Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 6

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Wikibofh 14:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James DeBello

Minor actor. Listing on IMDB means precisely nothing when it comes to notability. Delete. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Has credits on several notable films. Not my kind of films, but I think he is notable--Rogerd 05:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I messed up (nomination), twice (deletion)... being in more than one notable film would make one notable. At least notable enough for an online encyclopedia. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep pretty obvious based on imdb credits. Obviously, the article shouldn't just recite imdb credits, but those credits easily qualify this article's existence. --rob 06:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets IMDB-related guidelines (if any exist) for Wikipedia a load better than some other actors we've got on here. Some pretty good credits, even if some of the films are not as major as the others. Filmography is not quite complete, as a quick gander at the database proves, but the non-filmography part of the article probably needs to be expanded too. Bobo192 06:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know this guy. Are any of the mentioned IMDB major speaking roles. If I remember correctly, wasn't he one of the early victims in Scary Movie 2? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, is in several major films and seems to have main roles in them. the wub "?!" 12:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Agreed. Seems notable enough. (As an aside, Roger, Roy, Rob and Bob (Rob!) all contributed keep votes in the space of 50 minutes. Now I know they're absolutely not the same person but it just goes to show how strange coincidences can happen. If only there was a horse running today of the same or similar name I'm darned sure it'd be a winner!) Marcus22 14:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Bob? Me? That's Bob with an O. The O is a crucial part of my identity! I suppose. Bobo192 20:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --Jacquelyn Marie 19:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems notable enough, and besides, I want to keep the Bob/Rob thing going. Lord Bob 19:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and please accept my apologies for breaking up the Bob/Rob bandwagon. Hall Monitor 20:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as he is notable. Carioca 22:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 17:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Buckner

As I read WP:CSD this isn't elligble. I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong. Anyway this article sportscruft, it's an event that occured 4 hours ago, there's no plausible way to verify that this nickmake is notable and used by anyone but the guy who wrote this article. Doesn't really warrant an article even if people actually do use the nickname, just mention it on the bio page. W.marsh 05:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The article cited as reference just compares the two. It doesn't rename hime. Jkelly 05:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tony Graffanino --Trovatore 05:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there is no such person --Rogerd 05:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Jkelly. the wub "?!" 12:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable and neologistic nickname.--Isotope23 16:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obviously Dottore So 06:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 17:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bryson

unverifiable--Trovatore 05:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• delete, but might possibly be good enough for BJAODN --Trovatore 05:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-verifiable, probably a joke. But a weak joke. --W.marsh 05:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense --Rogerd 05:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not afraid of pirates. utcursch | talk 11:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to remove this crap from the history, then recreate as a disambig page. the wub "?!" 12:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete given the gay-baiting, probably an attack page on an actual person with that name. MCB 01:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: two votes above were deleted, and my comment was vandalized, by User:68.147.102.48. I have reverted. MCB 18:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keel-haul it, me harties. Alf ^melmac 13:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Walk the plank with this rot. Budgiekiller 12:04, 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. Robert 17:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jay, The Conservative

nn--Trovatore 05:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as total, utter nonsense. [edit] 05:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just barely makes claims to notability, but is totally non-verifiable and obviously a dumb joke. --W.marsh 05:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN and vanity --Rogerd 05:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity.--Alhutch 06:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and borderline speedy as nonsense.--Isotope23 16:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Wikibofh 14:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tracer gun

An article about "a toy gun used in the Hunter College High School game of Killer". [edit] 05:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN --Rogerd 05:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Keep the cleaned up article. utcursch | talk 04:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• I've heard about the game, although not by the same name. The players use fake weapons to kill their fellow players. The game moderator gives them their target and a time limit. I'd be happy to see this merged into an article about the game, if someone can track it down. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but improve. I have heard of both the game and the toy (it is indeed a popular "weapon" for the game of killer, or was in my youth). It is a common enough kind of toy that it should have its own article. You can find a picture of the toy here (beware pop-up ad) and here. They are basically toy guns that shoot small plastic disks that fly frisbee-style. Crypticfirefly 03:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, this page has been in existance for ONE DAY. It isn't utter nonsense, give it a chance to develop. Crypticfirefly 03:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this article is only one day old and it is a real toy not something fake so we could keep it because it is verifiable and neutral too Yuckfoo 04:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the rewrite needs some extra wikification and a fixed template, but other than that it looks fine. Can you add some references/sources to it? - Mgm|^(talk) 05:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Doing what I can, but short of consulting a reference book on collectible toys it isn't easy. (Not available at the moment.) I'll admit that I started from memory, but the various pictures of these things for sale on eBay in their original packaging gave me some clues. Trying to get a picture. Crypticfirefly 02:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and look for a clearer picture. -- user:zanimum
• Keep as this article has undergone a major rewrite with thanks to Crypticfirefly. [edit] 15:20, 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. Robert 17:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bentley's Proton Electron mass equation

Original research. Cnwb 06:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy as spam. If not, a delete would be just fine. I also agree that it is original research and we, as a community, are not qualified to rate on things like this. Zach (Sound Off) 06:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as patent nonsense - the author had me on his side until he had the nerve to claim "k0=9*10^9". That made me lose all respect for the article's research. Johntex\^talk 06:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is definitely not "patent nonsense" by Wikipedia's definition. It is clearly not correct or sensible research, but that doesn't qualify it for a speedy. -- SCZenz 07:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment if it is not patent nonsense then that implies it is intelligible, so what does this line from the article mean: "Derivation will be submitted when this result is verified as consequential in the Wikipedia community."? --Johntex\^talk 09:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that sentence is supposed to mean that, if we don't delete his article, he'll tell us how he got the answer. Obviously he's confused, but in any case it's only one sentence. Wikipedia:Patent_nonsense requires near-complete gibberish. -- SCZenz 15:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bentleys Proton Electron mass equation below. -- SCZenz 07:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original Research. utcursch | talk 11:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR. the wub "?!" 12:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not patent nonsense but obviously incorrect OR. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:05, 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. Robert 17:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] S K Krow

NN band vanity Cnwb 06:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN vanity--Rogerd 06:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam. —Cryptic (talk) 07:30, 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. Robert 17:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monroe Mann

The webpages are consistent, but he also seems to have been a major self-promoter himself already. I don't think the Iraq part is enough to make him notable.

• Delete per nomination. Tfine80 06:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the only thing close to being notable is a minor role in Swimfan. Keep it is a bad quality article, which makes it hard to realize the notablity of the subject--Rogerd 01:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep Huh? He's a published author of two books, one of which was reasonably successful. How is that a not apparent notable fact? His Swimfan credit is really quite irrelevant.
• Delete - an earlier recreation of this (with different facts) Monroe mann was speedied by me, and common consent of the afd, on September 30th (nnbio, nonsense, attack page). Unfortunately, I think this version needs to have its 5 days of fame, but if recreated, in any form, after that it should be shot on sight. --Doc (?) 09:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Doc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk
• Keep. Published author. 64.108.199.247 15:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Mr. Mann published 2 books, one of which is #156,483 ranked in sales... the other of which is in the #600,000s. They are published by a small publishing house. Not exactly overwhelming evidence of notability as an author. He appeared on Wolf Blitzer, but that's not much of a claim to fame either. His service to his country is commendable, but not any more notable than the service that thousands of other young men and women have performed (and are currently performing). He's the CEO of a non-notable film company and the lead singer of a non-notable band. He had a minor role in a movie. So what are we debating here? This guy has had an interesting life, but not a notable one... at least not yet. His biggest attribute seems to be his shameless self-promotion (aka "Future Oscar Winner"). Delete because the gestalt is as non-notable as the individual achievements.--Isotope23 17:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Seems to be a different Monroe Mann to the last one we speedied. Still, nn. - Hahnchen 18:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Isotope23. Sliggy 19:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Isotope23 is quite right. Dottore So 06:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. There are less notable people on wikipedia.org 64.108.199.247 00:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Isotope23. Tireless self-promotion does not an encyclopedic bio make. Quale 04:26, 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 redirected to BlackBerry. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crackberry

slangdef --Trovatore 06:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to BlackBerry --Rogerd 06:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Blackberry per Rogerd Johntex\^talk 07:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• This term has been noted widely, for example within the The Washington Times and The Economist. I've been bold and speedily redirected as the article's substantive content is already mentioned within BlackBerry, under Nicknames. Sliggy 15:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

(there's already a redirect from the differently capitalised CrackBerry) Sliggy 16:04, 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 redirected to Available Seat Miles. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cost Per Available Seat Mile

One of a number of aviation related dicdefs /nn entries being created by 211.120.52.144 Johntex\^talk 06:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• delete unless there's an appropriate redirect --Trovatore 06:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose we could #REDIRECT[[List of aviation, aerospace and aeronautical terms]]--Johntex\^talk 07:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• redirect or delete: The same user (Special:Contributions/211.120.52.144) is still busily making more aviation/financial entries like this one. The info may be useful in a compilation like User:Johntex has suggested. - Neier 07:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable concept in air travel management, possibly merge somewhere. Kappa 14:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or, better, merge. If an anon is providing useful info like this he or she should be encouraged as a valuable wikipedian - although also encouraged to write a longer article rather than numerous little ones.AndyJones 00:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please but a merge is okay too but the information is valuable Yuckfoo 03:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Available Seat Miles where I merged in some of this material. Makes two weak articles into a stonger one. Still needs work, but it's a start. Can this become a Speedy Redirect? Vegaswikian 05:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above, and I think you could go ahead and do it. Dottore So 06:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Go ahead and redirect. Sounds fine to me. Also, please encourage the anon to make a list of terms as mentioned above. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 17:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The boardz

Non-encyclopaedic; more of a vanity article than anything. Should be deleted. --Qirex 05:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nom jmd 05:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity NN --Rogerd 06:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 12:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Super delete, yet more forumcruft. the wub "?!" 12:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This page has been erased by an anonymous vandal, 65.144.11.153 and 65.151.123.50 twice now, I suggest that The boardz gets deleted fast.--Qirex 00:00, 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 keep, but let WP:CP handle it as probably copyvio. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Kaeberlein

I am quite sure the text is a copyvio (article contains reference to a photo which isn't in the article). First, I thought about speedying it as a blatant copyvio, but the criterion demands that an online source is located and I haven't found one. Then I thought about speedying it under A7, but the article says "...he helped pinpoint the central gene that controls aging in brewer's yeast." and "he is now vice president, as well as a co-founder, of Longenity.". So I couldn't speedy under that either. Then I thought about bringing it to WP:CP for the slow copyvio deletion route, but without a source located, I had some trouble doing that as well. So AFD it is, this reads like a newspaper in-depth report and not an encyclopedia article, and I don't really think Matt Kaeberlin meets WP:BIO guidelines either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Rogerd 07:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• The article is a copyvio as there is a bit on the bottom claiming "Ingfei Chen, a writer in Santa Cruz, California, is waiting for her own head-clobbering epiphany." The text is from a Science of Aging Knowledge Environment article from 2002 written by Chen on Kaeberlein which is not available online for free via public access see [8]. Delete as copyvio but article could help to establish notability. Capitalistroadster 07:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

PS Our Caloric restriction article links to this article claiming him as a notable researcher in the field so he probably is notable enough to justify an article. Capitalistroadster 11:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for finding a source, I will tag this article as a copyvio, and add a link to this debate. If anyone wants to make a real article before it goes as a copyvio, it can be made a /temp subpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:47, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 05:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Forest Archipelago

Non-notable micronation. Quale 07:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, microvanity. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, having written the article, I disagree. The NFA is notable as it is one of the longer-lived micronations. If you take the time to peruse their site, you will see that it is more developed than many micronations, including currency, postage, "bricks and mortar" presence. It has also been written up in 2 recent magazine articles.

It is certainly more notable and less a case of microvanity than some of the other micronations included in wikipedia, if you will look at all of them without respect to newness on the site, or level of completeness to date.

I would be more than happy to work to improve the article if there are deficiencies that you can point out to me.

All that being said, you guys make the rules, so do what you're going to do. I am happy to agree to disagree with you, and let the wiki-community make their decision, as I am a newbie here. I will of course abide by the community's decision. - jsheffield

• Well, a micronation that I was involved with for some time lasted over 12 years (about five longer that NFA), and wouldn't qualify for an article (FWIW, The Commonwealth of Port Colice). Mind you, our presence was probably slightly less that NFA's (no currency, though we did have postage, for instance). Grutness...wha? 12:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Micro Delete I must say, I have never heard of the concept before. (We're all micro nations over here in Europe!) I think it's a grand idea. And I hope the NFA succeed in getting the independent country status they presumably seek. Hard to see what really distinguishes them from the likes of other communes (etc..) though? And most of those are not sufficiently notable to be here. I don't know. Maybe it's a question of longevity? Or of import to others in the micro state world? In any case, being around since 1998 makes me unconvinced of notability at this point in time. Marcus22 14:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Micronations have come up for deletion before. See the following for examples:
  • Principality of Sealand (AfD discussion)
  • Ladonia (micronation) (AfD discussion)
  • Republic of Atlasia (AfD discussion)
  • Nation of Pogo (AfD discussion)
  • Nova Roma (Micronation) (AfD discussion)
  • Virtual Commonwealth of Cyberia (AfD discussion)
  • Societas Via Romana (AfD discussion)
  • Empire of Septempontia (AfD discussion)
  • Atlantium (AfD discussion)
  • Almea (AfD discussion)
• Notability generally involves some impact by the micronation upon the real world. Declaring a field to be an independent nation and telling only Wikipedia about it (Pogo), or setting up a club on a web site (Atlasia), do not impact the real world at all. Sealand and Ladonia, in contrast, have elicited mainstream news coverage, and have involved real disputes, real territories, and real court cases. Researching the Northern Forest Archipelago, I find that the external news coverage linked to by the article itself actually cites Wikipedia as its source, and so must be discounted when determining the notability of the micronation. There is no other news coverage, no independently written articles, and no evidence that the micronation has impacted upon the real world in any way. Delete. Uncle G 15:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Uncle G --> There are 2 external news articles, one of which lists wikipedia among its numerous sources (although why citing wikipedia as a source would preclude it from being considered an article in the "real world" seems strange to me anyway); the adk explorer article makes no mention of wikipedia at all. That won't necessarily change the outcome of this (as it seems pretty clear where this is headed), but I thought I would point it out. Is there a clearly defined criteria for inclusion of micronations into wikipedia, or is this done on a case by case basis? - jsheffield
    • AFAIK, it's on a case by case basis, but if I were to set forth a criteria about this perennial issue over which micronations Wikipedia should include, I'd use Uncle G's. -- llywrch 19:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • why citing wikipedia as a source would preclude it from being considered an article in the "real world" — That's a straw man. Nobody said any such thing. What I actually wrote was that the article "must be discounted when determining the notability of the micronation". An article that cites Wikipedia as its source cannot even be used to determine the verifiability of a subject. It certainly cannot be used to determine notability. Is there a clearly defined criteria for inclusion of micronations — Not inasmuch as editors have written a page similar to WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, or WP:WEB, no. I attribute this to there simply having been no incentive. We aren't inundated with micronation articles to the same extent that we are inundated with articles about persons, bands, companies, and web sites. Uncle G 03:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This article just seems to spread misinformation, and is harmful. I want it gone, before it's used to make a bad precident. The fact one of the two "independent" references cite wikipedia, shows the harm of us publishing this stuff. We put something out, others follow it, then we follow them, then they follow us, then......... Let's stop the silly story cycle and delete it. --rob 21:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep it exists and is notable. freestylefrappe 23:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No it doesn't exist, and it is not notable. Aside the from the silly claims of being a "micronation"; there really isn't evidence of any organization. The web site claims you can join up if you own some land but "...declaring your land to be a part of the NFA does not have an impact on your legal rights of ownership, it is more a state of mind than a binding legal contract...". In other words the entire article is about a guy's state of mind. This is a silly joke, which we should not partake. If this guy gets enough followers, creates a real organization, then we can create an article on his environmental organization, but never an article for a "micronation". --rob 00:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Your bald, unsupported, assertion that this is notable does not address any of the specific reasons for the contrary that I laid out above. What real world events has the Northern Forest Archipelago been involved in? What independently written works on the subject of the micronation have been published? Uncle G 03:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: it is not a real country, they just claim it is. The government hasn't responded because it's not a big enough deal for them to get involved. -- Kjkolb 03:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This is just microsilliness and in no way can be considered encyclopedic. C'mon! Dottore So 06:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Have a nice weekend everyone, I had no desire to upset anyone, as a number of people seem to be...contrary to Uncle G's addendum, I answered the assertions made concerning the notability of the NFA (and the external news coverage, if he would take the time to read the Adirondack Explorer article, but he has already made his mind up)...if my answers, or the article do not satisfy you, or offend you, vote for deletion. Jamie 11:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's not about offense, Jamie, but this just isn't verifiable, enyclopedic information. Chick Bowen 22:26, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 05:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bentleys Proton Electron mass equation

Original research. -- SCZenz 07:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bentley's Proton Electron mass equation above. -- SCZenz 07:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Qaz ^(talk) 08:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original Research. utcursch | talk 11:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, OR/trolling. the wub "?!" 12:38, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 05:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bret eslava

Not notable. Thue | talk 08:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity, nn Dlyons493 Talk 12:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as borderline candidate for WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 20:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as CSD:A7. I see no assertion of notability. (I think it's important to differentiate between notability and mere distinction. Being named an Outstanding Employee, or finishing first in your class, or winning a karaoke competition, are all distinctions, but they do not confer notability unless they are widely known.) MCB 01:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity page, not notable, au revoir. Budgiekiller 12:09, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 05:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gaston Lippitt

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

ich bitte um Löschung dieses Artikels, da ich den Verfasser kenne und weiss, dass der Inhalt frei erfunden ist. Falls Sie die Daten kontrollieren, werden Sie zu der selben Überzeugung kommen und festellen, dass es keinerlei Quellen zur Person von Gaston Lippitt gibt.

Vielen Dank für die Bearbeitung Sylvia Aust

(This was posted on the German AfD page. Approx. Translation: I request deletion of this article since the author is personally known to me and I know that the content is fictitious. If you check the facts you will come to the same conclusion, and you will find that there are no sources dealing with the person "Gaston Lippitt". This comment by Gwaihir 09:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC))

• Delete unless verified. I can find no English language internet references besides wiki-mirrors. There are German ones - but they may be mirros of de.wiki. --Doc (?) 09:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax - all german references lead to the lodge; [9] states that the real Gaston Lippitt died in 1990. --jergen 09:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is a hoax. 84.179.254.191 10:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC) (German Wikipedia)
• Delete - hoax 217.82.217.95 14:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC) (german WP)
• Delete as hoax -- Imladros 23:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Markus Schweiss 12:45, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 05:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] North Side Guns

Unencyclopedic. Partly attack page. 203.120.68.68 08:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Complete invention. More suited to fiction blog or similar. Not appropriate for wikipedia. Should be removed. Guliolopez 12:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy nonsense. Dlyons493 Talk 12:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. --Blue520 13:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Jacquelyn Marie 19:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. MCB 01:15, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 05:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xdafied

Non-notable website, 50 google hits. Thue | talk 08:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete doesn't even try to say why its notable, only that the layout has changed three times... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Alexa Traffic Rank for : No Data. feydey 17:40, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 05:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tursoft

Not notable. Thue | talk 09:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is an advertising page of no encyclopaedic merit. Grobertson 09:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete ad. Dlyons493 Talk 12:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. ad. feydey 17:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Jacquelyn Marie 19:13, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 05:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Lady and her Steel Tiger

Not a notable story, 41 google hits Thue | talk 09:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete but watch out for her militant sales rep Dlyons493 Talk 12:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dlyons. --Jacquelyn Marie 19:14, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 05:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Like lions

Probably not notable, having only released a few songs. Thue | talk 09:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 17:08, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. -R. fiend 05:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ghiyasuddin School

Non-notable less than 15 year old school. Accomplishments listed on their web site show nothing spectacular. I'm sure its nice and all, but no reason given for why it belongs in an encyclopeida. Johntex\^talk 09:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep It's a school. This encyclopedia does not have to be squeezed into 32 volumes CalJW 10:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If it was the first primary school built, maybe. This would be better off as an article titled "Primary Education in (Insert name of country here)".--inks^T 10:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • How is that a reason for deletion? Kappa 14:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• 'keep article may not be perfect but no strong reason apparent to favour deletion --Isolani 11:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and to address systemic bias. Nice to see my creation getting some attention though. Kappa 14:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, amazingly, this article actually has some information on it that lifts it above phone book status (opened by a President, named after someone with a claim to notability). Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to take some pictures of flying pigs for Wikicommons. --Last Malthusian 15:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain Let me know how those pictures turn out.--Isotope23 15:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I realize that there are a tremendous number of arguments for and against retaining school articles, but whether the school is named after a notable person should be irrelevant. If a school is named after Abraham Lincoln or George Washington, that doesn't make it more notable than if the exact same school were named after the neighborhood in which it is located. If Ghiyasuddin, the school's namesake, is notable, then an article should be written about him rather than have his biography in an article about the school. --Metropolitan90 03:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful article, which helps people learn about another country. --rob 16:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Although it isn't amongst the best I've seen, there already exist numerous articles on other infamous schools, and as CalJW says, Wikipedia doesn't have to be squeezed into a certain size... bjelleklang 16:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you mean non-infamous? Negative plus negative prefix which has linguistically ameliorated in this case :). Marskell 23:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and to resolve systemic bias. Silensor 20:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Inkypaws
• Delete per nom.Gateman1997 22:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Marskell 23:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn school --JAranda | yeah 01:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Systemic bias? Isn't that why we have 3.5x10^25 different language-based Wikipedias? And I think to myself - a school named after a person who introduced breadfruit. Now there's a reason for a claim of notability. CalJW may not be concerned with squeezing Wikipedia onto paper, but I am concerned with being able to squeeze Wikipedia onto servers (which are a little more expensive than paper), and onto access time. I think of you, CalJW, every time it takes a Wiki page 40 seconds to load. Denni☯ 01:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah we have 3.5x10^25 different language-based Wikipedias so we can all get everything we need just by learning 3.5x10^25 different languages. Kappa 02:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please we should not have to know hundreds of languages to get information each wikipedia can store this okay Yuckfoo 02:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - "....wikipedia's coverage of the many aspects of any country..." *ahem* --Oblivious 03:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The school is not unique as suggested for an article in WP:PJSCH. There is no claim in policy that all schools are notable. Vegaswikian 05:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:PJSCH suggests that almost all schools are unique enough for an article. Kappa 06:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As Kappa notes, WP:PJSCH is an openly inclusionary model and certainly not authoritative (in the sense that it is somehow a binding set of principles). The enthusiasts for listing every school on the face of the planet will of course disagree, but this is just another nn assemblage of bricks. Dottore So 06:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the short school description with List of schools in the Maldives per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Last Malthusian. This entry actually contains interesting info. (Build with help of Japanese, named after person to introduce breadfruit to the Maledives and opened by president.) It's shorter than I'd like, but not a regular non-encyclopedic phonebook entry. Based on the size of the Maledivian community there's a fair chance the school also holds a record of some sort. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Also named after Muhammad Ghiyasuddin, who ruled the Maldives as a Sultan. --Oblivious 09:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge per nom. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above arguments. Xoloz 09:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Schools are worthy of having a place on Wikipedia. --ShaunMacPherson 12:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep. All school noms are bad-faith hideous wastes of everyones time. Any user that is aware of this and nominates a school has violated WP:POINT. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it would be better to assume good WP:FAITH, no? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • "All school noms are bad-faith" is itself a bad-faith comment. Marskell 15:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • You raise a good point. I have corrected my comments and apologize for assuming that the nominator was aware of the hideous waste of time that school nominations inevitably are. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • ... also if all NN schools are to be deleted, then all NN movies (from hollywood, bollywood, tollywood, and god-knows-what-wood) should also be deleted, right? so... i say strong keep --Oblivious 16:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • So your reasoning is that "if all schools that don't deserve to be in Wikipedia should not be in Wikipedia, then all other articles that don't deserve to be in Wikipedia should not be Wikipedia". Sounds fine to me (even if bordering on circular). Put the articles you feel are NN up on AfD, and vote in a manner consistent with your reasoning.--inks^T 03:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Inky please don't misrepresent others' logic. Kappa 04:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Speak for yourself. You misrepresent the logic of people voting "keep" on schools on a regular basis. If you have a problem with my interpretation, debate it, and do it on my talk page, not here.--inks^T 05:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Your misrepresentation of Oblivious' logic should be discussed here, in context. Oblivious is clearly not claiming that Hollywood movies should be deleted even when "non-notable" of their type. Why aren't you listing non-notable pokemons and Hollywood movies on Afd, if you think it's appropriate? Kappa 05:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
                • We've moved on from debating this AfD, to you debating my interpretation. It's much more civil to have this sort of discussion on my talk page, because it very much disrupts the debate here, kinda like having a brawl on a sidewalk. Any contextual issues can be solved with a link back here. How about it? Respond on my talk page, please.--inks^T 05:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Uh - Inky didn't respresent anyone's logic. Oblivious asked what he thought was a rhetorical question with a "no" answer and Inky surprised Oblivious with a "yes" answer... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Hipocrite, I thank you for retracting your allegation that of bad-faith. However, I feel compelled to point out that I believe in this nomination and I am not attempting to make any sort of point, other than that this particular article fails the test of notability and should be deleted. If you look at my Contributions, you will see that I nominate a fair number of articles for deletion because they fail notability standards. Schools are a very small percentage of my delete nominations or votes. Schools, businesses, destroyers, girrafes, eggplants, people, or any specific instance of any other thing needs to be notable enough to merit inclusion in this encyclopedia or he/she/it should not be included. There is no Wikipedia policy that says that all schools are notable or that all schools should or must be kept. I believe the true waste of time is in creating and defending non-notable articles, not the effort to have them excised from the project. And to answer Oblivious' question, my answer would be "absolutely", not notable bands, movies, etc. should be deleted are deleted here everyday. Schools do not have a policy protecting them from the same legitimate scrutiny. Johntex\^talk 21:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I will second the "clap, clap" for a mature retraction. And I will also second John's larger point. I won't nom schools (I never go looking for them anyway) but I vote delete when there is no assertion of notability beyond "the bricks and mortar." I'm sure a lot of work has gone into the school's project but there is nothing binding about it. Wiki is not a directory. Wiki is discursive but not indiscriminate. I simply do not find schools notable. Marskell 21:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear. It is dealing with the inflexible inclusionist that makes me a more inflexible deletionist when I would much rather be flexible. I am quite prepared to vote in favor of a school article where some merit is shown, but I will fiercely resist blanket approval of schools simply because they are schools. Denni☯ 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"It is dealing with the inflexible inclusionist that makes me a more inflexible deletionist when I would much rather be flexible" is as clear a way to put it as I can imagine. Marskell 00:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Denni how can you claim to be flexible when you aren't even prepared to share server space with schools? Kappa 03:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• From your comment, it seems to me that you are not interested in reading any posts other than your own. Not only have I stated repeatedly that I support school articles where the school can show some reasonable degree of notability, but I have even (gasp!) actually voted to keep some school articles. What I am not prepared to do, Kappa, is to share server space with articles on every so-called school on this planet, most of which are uttterly lacking in anything worthy of note. Have you even once voted to delete a school article? Thought not. Denni☯ 21:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

His reasoning is the same as mine - schools with notability, just like every other subject. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, it just need to be expanded. There are many school articles that started out as stubs and later became full articles after contributions by multiple users. Hardly any of these full school articles are nominated for AfD. --Vsion 04:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Precisely. If a school article contains information which demonstrates the school is of note, and is what could be described as a full article, it will not be deleted. It seems those who contribute school articles feel all that is necessary is to name a building as a school, and that constitutes enough info for it to deserve to be kept. Denni☯ 21:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Another school targeted for easy deletion because it is in Asia. Help fight systemic bias against Asian schools by voting keep.--Nicodemus75 17:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What a load of rot. You have no evidence of systemic bias because none exists. Most normal Wikipedians will vote to keep or delete articles on the basis of their content, not their subject. It is those like yourself who vote to keep on the basis of subject that see plots where there are none. Denni☯ 23:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • You and many other presumably "normal Wikipedians" want to delete articles based on their subject (being a "non-notable school"). Kappa 00:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Skritch skritch skritch (sound of hair being pulled out). Maybe if I type r e a l l y s l o w l y, I won't be misunderstood. I will vote to delete an article on anything which does not have requisite notability. I do not have some special vendetta against schools. I will also vote to delete articles on destroyers, pokemons, and star trek characters which are not demonstrably notable. However, I do not vote to delete schools categorially in the same way that some vote to keep them, that is to say, without apparently even reading the articles to ensure something is actually being said. Denni☯ 22:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
        • If you vote to delete villages, Simpsons episodes, and metro stations which are "not demonstrably notable", you are not a normal wikipedian, and you are wasting your time and that of the editors who will have to outvote you. Kappa 00:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
          • • That, Kappa, is the whole point. If you want your way, you will have to outvote me. I will be here, and I will not let you get your pathetic little article for free. Denni☯ 05:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
          • What? That's a personal attack if I ever saw one. No need to go around calling others "abnormal" because they hold a different viewpoint to the majority. In accordance with WP:NPA, you might want to reconsider that statement.--inks^T 01:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
            • This from the editor that calls the philosophical position that schools are inherently notable, "stupid". Please don't go around lecturing others about WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL until you clean up your own act.--Nicodemus75 01:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Please. Firstly, describing a philosophical position as stupid is not an attack on the person who holds it (eg. You are stupid vs You are a Nobel Prize Winning Wikipedian, but your argument is stupid). Second, I've only ever called it stupid once. Third, I retracted it and apologised the moment it was pointed out to me it was rude. Fourth, my conduct has no bearing on the rudeness (or otherwise) of your conduct. Even if I've called you "abnormal", it doesn't grant you license to call someone else "abnormal". In constrast, your use of the term "not a normal Wikipedian" was clearly directed at the individual, not the arguments he was advancing, and you're making up excuses to justify it.--inks^T 04:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
                • Please. First of all, it is at best uncivil to refer to someone else's philosophical position "stupid", and a great many editors on WP would consider it a personal attack. Next, I (nor anyone else for that matter) have not referred to anyone as "abnormal", in fact, you are the only one to have used this term so far. Next, it was Denni (like yourself, one of "those who routinely nominate or vote to delete school articles") who first made the statement that: "Most normal Wikipedians will vote to keep or delete articles on the basis of their content, not their subject," indicating that those of us who vote to keep or delete on articles on the basis of their subject are somehow "not normal Wikipedians" by obverse implication. When KAPPA (obviously not me or my sockpuppet) simply retorted about what 'must' constitute a "normal wikipedian" by that standard, you accused him of making a personal attack. As to your contention that your misbehavior doesn't give "me" (or in this case, Kappa) license to abuse others, you are correct, but your abusing others or being uncivil and then going about admonishing others for being uncivil does make you a hypocrite. What I'd like to know, is why you weren't rushing to remind Denni about his uncivil statements when he suggested that those of us that decide to vote on the basis of subject are "abnormal" (as you put it).--Nicodemus75 04:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
                  • Perhaps you should get out a dictionary and look up "normal", Nicodemus. No, wait, let me do it for you. "normal - adj. 1. regular, usual, typical" Not so scary after all, huh? No mention of brain scans, ECT, or twitchy eyes. No, school inclusionists are probably not "normal" Wikipedians. "Normal" Wikipedians actually take the time to read articles before voting on them, and actually ask themselves whether an article contains anything of merit before deciding to keep it. This is true of schools, pokemons, and star trek characters. If stating what is apparently true can be construed as a personal attack, then all of us are in big trouble. Now can I help you with the definition of "abnormal"? Denni☯ 05:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
            • It's not about viewpoints, it's about actions. Many normal wikipedians think "delete Simpons episodes" but they don't bother voting that way when they realize there's no consensus to do it. 01:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Agree with Denni. No one has mentioned Asia. The nom, votes and argument would be the same if it were Kansas School, Kansas City, Kansas. The repeated recourse to systemic bias in these keep arguments is specious. Marskell 00:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
        • The claim that there is not a systemic bias against schools outside of the English-speaking geographical pale is specious. By their very nature, there is a systemic bias against schools whose primary source references are in another language. This renders what "those who routinely nominate and vote to delete schools" consider to be articles of an inferior quality and more likely to garner delete votes on the basis of a poorly-written article and difficulty of verifiability. Asian schools have been conspicuously targeted in the past 45 days by a variety of "those who routinely nominate and vote to delete schools". Apart from the bad faith mass-nomination of 24 schools in one day in September, Asian schools represented 15% of all school AfD nominations in the month, while representing a much smaller percentage of the total number of school articles on Wikipedia. If that doesn't consitute a systemic bias, I am not sure what does.--Nicodemus75 00:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
          • A systemic bias is systemic. It does not pop up suddenly one day or one month, and the number of school pages that show up in a month is small enough that statistical fluctuation is everything. I would also question your use of the term "conspicuously targeted". I can only assume that you see a plot a-hatchin' when you use language like that. First, there have not been a whole lot of Asian schools nominated, Second, the vote counts for those schools was pretty much the same as it usually is, with the usual cast of character casting the usual distribution of votes. In fact, one Asian School, Apeejay Public School, actually garnered some keep votes from some (myself included), who, as you so quaintly put it, "routinely nominate and vote to delete schools." If you really wish to test this conspiracy theory of yours, you may want to go back to those delete votes and see who it was that originally brought them to AfD. I expect you will find they were nominated by a diverse group, including some who do not participate here on a regular basis. Denni☯ 06:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Unfocused 06:52, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 05:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thecorpse.com

Not a notable website, 15900 google hits. Thue | talk 09:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete alexa rank in the millions. — brighterorange (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. "TheCorpse.Com was founded in 2003 by dutch Superstar rapper Cilvaringz." is patently untrue. I'm not a music buff, but if he hasn't made the charts here in the Netherlands he can't be a superstar rapper. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

you guys are weak like clock radio speakers

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 04:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moo Point

Dicdef. 203.120.68.68 10:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN. Joke dictdef, based on the real term moot point. Grutness...wha? 12:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Delete it seems to be used occasionally but it's still a dictdef/neologism. Dlyons493 Talk 12:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not funny enough for BJAODN. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 04:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black bat

Non-notable. Delete. utcursch | talk 11:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete ad, nn, contextless ... Dlyons493 Talk 12:25, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 04:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Batman Begins Sequel

Delete. This is essentially a repost of the deleted Batman Begins 2 with less content (see the VfD for that article) but is probably not close enough to the old content to be a speedy. WP:NOT a crystal ball, and this article can contain nothing but speculation and rumor at this point. android79 11:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Rogerd 12:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository for internet rumours. Save that for the fanboy forums. Jeff schiller 13:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Wow. Delete. --Optichan 15:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable rumour. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not even anything there to talk about. --InShaneee 22:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• DO NOT delete the page was great before everybody chopped it up. There have been rumors flyinf around about Catwoman, Penguin and The JOker will be in the film to. The SPider-Man 3 web page had alot of rumors and speculation for along time. The page was great before.
  • Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This sort of rumor-mongering and speculation is specifically discouraged from inclusion in Wikipedia articles. android79 16:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article can always be revisited and done up fancy when there's something more to this sequel than just rumours and unconfirmed reports.--Bacteria 07:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I voted delete on the last Batman Begins sequel page (under an IP Address, rather than my Username)! The last one was deleted because of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this one should be aswell. - Bwfc 19:59, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 04:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mtsaturn

Non-notable name derived from, according to the article, the initials of a certain person (non-notable) and the name of the planet. Refers to a web site, and little else. Rob Church ^Talk 12:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn, ad, contextless, contentless ... Dlyons493 Talk 12:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Rogerd 12:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 12:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The web site that this article is trying to promote is not notable. --Metropolitan90 03:49, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 04:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steve's Gym

Non-notable sports facility. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages. Rob Church ^Talk 12:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn, ad Dlyons493 Talk 12:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad --Rogerd 12:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Maltesedog 12:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. utcursch | talk 12:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There Should be a Speedy Criteria for ads like those --JAranda | yeah 01:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jokaroo

Non-notable website. Al 12:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It meets WP:WEB on the aspect "Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members". When I signed up just to see how members there were, I received member id 45530. It exceeds the minimal requirement by over 9 times. -- SoothingR 12:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Are you sure member ids are given out in order? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite gets quite a few Googles but is currently an ad. Dlyons493 Talk 12:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficiently notable, but definitely needs a rewrite -Abe Dashiell 13:56, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 04:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hospital Radio Pulse

Non-notable hospital radio station. Rob Church ^Talk 12:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as far as I know we have a few articles on radio stations in the AM band. It shows number of Google hits [10] so this article is not a hoax. It clearly needs to be rewritten, though. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 22:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be non-notable and I agree, not very well written. Maltmomma ^(chat) 23:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I can't tell from the article, or the station's web site (which exists but is "under construction" and has no content other than contact info), or the other mentions of it (MediaUK) whether this is an actual licensed broadcast station or just an unlicensed low-power building/campus station. If the former I would vote keep based on precedent, but if the latter, it does not seem to meet the bar of notability or even verifiability. MCB 01:22, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 04:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tally Hall

I feel that this article is purely self-promotional and irrelevent knowledge. 202.122.69.82 12:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Notability established. Keep. DS 14:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Established how? I'm a big booster for the Michigan music scene, but unless I'm totally missing something, I don't see anything here that meets WP:MUSIC. Sadly, I have to go Delete for now.--Isotope23 15:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Grand Prize in the BMI John Lennon Songwriting Contest, and being a semifinalist in the MtvU thing? I think those are notable. DS 16:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Those are great accomplishments, but they still fall short of WP:MUSIC unless you consider the BMI John Lennon Songwriting Contest to be a major award on the level of a Juno or Grammy. It appears to be more of a scholarship than a major award though.--Isotope23 16:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      • You could argue that Tally Hall has gained cult status from the "Banana Man" music video on Albino Black Sheep. --GoodEvilMan 20:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC maybe later when they get more notable --JAranda | yeah 01:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

/* Tally Hall */ The Lennon award is a grammy for young songwriters, they have an unprecedented underground following (6 in wikipedia guidlines), and banana man is an internet phenomenom. keep it.

• • You'll be pretty hard pressed to prove that the Lennon award is anywhere close to a grammy in importance. As for your other contention, can you provide any evidence to back up you claim that Tally Hall satisfies WP:MUSIC #6?--Isotope23 20:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not yet notable enough. Dottore So 06:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. They're just 3 weeks away from putting out an album that will surely bring their notoriety up to Wiki guidelines. Put the discussion on hold for 2 months, I say.

DELETE. Realistically, the chances that their new album will give them enough notability to meet the wikipedia guidelines are slim to none. There are literally thousands of such bands out there who put out albums and fail to get noticed, why would these guys be any different? Certainly there is a chance that they could become big, but that chance is infinitly small and thus I see no is no reason for tableing the debate. Its like saying: "I'm going to hold off on planning my retirement until after I've won the lottery." Certainly I have a chance of winning the lottery, but that chance is so small that it dosen't make rational sense to take such a possiblity into consideration.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, attack page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brendan Mahon

This page should be deleted because it is a personal atteck on Brendan Mahon.--Boberick 14:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Deletion: Not notable.--Boberick 14:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Insulting. NN. KeithD 15:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Someone removed the vfd somehow. I just discovered the article via a random article search. --One Salient Oversight 12:30, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 04:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Six screaming niggers

Non-notable. Three google hits. Delete. utcursch | talk 12:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• An article on a guy without limbs that sings in a baby carriage would make notable sense to me, but an article on his band that gets only 3 google hits wouldn't. Speedy under A7. -- SoothingR 12:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unfortunately not a speedy candidate because A7 is for nn-bio, not band vanity. Another example why we need a speedy for bands that don't meet WP:MUSIC. Isotope23 15:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 17:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable band with IMO offensive name. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete this please it is fake and offensive too Yuckfoo 03:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep As the author of this page I am well aware the content of this page is quite questionable and arguably sensitive, however, I do feel that this page cannot be deemed 'irrelevant’ context and should be preserved as an entry on the Wikipedia server. I can assure all naive readers that indeed this band exists and I believe the interesting, albeit unusual details of the band members deems this relevant for archival on Wikipedia. I should also note that although at the time of writing, this page on Wikipedia has recieved but 3 views on Google, it has only existed for a little over 24 hours as I created this page last night. Obviously this article is a stub and hopefully over time a reader with more information on the band will come forward and provide information towards this page. Until then, I fully believe this article should wholly remain as a stub on Wikipedia as it is relevant to the history of music, (if only a fraction). Furthermore, although the use of the racist connotation 'niggers' may be considered 'sensitive', banning this page on the reason of political correctness is just another form of censorship. Wikipedias' simple aim is to provide information to the masses via the internet and as this particular band has a seldom source of information on it, I feel it's Wikipedias' aim to provide as much information as possible out of the little that's already available on the internet. Thank you for your consideration. --Topclaw 15:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn as per WP:MUSIC. (The perceived offense of the band's name is irrelevant; we have an article on nigger in any case.) MCB 01:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per MSBMCB. Chick Bowen 00:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete How is this band non-notable? Huh? I think something this funny and weird deserves a place on Wikipedia. Think about it. (Unsigned comment by 220.235.250.122 — CB)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 as a nonsense copy of Acceleration. Lupo 13:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Worseleration

Humorous attempt at a hoax, not even all that funny (relies on the humour inherent in the word "Worseleration" fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 04:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Online piano lessons and Piano lessons

Adspam. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Piano Lessons --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete both per nom. Marskell 13:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both as per nomination. utcursch | talk 13:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both, as well as any others with the same text. Owen× ☎ 14:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete these and any like them. --Jacquelyn Marie 19:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both. Ad. *drew 11:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete both as per nom. --Qirex 01:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete It may not be what Wikipedia is "for" but I come to wikipedia for links such as these rather than going to Google. I trust the links recommended by wikipedia articles as being somehow safer. Perhaps I should search for a Wikioooogle? -rlguye 15:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom.Rhetoricalwater 22:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 04:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Johnathy

Non-notable. only one Google hit. Delete. utcursch | talk 13:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• delete as vanity/hoax.. the image seems strangely irrelevant to the point that I don't believe it's even a picture of "Timothy Johnathy". — brighterorange (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

keep- quite notable and popular. he acts as a inspiration to others. --Sand-Bar 06:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability according to the terms of WP:Music. Chick Bowen 22:38, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -R. fiend 04:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander's Trick

Original research. Delete. utcursch | talk 13:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, not convinced its original research. Kappa 14:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Google is slightly muddled by the inconvenient name, but [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16] show that it's something real in advanced topology (note - except the last, all the links are to Adobe Postscript files). Keep. DS 14:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment not convinced it's accurate--where's the center of the disk supposed to go? Certainly needs to be explained better, but even once it is, I think it'll be kind of a trivial observation that ought to be merged somewhere (but I don't know where) --Trovatore 16:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not original research: not only is this well-known in topology, a Google search for 'Alexanders trick topology' gives 46500 hits. Result is more general than stated: any homeomorphism of the boundary of the n-ball extends to a homeomorphism of the ball. The map as stated has a removable discontinuity at the center (the center maps to the center).--JahJah 17:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That was my guess, but it's not what the article currently says. It still strikes me as kind of borderline for a whole article; isn't there somewhere to merge it? BTW perhaps you'd like to rephrase it so it's correct, and throw in the n-dim case as well. --Trovatore 18:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per JahJah. Xoloz 09:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This will be J. W. Alexander, and as Alexander trick is well-known to Google. Move, clean-up, all those good things. Not a delete in a million years. Charles Matthews 20:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• This is obviously some bullshit because F(0) is undefined.  Grue  12:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Huh? Lots of functions have F(0) undefined. Xoloz 14:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yet the article claims that F is defined on D² and it is homeomorphism. Now F(x)=f(x/|x|)/|x| looks more like the desired function. Grue  15:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Alexander trick (or perhaps Alexander's trick). I expanded the article a bit based on some papers I found via Google. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. There are related results which are referred to as Alexander's Trick, for example: A homeomorphism of a disk that fixes the boudary sphere is isotopic to the identity, relative to the sphere. This type of result is also important because it works in PL as well as Top. --JahJah 07:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Did you read the article after I've expanded it (which I did just before my vote here)? I think this is now included in the article. Anyway, I'd be very grateful if you could have a look and check what I wrote, because I don't know that much topology. Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Jitse: I did not see your edit: looks good. I have made a minor correction to the second Alexander's trick. --JahJah 17:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Jitse and JahJah: it looks much better now than it did at the time of nomination. My only quibble is that it's tacitly assumed that Sⁿ and Dⁿ⁺¹ are embedded in R^{n+1 with center at the origin and the usual scalar multiplication on Rn+1. But perhaps that's easy enough to figure out (assume the author meant something obvious, try it, see it that works), and explaining it might just add verbiage and make the page harder to follow. --Trovatore 05:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)}
• Keep. Original research claim not established.--Nicodemus75 17:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• I am glad that I woke up such many commentaries and I want to say that originally I did must write ||x||f(x/||x||) for the true formula for the extended homeomorphism. My best wishes are that discussions continue in a constructive fashion. Of course I vote Keep. Juan Marquez 14:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep though I fair to have a surface understanding of this article, it seems harmless enough. Klonimus 00:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is taught in beginning topology courses. I have some further comments (and references) that I will put on the talk page. --Chan-Ho 03:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 04:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oskar anlend

Article makes claim of notability ("very famous man in Sweden") for appearing on multiple talk shows and game shows as celebrity. Google returns just over 100 hits for "Oskar Anlend", all of which pertain to his participation in Call of Duty and similar online games. DS 14:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'm Swedish, and he is certainly not "very famous" in Sweden. In addition, the article is crap. Delete. Uppland 19:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom -- ReyBrujo 03:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Uppland CLW 13:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. MCB 01:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as vanity or nonsense or both. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:25, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 04:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ka Webspy

Found this marked as a speedy deletion; since this is a bit elaborate for usual vanity, I figured it would be best to run it through AFD. No vote. Ral315 W_S 14:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn-bio, though IMO someone who's claim to fame is blogging is CSD:A7 speedy material.--Isotope23 15:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn, blogger. feydey 17:16, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 04:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of alkanes

This list is superfluous next to Category:Alkanes; it can never be complete, as is pointed out on the talk page. Physchim62 14:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The only information of (possible) use are the names of alkanes (C=37 to 100), which should possibly be outlined on the main alkane page? -- postglock 15:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Listing these on the main alkane page would push that article over the reasonable limit for article sizes. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep Useful list. Definitely not superflous next to Category:Alkanes. Issues on talk page are for editors to deal with, and are not a valid deletion criterion. -- Decumanus 06:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The list orders the alkanes by number of carbon atoms, gives molecular formulas and synonyms. None of which can be done in a category without a lot of unneccesary duplicate links. This is NOT superfluous! - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Template:Alkanes also lists alkanes by number of carbon atoms and gives molecular formulae... Physchim62 11:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I know just enough about chemistry to agree with Decumanus and MGM. Xoloz 09:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and then redirect to Category:Alkanes --New Progressive 20:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP, Lists and Cats are not the same thing, and a list of alkanes can do so much more with ordering and names than the cat. (Not to mention, mentioning ones that are currently articleless) 132.205.93.89 22:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A template is not practical for branched isomers, which is something that this list could do easily. I agree with Mgm that this is no task for the category page alone. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 23:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree, it is a useful list and can be expanded more than a cat can. Maltmomma ^(chat) 23:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have no problem with this article. Alf ^melmac 13:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Pilatus 12:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 04:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cricketchat

nn chatroom...only 10 people at a time.. :/ there are a millions of IRC chatrooms like that. Delete. -- SoothingR 12:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 13:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

well yes, IRC chatrooms with 10 people are common place... but from what I understand, #cricketchat boasts the likes of prominent cricket writers Thomas Rose, Steve Thompson and Chris Weston - all of which write for the popular website Cricket-Online. That in itself makes the chatroom unique, does it not?

• Keep Well worth an entry, home of influential cricket writers. --Doctor Treb 14:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I get a few hundred hits on Google for "Cricketchat". Hard to see how it can be influential and so untalked about. (Don't exactly overload on Chris Weston et al either!) Happy to be proven wrong! Marcus22 14:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn and vanity. even if it is kept, it needs to be rewritten because right now it is hardly encyclopedic.--Alhutch 15:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 07:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the website and the writers deserve an entry, but there's really not much to say about an IRC channel. If it has to be kept, mention it in the article on the website it's attached to (if we have it). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Marcus22. Xoloz 10:01, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 04:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pard

Dicdef of a non notable slang. 202.156.6.59 14:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Google turns up what seem to be uses of "pard" as short for "leopard" in the 19th century, but not much else. Delete. --Jacquelyn Marie 19:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. neologism. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Xoloz 10:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary. Crypticfirefly 23:47, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 04:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tyler Palmateer-Semrick

Musician from not notable groups, with no entries of those in WP. feydey 15:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. -- Kjkolb 12:07, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 rewritten version. - Mailer Diablo 09:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Choco Orta

Delete per nomination. The reasons that I'm nominating this page for deletion is because it seems more of an advertisement by EXCLUSIVE WORLDWIDE MANAGEMENT, then an article. NPOV, Fax Numbers, e-mail and newspaper reviews Tony the Marine 15:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Google thinks that this she is a notable Puerto Rican musician, but the EXCLUSIVE WORLDWIDE MANAGEMENT ads and the Spanish translation should be removed. Andrew pmk | Talk 03:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this guy needs an article someone can write one from scratch. This one is utter crap. -R. fiend 22:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Relisting. Needs more eyeballs. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete She may be notable enough in a few years, but not quite just yet. Bwithh 09:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• 'Comment Allmusic.com shows her as having released a couple of albums see [17]

This music of Puerto Rico article indicates that she is fairly significant in their music industry. [18] This Latin Beat magazine article states that she has performed overseas including in France [19]. In my view, she is notable enough under WP:music but this article is of little value in its current state. I would vote to keep a decent stub. Capitalistroadster 10:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I stubified a large article, and I suggest people look at the old version before they vote, since the current version doesn't include most of the details (which I haven't had a chance to verify). Also, I won't complain if somebody undoes what I did, and works with the old version. I might have gone to far, but I didn't see the old content being a good basis for an article. --rob 11:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done to Rob for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 11:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a squeaker, and a case could be made either way on this, since so much of the "press" on her is purely promotional. But, the CDs, minor film roles, and touring can be beleived, even if the hype is discounted. --rob 11:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep recycled version. Alf ^melmac 12:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with the rewrites. --MacRusgail 16:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep the rewrites and expand them further down the line. Thanks for your work, rob. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, following move. -R. fiend 21:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William b. travis vanguard and academy

The article does not assert notability of the school. 202.156.6.61 15:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete public schools, including magnet schools. Gazpacho 17:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not assert notability. --Carnildo 21:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. May need to rename as William B. Travis Vanguard and Academy. --Vsion 05:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks like a school to me.--Nicodemus75 18:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Important to gifted education in Dallas, Texas. Kappa 02:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please but should this be in the 20th century category not the 21st it says the 20th century also includes year 2000 so maybe check that Yuckfoo 03:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point Yuck, there's actually a Category:Schools established in 2000 so I put it there. Kappa 03:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • This brings up a basic flaw with the naming of categories for established year. For decade categories, we start on years ending in zero (e.g. 1920s not 3rd decade of 20th century). Example: Category:Schools established in 1900 is under Category:Schools established in the 19th century. However, Category:Schools established in the 1900s is a decade sub-cat under Category:Schools established in the 20th century. Now, I suspect many people would consider 1900 to be in the 1900s. Also, most regular people generally think 2000 is the first year of a new century, regardless of what's technically accurate. I suppose it's to late now, but all the century categoreis should have been in the format Category:Schools established ##00-##99 (avoiding use of the word century). --rob 19:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- DS1953 04:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Nomination does not conform with deletion criteria. Keep. --Centauri 08:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand shool article. --rob 19:52, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect. -R. fiend 21:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of U.S. state snack foods

I fail to see why those snack foods are "official" in certain US States. As far as I know; there's no kind of law that makes these kind of things official. This is, to my beliefs, a hoax, delete. -- SoothingR 15:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to List of U.S. state foods. It looks like most states haven't bothered to choose a snack food. I should call my senators and yell at them. --Merovingian (t) (c) 15:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment; this article has existed for almost a year and is very visible in the US state insignia template. If it's a hoax, then it's a good one. It is, at best, {{unsourced}} like all those insignia lists. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 16:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It's verifiable[20]. Gazpacho 17:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Move to List of U.S. state foods. Also, there's Massachusetts[21], Utah[22], Texas[23]; can't find evidence for hotdish (but the official Minnesota muffin is blueberry[24]). Hee. jengod 20:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of U.S. state foods per above. --Jacquelyn Marie 19:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax for half the entries.Gateman1997 22:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to List of U.S. state foods since there is no such page already in existance to "merge" to, include information on other state foods including the state beverage of Ohio (tomato juice). Many of these are verifiable http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodfaq4.html. Crypticfirefly 01:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merged. I don't know if it is considered correct or not, but I created a page for List of U.S. state foods to replace whatever had previously been deleted there and merged in the small amount of info from the snack foods page. Crypticfirefly 01:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep at List of U.S. state foods. I've removed the entries don't appear in enacted laws. Gazpacho 01:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 21:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Future projections

original research --Trovatore 15:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete personal essay. Gazpacho 17:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

you are both right, but i was wondering if the content holds: is there a place in wikipedia (or elsewhere) where future projections are delt with the same rigour as you both are demonstrating in this self-monitoring community; that is, a future-wise encyclopedia? fidocancan 19:34, 8 October 2005 (GMT)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 21:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Random Al

Vanity article for non notable 'comedy trio', consisting of 3 kids. JoanneB 15:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn, vanity. Mallocks 17:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Pretty Harsh It probably took the writer a lot of time to write the article, and as far as I'm concerned, there's decisive no reason why not to keep it. There's a lot of crap in wikipedia that no one has heard of, and besides, no one would protest it if it were college students.
  • Delete - I can't speak for anyone else, but I would protest even more if it were college students. And the only reason Wikipedia is full of notable stuff nobody has ever heard of is because the standard for education in the 21st century is a joke. --Agamemnon2 11:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable by independant sources. FWIW, I would protest just as much if it'd been college kids. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, unverifiable. Xoloz 10:05, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 21:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Councilism

OR/essay. DS 16:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• delete total OR. — brighterorange (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. "Man creates the ultimate mistakes" indeed. --Jacquelyn Marie 19:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete deep thoughts. Gazpacho 23:31, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 21:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creating counters using show strings

anyone know anything about this? --Trovatore 16:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain as nominator--just conceivably someone knows what the author's talking about and can clean it up into a useful article. --Trovatore 16:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even if rewritten it's still a how-to. — mendel ☎ 17:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obviously. This is not an article. WP:NOT a how-to. Friday (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no technical manuals. Refers to 3b2. Gazpacho 17:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Do you think Wikibooks might want it? --Jacquelyn Marie 19:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think it might be a how-to for a programming task in PHP, but I can't be sure. --Carnildo 21:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• If wikibooks has a module on 3b2, transwiki, otherwise delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 21:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aligning text to the base of the frame

non-encyclopedic --Trovatore 16:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment this seems to go along with Creating counters using show strings, my last AfD nomination. Maybe all these tips for using 3b2, whatever that is exactly, could be collected into a single article. --Trovatore 16:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no technical manuals, howtos, or FAQ lists. Gazpacho 17:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to. --Carnildo 21:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks f possible, otherwise, delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect. -R. fiend 21:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 CFL Standings

Information duplicated in 2005 CFL season. kelvSYC 16:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect Possible search term. You could have just done it. Bhoeble 17:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• ReDirect as per Bhoeble. --CastAStone 18:08, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was userfy to User:JazzyB. -- RHaworth 10:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jasna Camdzic, Jasna Čamdžić

Not notable actress, not in IMDb, google gives no info on actual films or plays she's been in. WP is not a homepage eighter. feydey 17:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• speedy as A7 vanity. Being an actress is not a claim of notability. — brighterorange (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, according to WP:CSD it is. I quote 'An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance - people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society...'. It does not estalish notability, but it does assert it according to policy. --Doc (?) 17:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• 'There is no evidence that Ms Camdzic is a notable actress such as appearing in notable films or significant plays. This appears to have been written by her right down to her e-mail address and contact details. These details are not suitable for an article in the mainspace and there has been no evidence that her career is as yet notable to warrant an article. However, this page would be suitable for her userpage assuming she has written this herself. Being an actress or actor is not in itself an assertion of notability as a person appearing in a school play, in a home movie or an amateur theatre production could make such a claim. You would need an assertion that she is best known for roles in theatre, cinema, television or radio to assert notability. Userfy if she is a registered user, otherwise speedy delete. Capitalistroadster 00:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as self-promotion. Created by anon, so userfying is inappropriate. Without the contact details this is a minimal stub, and there appears to be no way to verify she's a working actress. Just studying to be one isn't enough. You need to get roles too. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It had a picture - only registered users are allowed to upload. So we can userfy to the picture uploader. -- RHaworth 10:01, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 21:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TrainWeb

No purpose other than advertising a website Ahockley 17:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Ahockley 17:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete as advertisement. — brighterorange (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as ad. --Jacquelyn Marie 19:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, platform for an external link (Alexa: 232,525). Maybe we have a train related article it fits in as external link? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: See also Template:Trainweb. —Cryptic (talk) 08:18, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 21:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Jake Experience 2 and Album5

• Delete. I can find no evidence that either the band or the album actually exist. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jkelly 22:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The band may be legit, but I don't think this information is useful to enough of the general public to warrant an article. Being a professional musician myself, I would highly suggest (to the creator of "Jake exp. 2") the creation of a dedicated web site instead. --RichG 04:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  

p.s. - It seems this probably also qualifies as being some relation to "original research" Wikipedia:no original research --RichG 04:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC) (in addition to lack of Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines -- RichG 05:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC))

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 21:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conwiki

The site Conwiki.com is not operational. The site only displays a Database Error. Pym98 17:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Pym98 17:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete substub and platform for external link. Database error, could be temporary, so I don't think it's important. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 21:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jacinta Palmer

No entry at IMDB, and Google search on "Jacinta Palmer"+Patrick turns up empty despite supposedly famous criminal case. Likely hoax, and other articles contributed by Slimy earthworm (talk • contribs) such as Stephen Silvapulle should be looked at. -- Curps 17:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Doesn't show up on iMDB because she is not reknowned for her acting or screenwriting prowesses (and this is a service you have to pay for) but rather non-fictional stories in australian newspapers, judge on the australian young writer's guild. iMDB also does not show many actors in small television series. Not a strong argument.
  • ^{Above edit by Slimy earthworm.--CastAStone 18:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)}

• Not a famous criminal case, as it never went past police proceedings. Just a funny anecdote told in the "you'll never guess what happened" columns.
  • ^{Above edit by Slimy earthworm.--CastAStone 18:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)}

• Unverifiable information doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia, and pranks among a small circle of friends aren't really encyclopedic or "famous". -- Curps 18:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• the information is actually verifiable. Quite a famous name in Australia, due to her loss of the role of Samara. For this information to be considered a prank between a small circle of friends, that would assume that i actually know the people in question. Just regurgitating the information found in various magazines and columns. As you can tell, i'm a fan of their work.
  • ^{Above edit by Slimy earthworm.--CastAStone 18:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)}
• Most of the information can be googled successfully. If you're in the right area, some of the information regarding awards can still be found on major newpaper archives before they become for paid users only. --Slimy earthworm 18:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Maybe there should be a "WP is not a collection of funny anecdotes" policy. --Trovatore 18:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • oh, of course not. But it's nice to read some light-hearted material about people you like to read about. Wikipedia is about publishing all aspects of a person's life. I'm sure you'd appreciate it if you were in a position to. The story behind it is much more complex which i was hoping to detail when i found the article again. It inspired her thematically based book of short storiesSlimy earthworm 18:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy this as patent nonsense. Googling "Jacinta Palmer" turns up one hit in AU... for a girl in primary school: [25]. Similar situation with Stephen Silvapulle, though in this case it is a kid who was apparently wrongly arressted for public drunkeness at that Australian Open. I'm not trying to bite the newbie, but it would appear these articles are a systemic series of hoaxes using the names of real people, possible known by the author.--Isotope23 19:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Not patent nonsense (alas), but an almost certain hoax. Delete with extreme prejudice unless Simply Earthworm can bust out some solid verification. Lord Bob 19:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per everyone else. Slimy earthworm, please take note that the bar for inclusion of actors on both IMDb and Wikipedia is quite low (in my opinion), and yet this person still fails to meet that. The claim that "iMDB also does not show many actors in small television series. Not a strong argument." is patently false. Hall Monitor 20:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am Australian and have never heard of her. ImDB does cover Australian television problems and there are severe verifiability problems. Capitalistroadster 01:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• ummm, why can't this be Speedily Deleted since the information is unverifiable and almost certainly invented? Dottore So 07:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Because that is not a speedy deletion criteria, no matter how hard I wish it was sometimes. Lord Bob 14:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 21:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toby and Dominic Brown

Apparent nonsense/vanity by Slimy earthworm (talk • contribs), see his other articles which have also been nominated for Afd. -- Curps 17:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Toby and DOminic brown are up and coming designers accredited with designing clothes for "the cat empire" on their recent tour as published by New Weekly magazine.Slimy earthworm 18:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Not patent nonsense (alas), but an almost certain hoax. Delete with extreme prejudice unless Slimy earthworm can bust out some solid verification. I am copy-pasting this all because it seems to be true! Lord Bob 19:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as nonsense. 144.132.45.148 (Slimy earthworm (talk • contribs)?) just blanked the article...--Isotope23 20:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article has been restored but it still has severe verifiability problems. A Google search for "Toby Brown" "Cat Empire" gets one result see [26]. A search for "Dominic Brown" "Cat Empire" gets a db Magazine article [27] on general music news. Dominic Brown is reported as filling in for Andy Taylor on a Duran Duran US tour which is a claim to notability but isn't about this Dominic Brown.Capitalistroadster 01:59, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 21:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hibbit

Created by Slimy earthworm (talk • contribs), who seems to have created a number of vanity/hoax articles also nominated for Afd, see his contributions. -- Curps 18:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• definitely not made up. well known creation funded by the university of melbourne. Can provide images.Slimy earthworm 18:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• • ok maybe that's better. accreditted the character and not the creators yet. Deleted all their info but i'll repost it when their name is more renowned, which will be very soon in any case. Just saves the hassle and i can gather more information for reposting it later.Slimy earthworm 19:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Slimy earthworm, we need verifiability. Put something in the article that the reader, or me, or anybody else, can use to verify that the facts in it are accurate. If this creation was "funded by the University of Melbourne," can you give us the web URL of a University press release about the grant, or something like that? What was the University's reason for funding it? And I'd strongly suggest that if you want the article to be kept, you should give us some evidence that the Hibbit is famous. Has it been mentioned in a Melbourne newspaper? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless I see some verifiability. I smell a hoax.--Isotope23 19:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Not patent nonsense (alas), but an almost certain hoax. Delete with extreme prejudice unless Slimy earthworm can bust out some solid verification. Lord Bob 19:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. As an Australian, I have never heard of it and it isn't on any comics page of any major Australian newspaper. Capitalistroadster 03:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete more hoaxing. Dottore So 07:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 20:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hywel Morgan

Allegedly an 18 year old student and poker player who doesn't like smoke. Marginal assertion of notablity in that he won a small tournament, so not speedied. Your opinion?

• Delete Fawcett5 18:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete under A7. --Durin 18:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Fold nn poker player.--CastAStone 18:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete at least it isn't another nn-bio about a college grad with a job... Mr. Morgan hasn't graduated or been employed yet. Give him his 5 days of infamy before his non-notability catches up with him.--Isotope23 18:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Who? I'm fine with this guy if he had achieved some other form of poker success. My career winnings aren't far off this, but I didn't create an entry about myself! Essexmutant 22:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Double Down and Delete Dottore So 07:07, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 20:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muir's razor

Idiocy. Also, neologism. DS 18:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. brilliantly stupid. ----sp00n17:talk 02:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Isotope23 18:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per 25 google hits. Punkmorten 19:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is such a common thing that I think people need to know about it.--StephenJMuir 22:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. You, apparently as the "Muir" whom coined the phrase, are in no position to write an encyclopedic NPOV article about it, even if it were notable. We wouldn't allow Tiger Woods to write an article about himself, either. --Agamemnon2 11:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom (add "vanity" to the list). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  For the record, it was me that coined the phrase, but I did not write the original article, nor did I ask anybody else to. StephenJMuir 17:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  I don't want to sound over-sceptical, but you and the anon who created the article appeared at the same time, and have edited little else. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Sigh. I didn't really want to get drawn into this, but I created the article. You have been using Occam's razor rather than Muir's razor :) D McCanney 22:11, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 20:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zycow

non-notable webcomic. DS 18:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability. See here for my general views on this. -- SCZenz 17:30, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE per the author's request. -Splash^talk 00:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spicewood

A lovely fairy tale, but wikipedia has no place for this. Nice try though. BorgQueen 18:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Here is another one... "Once upon a time I voted to Delete some patent nonsense". I will admit the part about the baby sandwiches made me laugh though.--Isotope23 19:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you can delete it if you want (and you definitely should)... but I was looking up what rootbeer was made of (because who knows that?) and spicewood sounded like it was probably a fake thing anyway... you've got to admit it's funny... sorry, it won't happen again. I had to write an article that my friends could look up. I'll write a real article next time. Sorry and thanks for the fun

• • I've speedied this as CSD:G7 per the author's comments above (verified IP of comments matches article's author).--Isotope23 20:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 07:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Head browsing

Browsing game to find sites using random characters. Deletable cos original research but definitely a candidate for speedy to BJAODN. -- RHaworth 18:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Don't use any part of your wanger..." OK. This is why drugs are bad, children. Delete. No CSD met in my opinion.--CastAStone 18:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Hm, the article definately needs editing, but I don't think deletion is warranted. The game appears orignal, as far as I can see, but perhaps merging might be an option. Any ideas? Delta Seven 00:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (actually 81.103.136.218 according to edit history. Uncle G 03:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC))
• 81.103.136.218, in saying that "the game appears original", ironically puts xyr finger on exactly the problem with this article. The article cites no sources, and I can locate no sources describing this game. The existence of any such game is unverifiable. 81.103.136.218's and 213.249.155.233's modifications to the article to change one of the rules, without citing a source for the modified versions of the rule, also imply that this is simply made up from whole cloth. As RHaworth says, this appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia as a soapbox to advertise (and, indeed, as a free wiki host for constructing the rules for) a newly invented game. Wikipedia is neither an advertising billboard nor a free wiki host. It's an encyclopaedia. The author should use xyr own web site for this sort of thing. Delete. Uncle G 03:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete almost nonsensical -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What Uncle G said. Dottore So 07:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• gtyhvf ... sorry, meant delete - tried to type it with my forehead, didn't work.  BD2412 ^talk 14:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. hey, that's gtyhvf.co.uk to you, buster!!! MCB 01:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (monty python voice) 'tis a silly game. Alf ^melmac 13:50, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 07:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Our Home Planet

A non notable webcomic with a lot of crufty information in, found here. Alexa gives back a ranking of over 1 million for its main site, and no data for all other mirrors. A google search for "our home planet" webcomic, gives just over 60 links, and there I found no assertion of notability on Google. As of writing, there is no version of this at comixPedia, where it belongs. - Hahnchen 18:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• nn. Delete. - --CastAStone 18:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the Comixpedia Webcomic Wiki and delete. --Carnildo 21:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If you people are going to continue using the useless and easily exploitable Alexa site to measure popularity, I'll never cease to question the competence of the Webcomics Wikipedia Staff. Also remember the comic is weekly and its statistics won't be as high as comics that update every single day. The comic has been online almost 4 years and has built up one of the larger archives compared to most weekly comics. Despite what Alexa tells you, GD is hardly an unknown, and even runs one of the most popular Oekaki sites online. He is more hard-working and knowledgable than most of the artists that are considered "noteable" on Wikipedia. --SuperHappy 23:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This vote is Special:Contributions/SuperHappy's 17^th edit.

Excuse me for having a life outside Wikipedia, douchebag.

I can vouch that User:SuperHappy isn't a sock. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Unless wikipedia is too serious for webcomics altogether. Which does not seem to be the case... Agreed on the irrelevance of Alexa ratings. It seems to me the deletion request is motivated by subjective dislike for the subject matter. --Komikksu 17:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This vote is Special:Contributions/Komikksu's first edit.

• Keep Meets Proposal B, and agreed about Alexa. -Abe Dashiell 18:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Abe Dashiell. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Proposal B is totally out of order. What sort of notability is there here? Are we saying Wikipedia is a place where every comic which has been around for over 100 strips gains an article? What about bar room bands who have been around for a while. What about bloggers with 500 posts? Longevity as people seem to claim here, is not an instant claim to fame. Has this strip been mentioned anywhere outside the webcomic community? Has it received critical feedback and reviews from other respected journals/publications/magazines? Proposal B, just claims that if a webcomic exists, then it warrants an article. And people are agreeing? People have been attacking me from nominating webcomics, because of a personal dislike? This is totally incorrect, I was just pretty shocked when I saw the List of webcomics article at the amount of cruft that had been let in, which would have been deleted if it were any other category. Alexa is not definitive, that is easy to see, but to have a rank of over 1 million is pretty poor. Any reasonably popular webcomic would have a ranking a lot higher. With non webcomic websites, anything over 1 million would be deleted. How is this webcomic more notable than Fleetwood Back, a Fleetwood Mac tribute band, who play local venues in Scarborough? It's time we changed the webcomic guidelines in line with other Wikipedia guidelines. - Hahnchen 16:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Hahnchen, just because you haven't heard of GD or Our Home Planet in whatever little retarded circle of webcomics YOU pay attention to doesn't mean they're unimportant. And I find it really hard to believe that your opinion of Our Home Planet has nothing to do with this nomination. If Proposal B is going to be ignored from now on, throw Proposal A out to, for being completely USELESS. You're not getting the picture here. Alexa is not even a REMOTELY good source to measure website readership. Seeing you obsessively stick to it, despite a great number of people telling you why you shouldn't, makes you look like an ignorant little brat. INCIDENTALLY, GD recently changed its domain name to one Alexa isn't even tracking yet, which would make whatever number you're seeing even more wildly innacurate than normal. But since you seem to be ignoring every argument against you, it doesn't matter. The webcomic listing won't be fixed until it represents your narrow view of what's important.
      
    • Come to think of it, what webcomics DO you read, Hahnchen? If your answer is "just Penny Arcade and Ctrl-Alt-Del", please do us all a favor and get out. --SuperHappy 00:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Hi SuperHappy, I at least read a bunch of webcomics, including some of yours. That doesn't mean I think it's the purpose of this encyclopedia to list every webcomic in existence. We're trying to discuss the inclusion criteria on WP:COMIC and come to some consensus, but swearing at someone who's trying to maintain some uniform standard of notability for all wikipedia articles (not just webcomics) isn't going to help. -- SCZenz 01:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Haha... Fine, fine... swears have been edited. But let it be known that Hahnchen clearly knows nothing about webcomics, and seeing him beng allowed to assert so much authority on them is puzzling, to say the least. --SuperHappy 03:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
          • I think I understand why this debate is so divisive, and I'm trying to work to resolve it. I've written you a note about it on your talk page, SuperHappy. -- SCZenz 03:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Wow Superhappy, thanks for the character assassination. What does it matter what I read, what I eat and what I like? You have asserted no mention of notability anywhere in your arguments, apart from the size of its archive, and that GD is a hardworking guy. You've got the argument the wrong way round, I do not read Our Home Planet, but that is NOT the reason I nominated it. There are so many bands that I have never heard of or never listened to, and yet if theres a verifiable assertion of notability, I would not delete it. What the argument should be, is "Just because you're a fan of the comic, is that the reason it should be kept?" - Hahnchen 14:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All three criteria listed in the helpful template above are far too lenient. Bottom line is, there's no evidence presented that this comic is notable. -- SCZenz 17:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet any reasonable standards for notability. -Sean Curtin 19:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless some proponent can reasonably explain why this subject matters and has truly touched people somehow. Peter S. 22:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets all three listed proposals with new domain. Deleting this article is less efficient than it is pedantic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.47.82.254 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC).
  • In the future, please sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ -- SCZenz 16:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A webcomic has no more automatic claim to notability than any other random website; and certainly a random website like this would need more than just extended existance and continuous updates to be notable. --Aquillion 21:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Until such time as WikiProject Webcomics decides to develop guidelines that include independent verification of a webcomics importance pages like this should be treated as just another website. --Allen3 ^talk 23:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic topic. No claim to notability. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a webcomic with no claim to notability. I've removed {{webcomic notability}}, as it's currently a summary of three proposed guidelines, meaning that there's not yet any consensus supporting them. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Completely non-notable. Pokemon and high schools are giants of modern culture compared to this. Ashibaka (tock) 23:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Juvenile. Especially coming from someone whose crowning achievement is writing the entry for Cardcaptor Sakura.
    • And when this webcomic is as newsworthy or influential as Cardcaptor Sakura, it will merit a Wikipedia article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • You should have noted the quote on the bottom of my userpage: Mate, keeping or deleting an article is not an insult to whatever the article's about. I'm not notable, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest ;-) --fuddlemark Ashibaka (tock) 16:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dragonfiend 03:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 18:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buddies in Big Places

Webcomics notability and inclusion proposed guidelines

The following ideas have been proposed by three people as possible guidelines for whether a webcomic is encyclopedic. Proposal A: Alexa ≥ 200,000 hits Proposal B: A webcomic must be on the web and actively producing strips for a minimum of 33 weeks before being considered for Wikipedia. A webcomic must have at least 100 strips in its archive before being considered for Wikipedia. Someone other than the webcartoonist needs to actually write and develop the article in question. Proposal C: 500 comics or 3 years running.

A webcomic, found here. Webcomics use the internet as their only means of distribution, so if they are popular, they should have a reasonable alexa rank. This one, has none. A google search shows up about 90 links, none of which show this webcomic to be any more notable than a run of the mill website. Just because the comic has lasted a few years and has compiled many strips, does not mean it is notable, no matter what WP:COMIC might say. - Hahnchen 22:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a relisting. The afd got deformed when the listing got blanked, probably due to ignorance of an edit conflict. I've only noticed now, so here it is again. - Hahnchen 18:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the Comixpedia Webcomic Wiki and delete. --Carnildo 21:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Disagree with Hanchen's assessment of WP:COMIC. It meets Proposal B, therefore IMHO sufficient for inclusion. Alexa is definitely not a persuasive argument for deletion. -Abe Dashiell 18:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Proposal B. Alexa is frankly too narrowly focused to be relevant. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've seen this linked to from several other comics over the years, so it can't be that non-notable, as I don't read too many comics... Bushytails 06:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. To re-use CyberSkull's wording, proposal B is frankly too lenient to be relevant. Alexa is certainly too narrow too, so I'll be happy to change my vote if I see some other assertion of notability. -- SCZenz 19:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet any reasonable notability guidelines. -Sean Curtin 19:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Simple extended existance does not make a website notable. --Aquillion 22:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Until such time as WikiProject Webcomics decides to develop guidelines that include independent verification of a webcomics importance pages like this should be treated as just another website. --Allen3 ^talk 00:08, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was redirect. -R. fiend 06:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alien Homonid

Non-notable and a bit crufty around the edges. Delete. Okay, well, still a bit crufty, but I didn't know the article's name was a misspelling. Redirect --Jacquelyn Marie 19:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• delete does not meet minimum standards, notability not made clear --Isolani 19:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• The article's title is misspelled, and should be Alien Hominid. A google for the correct title returns a mega-truckload of hits. (Well, >500,000). I have no idea on the criteria for inclusion for computer games so, other than noting it should be moved if retained, abstain for now. Sliggy 20:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Alien Hominid. Kappa 21:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Ah. Yes, good idea. Cough. Redirect. Sliggy 21:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Not 'my' idea of an alien hominid! Redirect Alf ^melmac 13:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, Alien Hominid Rhetoricalwater 23:43, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 06:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The doo rag nelsons

NN "joke" band. -HX 01:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

• Completing nomination. Punkmorten 19:17, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 06:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Pyramids (music)

Delete as a hoax. IP that created this (144.132.45.148) has created several pages today and appears to be the IP of Slimy earthworm. Information in this article is completely unverifiable and even if it was the band would not meet WP:MUSIC. I considered listing this speedy for CSD:G3 page creation vandalism as all pages created by Slimy earthworm and 144.132.45.148 today contain unverifiable info (barring a late edit done to the Stephen Silvapulle page to add some verifible info that is irrelevant to the subject's notability claims.--Isotope23 19:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Google on various search terms came up empty (for instance, zero hits on "Kloukinis". -- Curps 21:55, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was} delete. -R. fiend 06:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sandy's Rocket 2

A description of a "phony episode" of SpongeBob SquarePants. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• If by "phony episode" is meant "non-notable fan-fiction" then Delete. Thue | talk 20:38, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 06:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confabulator

Transwiki dicdef to wiktionary.--Isotope23 19:52, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 nonsense. Thue | talk 20:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lé Mime

Completely nonsensical. Sounds like a rant, thoroughly non-encyclopedic. Also, there shouldn't be an accent on the letter "E". 216.191.200.1 20:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete to my mind that's a nonsense speedy delete. Keithlard 20:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as contextless nonsense.--Isotope23 20:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Request pulled by submitter (myself) after better suggestion by User:Kewp. Wikibofh 14:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Post Pattern & Wheel pass

Delete: I've taken this information and integrated it into American football strategy. I don't see how this can ever be more than a stub, or a part of a separate article on passing plays if that section gets too large Wikibofh 20:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Why not just redirect Post Pattern to American football strategy? why put it on AFD?--Kewp (t) 20:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Good question. Because I didn't think about it.  :) I just did wheel pass too. If no one has objections I will just do the redirects and then request this be closed. Wikibofh 20:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Please close AfD: Per conversation here I have converted both of these into redirects. No information was lost when I merged the information into the article and I don't think this AfD is required anymore. Wikibofh 22:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment There are dozens of types of football plays. If we redirect all of them to American football strategy, the article will become 500K long. The post pattern, if not the wheel pass, could be made into a full article with a description of the route, a diagram, the fact that Paul Warfield was famous for running it, etc. I don't want to set a precedent that football plays are not to be included. -- Mwalcoff 02:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would argue that if it gets to that point we would split it off into something like American football pass plays as a seperate article referenced from the main, but each of these individual plays is unlikely to ever be notable enough for its own article. Wikibofh 03:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment a redirect doesn't add any length to the article at all, however, Wikibofh already merged the material to American football strategy before s/he posted the article to AFD. My suggestion was to not delete Post Pattern but change the contents into a redirect.--Kewp (t) 12:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I have converted them to redirects. Wikibofh 15:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (ps: he :)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 06:44, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ashwood University

I got through the first 6 words of this article before the alarm bells become too load and I turned to google: "Ashwood University is a fully recognized university". A quick google search turns up [28], [29] and [30], confirming my suspicion. Delete, unless somebody want to write an accurate article exposing the scam. Thue | talk 20:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Diploma mill. --Kewp (t) 20:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Life Experience Degree Dlyons493 Talk 20:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Pilatus's rewrite which provides factual information. For me the key question is now whether this objectionable orgaisation is sufficiently notable or not. On balance I think it probably is. Just being objectionable isn't an adeqaute reason to delete it. Dlyons493 Talk 07:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete current content, and recreate as a redirect to Diploma mill. It's a pity that delete, redirect and salt the earth isn't an available option. Sliggy 20:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable degree granting diploma mill which garners over 14-thousand hits on Google. [31] This should be cleaned up and refactored, not erased. Silensor 21:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a diploma mill that sells highly dubious examination certificates over the internet. Why is the number of Google hits relevant? Sliggy 21:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Because it's a first indication of the size of the scam. We are not judging if it's reprehensible to sell "degrees in life experience", our job is to judge if they are well-known for doing so. Note: Saint Regis University, notorious for having provided services to a bunch of Georgia teachers some time ago has some 350 unique Google hits. This specimen clocks up about 185. Pilatus 02:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rewrite, having neutral and accurate articles on these diploma mills is a useful public service. - SimonP 21:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without redirect. Only universities that educate should have articles. Gazpacho 21:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a particularly notable example of a diploma mill --Carnildo 21:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please silensor is right we should fix this to be more accurate not erase it that makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 22:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No, sorry. On this I take a directly confrontational line. I cannot imagine any circumstances when an organisation like this, essentially stealing disadvantaged individuals' money, is worth an article. The subject of this article has nothing to do with education, and is simply heartless profiteering. Furthermore, with apologies, I am stunned into disbelief by the keep votes. Sliggy 00:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The "List of diploma mills" "List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning" exists and has a fair amount of bluelinks. Why anyone would vote keep for the article in its present form is beyond me, though. Pilatus 01:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Note: Article has been rewritten Pilatus 02:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Keep. I think that, on reflection (and reading through the arguments posted here), Wikipedia is improved by Pilatus' excellent NPOV rewrite. It allows readers to rapidly discern the fucking disgusting scam service that this institution provides. Sorry for losing my temper. Sliggy 15:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment we don't have articles only on good things at WP. Something being evil is not a valid deletion criterion. It would be easy to think of a dozen other scams which have legitimate WP articles. No vote —Wahoofive (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reason we keep International Star Registry. -- Mwalcoff 02:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, an Internet-based scam may have a high number of search results, but it doesn't make it notable. -- Kjkolb 03:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Redirect, or Merge not notable scam Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 05:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - There's the problem that, while the scam seems obvious, we lack objective independent sources of information to talk about it here. Also, the "Ashwood University" is not a distinct entity. It could be one of countless names by a single organization. Even if that underlying organization warrants an article (I can't say), we can't write such an article unless such an organization is exposed in a documented, publicized, and verifiable manner. --rob 06:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Pilatus's rewrite as a community service. If someone comes across one of their ads, and comes here to get more information, they should know what they're getting themselves in for. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is a poser. I am in agreement with the above, since Pilatus' NPOV scourging rewrite is a good source that this is a totally sham institution. OTOH, caveat emptor is not grounds for notability. So even though I like the rewrite, I still think this fails the notability test which is the guiding principle for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Keep Red King's point is well-taken. Dottore So 07:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Angr. Xoloz 10:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Angr. What's the point of a List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning if there can't also be articles exposing each scam. For example, the wiki article on Breyer State University gets near top billing on Google, helping to advise prospective students and employers that it would be cheaper to print their own mock degree certificates. These diploma mills are notable becuase of what they are not, rather than becuase of what they are. --Red King 10:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The rewrite by Pilatus makes it clear what sort of "university" this actually is. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Mwalcoff; the analogy to International Star Registry is a good one. MCB 01:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. Crypticfirefly 05:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I am tired of justifying. So i'll simply say keep. --Oblivious 13:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as Ashwood University (diploma mill) and create redirect; if indeed it is not an university, the original title is misleading. --Vsion 22:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Diploma mills are inherently notable. Especially those that have been featured in documentaries.--Nicodemus75 18:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite. Another fine job. Unfocused 06:53, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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