who created the article, and vandalised this AfD by changing people's votes).
Delete Here's one Southern Irish vegetarian who never heard of it. Sounds better than dulse though. Dlyons493 Talk 21:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-existent fruit hybrid. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:47, 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. Linuxbeak | Talk 14:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hardcore Wrestling Federation

Completing incomplete AfD. Also voting Delete as non-notable wrestling federation, and probable advert KeithD (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

An advertisment for a minor upstate NY professional wrestling ring. Not encyclopediac in form or function. Delete — Xoder |✆ 22:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC) (Unsigned nomination by User:Xoder placed at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Hardcore Wrestling Federation by mistake - note incorrect capitalisation of deletion).
delete unencyclopeidc. --nixie 06:30, 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. — JIP | Talk 04:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Flor

Not notable. There are dozens of young actress just like her in Brazil. Abu Badali 20:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. - Abu Badali 20:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Maria Flor is a notable Brazilian actress, as she is the star of the movie O Diabo a Quatro [29]. A not notable actress never would achieve a star role in a cinema movie. Her role in the movie Quase Dois Irmãos is also important for that movie, see this movie review, explaining Maria Flor's role and the IMDB link. Also, she had notable roles in both Malhação and Cabocla. So, the article should not be deleted. Regards, Carioca 21:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep star actress. I'm sure there are "dozens of young actress" like her in Brazil. But, there are 186 million people in Brazil, and a large number of actresses (lots more than "dozens"). So if, as the nominator suggests, she's among mere "dozens", that wouldn't be bad at all. Anyhow, I'm basing my vote on imdb, which seems to back up the article. --rob 23:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep per IMDb. As a rule, check IMDb before afd'ing anything to do with film. They were a movie-pedia before there was a wikipedia, bless them. Xoloz 05:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep per IMDb. She is a well-known actress in Brazil. PMLF 20:22, 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 04:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doug Smith

High school rapper, fails WP:MUSIC. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination. Mallocks 20:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, high school silliness. Oh, and there's nothing verifiable here either. Friday (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete quickly as student vanity, possibly a candidate for speedy deletion. Hall Monitor 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as high school vanity. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:48, 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. H e rmione1980 00:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hanukkah bush

Note: This was re-nominated for deletion on 2 October 2005, having previously been nominated on 5 September and kept. Technical errors in the nomination process made it appear that this discussion was closed, possibly discouraging participation. Therefore I have re-listed it in the 3 October log to give people a chance to see the discussion in this revised form, without the "discussion closed" notice. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete immediately It is suggested that this page be either deleted or I will move it to "Jewish Christmas Tree", because of the simple fact that it is a neologism and should be removed in accordance with WP:POINT. It is offensive to both Christians and Jews alike considering that it is a ripoff of the traditionally Christian decoration of a tree at December. Jordain 19:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, because none of the nominator's reasons are valid. In detail: Dpbsmith (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not a neologism, the term being in widespread and frequent use for decades as shown by the source citations on the page.
The Christmas tree is not "traditionally Christian." As far as I know, Christmas trees are not mentioned in the New Testament. If I'm wrong, please provide a citation. Our article on Christmas trees discusses this in detail and suggests that the practice either originated as a pagan custom, or as a nonreligious celebration originating in 18th-century Germany (which was objected to by at least one priest specifically as not being Christian).
Even if it were considered offensive, the appropriate remedy would not be to delete the article, but make sure the article is neutral, by providing proper, well-sourced material showing to whom it is considered offensive. The article already addresses the differences of opinions between Jews in some detail. I am not aware of any widespread objections by Christians, but if there are, please provide properly sourced commentary for inclusion in the article.
I don't see how WP:POINT applies, because nothing the actions and procedures surrounding this article were disruptive to Wikipedia.
The article was discussed in AfD very recently. In its present form, it received fourteen keep votes and no delete votes. (For some reason Jordain did not vote in the first AfD, even though it is clear he or she was aware of the article.) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It should not be moved to "Jewish Christmas tree" for the following reasons. Unlike Hanukkah bush, "Jewish Christmas tree" is a neologism. This term is not used to any appreciable extent. Our naming conventions call for the use of the most common term; this is "Hanukkah bush," not "Jewish Christmas tree." This specific question of whether the article should be entitled Talk:Hanukkah bush on whether the article title should be Hanukkah bush or Jewish Christmas Tree resulted in four fairly strong opinions, all to the effect that it should remain at Hanukkah bush, and no dissenting opinions. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Valid informative and encyclopedic article on commonly used term/object. Nomination is another WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. The only WP:POINT I see here is Jordain's AfD nomination. Sorry, but you can't delete something just because the idea is offensive to you. If that were the case Wikipedia would comprise one article and it would be about something totally generic like clay. As for the article itself, I am judging it on its current incarnation. A quick look around the internet shows that there are a few examples of a Hanukkah bush in the manner it is described in the article... enough that I'm willing to let it stand for now, though it is scraping the edge of non-notability. I'd also recommend a cleanup tag as the article could be written a bit better.--Isotope23 20:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I, for one, find clay offensive. ;-) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  - I knew that statement would bring out the gloiophobes (or would that be pelophobe?) :) --Isotope23 14:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    - I thought Clay was intentionally offensive. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
keep good articles about marginal subjects, and anyway I have heard of this before. We do not delete articles because they are offensive. — brighterorange (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per Jayjg .Carioca 22:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Clear Keep; [[User:Jordain|Jordain]'s use of AfD is disruptive verging on vandalism. Dottore So 22:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Dpbsmith. The fact that some people may be offended by the existence of Hanukkah bushes does not mean that they would necessarily be offended by an article about them provided it is written in a fair and factual way, although User:Jordain may disagree. Do not move; "Hanukkah bush" is the common term for this item. --Metropolitan90 23:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
keep and please do not relist this we already discussed it Yuckfoo 21:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per previous vote. Capitalistroadster 23:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep - Hannukah Harry needs a place to string those blue and white lights! -- BD2412 ^talk 23:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep with extreme prejudice. This AfD is absurd and should be removed as soon as possible. How many times do we have to vote on an article before the results are excepted. AfD is not about voting on the same article over and over again until a deletionist gets the result he/she wants.--Nicodemus75 00:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep per everything already said. — ceejayoz ^★ 00:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong & Speedy Keep. The nominator is simply ill-informed, and the issue was decided less than a month ago. MCB 00:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
strong keep. nomination and nominator are ridiculous. ericg ✈ 00:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep even though the idea might be offensive to some Jews (especially Orthodox), it is common and accepted by many Reform Jews. Furthermore, it has been rewritten. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep User:Jordain has demonstrated at the AfD for Terminology alteration a pronouncedly obvious POV agenda. AfD is virtually groundless. Xoloz 05:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep (but cleanup). Do not re-name to "Jewish Christmas tree" (which really would be a neologism and a violation of WP:POINT). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep as per Nicodemus75, MCB, and Angr. ~⌈Mar ka ci⌋ 2005-10-5 T 00:24:25 Z
Speedy Keep for the same reason I commented that this is real concept the last time. Crypticfirefly 03:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE POST VOTES ABOVE THE FOLLOWING CLOSED DISCUSSION

[edit] Closed discussion from 5 September nomination of Hanukkah bush

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.

~~Vanity / OR / neologism / nonsense (take your pick). - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)~~ Not any more though, since it's been rewritten. Keep this version. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 16:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I'll take nonsense/joke/hoax, not funny enough for BJAODN. --MCB 00:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep as rewritten (Jewish version of Christmas tree). My delete vote was on the previous article, which was something unrelated about a mythical drug. Real Hanukkah bushes are somewhat of a cultural tradition and the new article is accurate. MCB

Delete Hoax. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Delete per MCB. (Liberal, assimilationist Jewish families—at least in the New York suburb where I grew up—used to put up and decorate Christmas trees during the holiday season and refer to them as "Hanukkah bushes." This eHow article suggest that it is still common. In my experience this was understood to be a joke. There could conceivably be material on this topic, although I seriously doubt it merits its own article. And it's a tricky matter to discuss, because some Jews would probably not approve of the practice nor of the light-hearted name.) Dpbsmith (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Like Dpbsmith, when I was growing up in Chicago, some Jewish families that I knew also had a "Hanukkah Bush." The term is probably widespread, but I think it is better to delete this until the day someone feels up to writing a serious Hanukkah Bush article. Crypticfirefly 01:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'm taking a crack at it. What the heck. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~. Nonsense. Carioca 01:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ In Alabama, the Jewish friend I hung out with in High School always had a "Hanukkah bush" as well for the shared festival of the winter solstice (Sun Return). If such an article regarding that were actually created, it would not stand on its own but would need to be included with other holiday/festival articles. (After the passover feast, we dyed eggs, too.) --WCFrancis 01:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep as rewritten. I stand corrected, as well; it looks like it can stand on its own. --WCFrancis 03:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment The article is different now. the original article, to which the nomination and comments above this line refer, was a transparent hoax or not very funny joke about "a recently discovered leaf-like drug" whose effects on "classmates" included laughter, memory loss, premeditated streaking, etc. The new article is intended to be, uh, for real. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten. The article as it currently stands refers to the usage as cited by several voters on this topic. Capitalistroadster 01:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's not a joke or a hoax. It's not a universal jewish tradition, but I'd be surprised if any reform Jew hasn't at least heard the phrase since childhood. Nandesuka 02:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Please look at the article, which is now in excellent, highly sourced, NPOV shape. Sdedeo 02:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep the rewritten stuff, certainly. Move to Hannukah bush, I'll speculate, looking at the article body.. -- Soir (say hi) 02:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep rewritten article; looks pretty good now. Jaxl | talk 03:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move as per Soir. Andre (talk) 03:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten stuff. Carioca 03:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten, at this point. Too bad the original nonsense has to show up in the history, though. -- DS1953 03:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten.
Keep, nicely rewritten, but move to Hanukkah bush and make redirects for the myriad spellings of Hanukkah. Zoe 06:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Zoe. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Keep this is typical for reform jews who are not yet unitarians. Klonimus 09:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten. Arevich 21:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep cleanup, wikifying, etc. needed though... -- WB 21:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Comment Off-topic, but User:Jordain recently moved the article to Jewish Christmas Tree with the edit comment "Hanukkah bush moved to Jewish Christmas Tree: Name is insufficient, anti-Christian." This page currently has an audience of potentially interested editors, so anyone with opinions on this may wish to chime in at Talk:Hanukkah bush. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Rob e rt 23:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] May wah

Delete. Appears to be a nn take out restaurant. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like one Delete to go with a side of non-notability.--Isotope23 20:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete There are hundreds of them in the town where I live and it only has a population of 150,000. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:54, 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, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sitespaces

Advertisement for nn (16 distinct Googles) site Dlyons493 Talk 20:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

delete vanity/spam. — brighterorange (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, wikispam. --nixie 06:28, 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. Rob e rt 23:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Startpagina

Seems totally non-notable, with 1 page linking there (A page of lists), a list on a talk page a list on a users sandbox, and a list on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts, which describes them as a "well known, long term, spam linker" which is true, in the past I've taken his advice and searched Wikipedia and found always atleast 5 pages with xxx.pagina.nl links to them. 68.39.174.238 20:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete and petition devs to add pagina.nl to the spam list. Ral 315 W_S 20:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - looks like nn and advert. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:54, 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.

closed, remove from AfD, debate is longer than 10 days.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. I'm not including the anon or redlinked users in any counting. But counting is less important than the fact that this had a decisive AfD very recently that VfU did not overturn. -Splash^talk 18:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Sanders

Based upon my interpretation of WP:CSD, this is not a speedy deletion candidate per se, but it does not readily meet the inclusion standards put forward by WP:BIO. It is my belief that the creator of this article may be mistaking the article namespace for user space. After seeing the {{PotentialVanity}} tag removed three times in the article history, it came to my attention that this was just discussed two weeks ago on AfD, with the article being deleted as the end result, after a thoroughly unanimous consensus to do so. As this article is not an exact recreation of the original, I am relisting it here for discussion. No vote. Hall Monitor 20:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: The first discussion of this article can be read here. Hall Monitor 20:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I am in complete agreement on all counts with the nominator.--Scimitar ^parley 22:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - looks like a vanity page. Dottore So 22:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete along with the redirects at El Blanco and Lord Blanka the Black. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't delete - See discussion page for my take. Lonejack 14:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete sorry for the length but I couldn't start a discussion for this so please bear with me. I had to put my 2 cents in. Based on an interpretation of WP:BIO, I believe that the bio on Mark Sanders is valid and should not be deleted as it qualifies under 2 sections of the "People still alive" section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.79.150.14 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
If he were notable, his info would not get "a bit more difficult to find". I also don't believe you've "participated closely in the scene", if you are aren't aware of Heatbeat, elmobo (Moby, the French MOD musician, btw - NOT borrowed from elblanco), Dune, Elwood, Siren, and Virt's notability. Try looking them all up on www.scenemusic.net [30]. Your best argument would be that he is on the AMP site [31] with a few downloads. Also, read my response on Talk:Mark_Sanders. I'm going to add a Delete vote (along with redirects per Jeffrey O. Gustafson) as vanity. --Vossanova 17:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete - I can't believe this is being discussed. See my discussion post. 67.109.180.226 23:17, 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. --Doc (?) 09:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holden Avestra

Probably a bogus article

Delete - patent nonsense. A probable WoW sock created this, I think. --Astwell1986 20:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- I can't find any evidence that the user, User:HornJackaroo, is a WoW sockpuppet. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as clever hoax. Holden is the name of GM in Australia and has been a notable manufacturer and brand in Australia. However, the fact that a Holden Avestra gets no results at all in a Google search presents major verifiability problems see [32] Capitalistroadster 00:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Holden does not make such a car. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where the photo came from, but it looks like a promotional photo ~~of an Astra Classic with a doctored license plate. Other pictures of the Astra Classic look very similar. Maybe someone could find this particular one (search Holden's website or Google).~~ Andrew pmk | Talk 01:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Found. It's a Holden Viva, which looks quite similar to the Astra (being its successor). The picture appears to be one of the thumbnails here. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  - I agree, the license plate is crudely retouched, in a way that no real picture would show, still less one from an image-conscious car manufacturer. Delete. -- The Anome 07:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Move to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense - IMHO. --Astwell1986 16:43, 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 speedily deleted as a hoax. When the article is supported only by blatant sockpuppets, and states that an eatery is connected to the Umbrella Corporation, it isn't a hard choice. Scimitar ^parley 22:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daka

Are articles about otherwise non-notable dining halls in colleges really needed? Wikipedia is not a list of every single piece of information in the world --W.marsh 21:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Quicksandish τ κ 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep This phrase has been in use for over a decade and is still in use by at least 3000 people. Much more interesting than many of the articles on people nobody remembers or even heard of except the writer.--Toba 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete If the dining hall is notable then so's my living room. CambridgeBayWeather 21:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Daka has touched the hearts of many, and the stomachs of many more. To suggest that Daka is a "non-notable" dining hall is ridiculous. For the chocolate-chip cookies alone, Daka will be forever remembered by those who dine there. Until it can be proven that Daka does not have the greatest cookies in the world, it deserves mention in Wikipedia. --Norfty 21:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Thousands are familiar with this, I think that is reason enough to keep it --KazenoKoe 21:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep 1. encyclopedia, cyclopedia, encyclopaedia, cyclopaedia -- (a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty) --Toba 21:45 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep As a current student of WPI, I would like to say the DAKA makes by far, the best chocolate-chip cookies ever. Also, it would be a great help to incoming students if they could read about the dining hall as described by current students, and most will be living on campus, and eating at the dining hall. As to the comment about your living room being notable, I've never heard anything about your house, but there are hundreds of thousands of people who have heard about WPI. I vote to save this page. --KurtWivagg 21:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment All of these people commenting to keep are, not surprisingly, accounts created after I nominated this for deletion, and even identify themselves as students of WPI (freshmen I'm guessing -- sorry couldn't resist) and are obviously biased and just joking around anyway. Per policy that should be taken into consideration. --W.marsh 21:59, 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. --Doc (?) 08:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Mackle

Neologism, WP:ISNOT UrbanDictionary. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 21:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nominator. --nixie 06:27, 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. --Doc (?) 08:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 367 (number)

I thought Atlas Shrugged was a great book, but that doesn't warrant an article about the number. Trovatore 22:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Trovatore 14:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Number articles typically grow as more trivia is attached to them and nonsense (such as the info currently listed) eliminated, but per precedent (I believe) they are limited and this falls outside the boundary. Delete Dottore So 23:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- You are thinking of our notability criteria for numbers which we have because Wikipedia is not infinite. Uncle G 00:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic trivia. MCB 00:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. How about Infinity plus 1 (number)? Andrew pmk | Talk 01:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia is not infinite — Paul August ☎ 01:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, keeping this and establishing a precedent would logically make the current American school Zerg rush look like a drop in the ocean. --Last Malthusian 08:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Egil 13:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I thought Atlas Shrugged was a terrible book, so delete this article out of spite for me having read all that bologna. Also, an unenyclopaedic number. Lord Bob 15:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to 300 (number). — RJH 22:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hey, that's not bad. I didn't know it had all the nums 300-399. --Trovatore 05:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, do not merge. The factlets on that list go down to the area code of Wyoming. This, however, is less important. Septentrionalis 03:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. linas 00:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect.--Kross 06:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn -- Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep real number keep and allow for organic growth. Klonimus 02:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. --Doc (?) 08:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nanomanager

dicdef,neologism,OR, take your pick Trovatore 22:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Trovatore 22:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per reasons above. if for whatever reason this is kept, it badly needs a rewrite, its almost an NPOV violation in the definition of a work that shouldn't really be slanted... --CastAStone 00:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete: since commonly used terms progress directly from manager to micromanager, the next evolution of the pointy-haired boss would logically be the picomanager. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:23, 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. --Doc (?) 08:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buttslammarama

Article assertions suggest that band does not meet WP:MUSIC. CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator. --nixie 06:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete as per nominator, additionally, the article is unprofessional, very much in violation of NPOV, and even if the band had met the music standard, the information is mostly speculative and cheesy at best... I mean, c'mon... "They will always remember and love their loyal fans."...my guess own suspicions are that the article is completely fabricated.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. --Doc (?) 08:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HIV clan

Vanity & NN ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 22:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, speedy if possible. This gaming clan nonsense has gotten absolutely ridiculous. - Lucky 6.9 22:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Frag it. Dottore So 23:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- You stole my joke! - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Great skillz but not of encyclopedic notability. Go forth and kill in peace my friends Qaz ^(talk) 23:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The test results came back delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Good lord that last comment in the article is offensive. Delete as per nom. CastAStone 00:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable except in its offensiveness. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, obviously. It should also be noted that the article's contributors had removed the afd tag. It is now back up. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Sorry for deleting afd tag, it was a mistake. I'm new to Wikipedia contributing. Please don't delete my article. :( King nothing 2 02:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I vote to keep it heck we must know about all things gaming [random halo fan/and non sock puppet] Anon 24.175.66.232's only edit. ~~Probable~~ Obvious sock puppet. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as ~~Marathon is clearly superior~~ a clan of little importance or significance. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not even remotely encyclopaedic. However, there may be some use for a wiki-oid "clan directory"-style site... 154.20.5.236 08:14, 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. --Doc (?) 08:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Stockdale

Looks like an ad about an unnotable person Jason McHuff 22:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Sounds like he's not published yet (soon to be published). Pburka 00:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nn/vanity. Apparently unpublished poet; 2 Google hits; it names his book but it's not for sale at Amazon or anywhere else, even his own web site. MCB 00:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per MCB--nixie 06:25, 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.

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 09:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was to keep the article.

[edit] Ratchagar

This article is about a priest who is not particularly notable, although he is mentioned in some articles about the Indian Ocean tsunami. He has 64 unique Google hits. -- Kjkolb 03:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep President of India award (if verified I don't see that on Google) and directorship of large house-building service. Dlyons493 03:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- '"President of India" Ratchagar' doesn't get any results on Google, although that might not mean he didn't receive it. -- Kjkolb 04:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete agreeing with nominator -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Relisting. R e dwolf24 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep qualified by whether he/she received the President of India award. The Google test is totally inapplicable for such topics, as documented in the policy page itself. Ambarish 05:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- I know, that's why I qualified it. However, it is suspicious for such as recent event.
Comment: It looks like the level of achievement for the award is rather low, see also here and here. Still, I suppose he'd be borderline notable if he received the award. How do we go about verifying this? -- Kjkolb 06:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm really not sure here, but I don't think there's one overall "President of India" award. The term is probably an umbrella term designating several awards of varying level of achievement. I couldn't find any governmental web-site mentioning such an award anyway. I also verified that Ratchagar wasn't awarded any of the Padma awards for 2005. Ambarish 08:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep User:Nichalp/sg 09:28, 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 18:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rino H C Schreuder

Schreuder doesn't seem to be notable and neither do the organizations he is involved with. However, that might be because the organizations' names are different in Dutch. Only the first couple of pages of search results on "Rino Schreuder", without quotes, appear to be him. If someone cannot verify notability, I'd say delete. -- Kjkolb 03:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep, tag for cleanup. Founder of notable Dutch organization (see [33]). Chick Bowen 17:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Relisting. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I cleaned it up a bit, and took out some advertising and POV. Note that my link to supply and demand is highly suspect--I really didn't know what that bit was talking about. Chick Bowen 00:50, 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 REDIRECT to Hyperion. Rob e rt 23:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hypherion

Unverifiable using any legitimate sources. Ziggurat 23:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment - if this is found to be nn and unworthy of an article, it would probably make a reasonable redirect to Hyperion. Grutness...wha? 01:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm doing my best not to use "non-notable" to describe it, as per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Deletion_reform/Brainstorming#Remove_notable_requirement, but definitely, it'd make a good redirect. Ziggurat 02:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, play by email/mail game of limited interest, unencyclopedic. --nixie 06:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Hyperion. --Apyule 07:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Hyperion. Jkelly 04:03, 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] October 3

[edit] Sea of Insanity

[edit] Vevega

[edit] Ektron CMS400.NET

[edit] Ektron CMS400.NET

[edit] Untitled!

[edit] Syzygy of Idiocy

[edit] Igor Miskovic

[edit] Welcome Consumer

[edit] Robert Colin

[edit] Toni Patrick

[edit] Vermont Group

[edit] Doug Massey

[edit] MOJD

[edit] Www.animateclay.com

[edit] Victoria Star 2

[edit] Zombie High

[edit] Montrose Academy

[edit] The Jar

[edit] The Sidecar Brotherhood

[edit] The Spiders

[edit] Electric Sheep Comix

[edit] Aberdeen Street

[edit] Marvin "Knife" Sotelo

[edit] Shit Happens Webcomic

[edit] Bindows

[edit] Wisconsin land

[edit] Knunder

[edit] Antipope Sixtus XVI

[edit] Boss Ross

[edit] Jackson Young

[edit] Three's Company

[edit] Group_Data_Scheme_Society

[edit] Jack Tripper

[edit] Judy McCauley

[edit] WKIT

[edit] Socceresque

[edit] Chrissy Snow

[edit] Harry Vold

[edit] Virtual Star Trek

[edit] Chum Bucket

[edit] Think tanks the game

[edit] Silentfriend

[edit] Cushtie

[edit] Andrew & Shawn Brooks

[edit] D (2010 film)

[edit] Mary Early

[edit] Calpoly Demographics

[edit] Jah Acid Dub

[edit] Annie_L._Gatez_School

[edit] Oxford Future of Humanity Institute

[edit] Gacne

[edit] Sequel trilogy (Star Wars)

[edit] Super atallia

[edit] End of Days (Band)

[edit] The Denizens

[edit] Span (band)

[edit] Belvedere (band)

[edit] Kurios

[edit] The Ordinary Summer

[edit] Nineteen Ninety-Now

[edit] The Nancys

[edit] Symmetry Breaking

[edit] Elevenses (band)

[edit] Brennan's Grin

[edit] To Live A Lie Records

[edit] Hunter Revenge

[edit] Billie Frank

[edit] Julian "Dice" Black

[edit] Timothy Walker

[edit] Rafael (Glitter character)

[edit] Sylk

[edit] Eyeball Skeleton

[edit] Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Hong Kong

[edit] Atmospheric pressure demonstration

[edit] Viral Lode

[edit] School Science Experiment - Demonstrating the properties of waves on an Oscilloscope