Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< September 21 September 23 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] September 22

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete - nonsense/nn-bio --Doc (?) 01:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Riding out Rita in Houston

This isn't a webhost or diary. Pilatus 00:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per nom Anetode 00:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Schuh

Part copyvio from [1] , part non-important vanity bio. One poster and one 15 minute paper do not a notable tutor make (as per Education precedents), and these awards (entry in the Who's Who Among Students in American Universities and Purdue Uni Distinguished Service certificates) are not nearly important enough to warrant inclusion. Ziggurat 00:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, vanity. Pilatus 00:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete-Lethe | Talk 01:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Probable vanity. Non-notable bio, anyway — Cory Maylett 02:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, likely vanity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN vanity Groeck 16:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN-BIO. Inclusion in a vanity publication like "Who's Who Among Students in American Universities" is meaningless... and nothing else here establishes notability.--Isotope23 16:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — nonnotable.

    Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

  • Delete NN vanity. *drew 07:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Bert and Ernie. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Banana in my ear

It's a stub about a particular gag from Bert and Ernie of Sesame Street fame. The page was apparently created in an attempt to see how far a bad joke could be taken (see history and Talk:Banana in my ear which relates to an even more ridiculous older version). Whatever the reason for its creation, I don't think it belongs here. As a joke, it's probably not notable enough. As an article, it can probably never be more than a stub (but see early attempts to expand the article with ridiculous made up bullshit). As a genre of humor, I am doubtful. Note that no articles link it other than Bert. Maybe a sample of Bert and Ernie humor belongs in their own article, or maybe this could be moved to BJAODN, or maybe it just needs to go away. delete is my opinion. Lethe | Talk 01:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to List of file formats. — JIP | Talk 05:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] .wrap

Looks Promotional Especially Last Line. Delete --Aranda56 01:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White Horse Circle

Oh cmon its a traffic circle nn Delete --Aranda56 01:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete state highways can probably have articles, but not county roads or their intersections. -Lethe | Talk 02:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have driven through this so-called "circle" many times. (And it isn't even a circle, as the article points out. It's actually kind of a triangle where three roads come together.) There isn't a single thing notable about it. ♠ DanMS 03:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can understand if some roads warrant articles, but articles on specific intersections is taking things too far. - Mgm|(talk) 10:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the "roadcruft" is going way too far out of hand. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, though this isn't even the worst offender in the realm of roadcruft. Mindmatrix 16:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A very few traffic circles might be notable. This is not one of them. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep Traffic circles in New Jersey are locally notable (even if they're not traffic circles in its purest sense anymore). We're not talking about some quaint countryside intersection. Roodog2k (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep local landmarks. --SPUI (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep - i don't see that many reasons to delete it. it is not the worst article i've ever seen on wikipedia.--Alhutch 23:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. While it is not the worst article I've seen in wikipedia, all worse articles are ripe for deletion as well. -R. fiend 00:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Stay dead, stay dead, stay dead. Denni☯ 01:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although a calendar with pictures of traffic circles was a big hit [2] here in Britain (where they are called "roundabouts"), it was just a novelty thing. This is a more extreme case of roadcruft. --A bit iffy 14:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no claim to notability made here or in the article. --fvw* 01:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all non-notable traffic circles. Quale 06:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • As all traffic circles are "notable", this should be treated as a keep vote. --SPUI (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Bollocks. -R. fiend 16:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I'll note that SPUI deleted the AfD tag in the article. He's getting passionate and breaking rules over a traffic circle? --Calton | Talk 02:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete good grief --TimPope 18:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. My brain hurts. Pilatus 18:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article does not establish or even assert notability. --Stormie 02:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oy vey. Delete. --Calton | Talk 02:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Traffic circles were once a very notable feature of New Jersey roadways -- just ask anyone who drove there 20 years ago -- and are of historical significance, therefore worth documenting. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator. Zach (Sound Off) 05:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as clear nn-bio --Doc (?) 01:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jarrad Dowd

  • Delete: Textbook vanity page — Cory Maylett 01:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: He's only 27, how "many years" could he have worked for his daddy? Notability not claimed. (And which Brunswick would that be, mate?) -WCFrancis 01:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete obviously, -Lethe | Talk 01:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heute verstohlen, Morgen in Polen

dicdef; looks like insult page, no background supporting notability, well, no background at all. WCFrancis 01:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Quotes an ethnic slur then implies that it's true. Biased and hateful. — C Maylett 02:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If there is a wiki for sayings, move it there, because it is a saying in Germany. ♠ DanMS 04:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable ethnic slur. I live in Berlin, not too far from Poland, and I've never heard this saying. I'm not even positive "verstohlen" is a word in German (I'd have said "gestohlen", but I'm not a native speaker). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Löschen, aber schnell! — JIP | Talk 12:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: I've just reverted a blanking of this afd page by 205.181.102.120. - Mgm|(talk) 13:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is really from Heute gestohlen, morgen in Polen which a derogatory and insulting saying in German. Groeck 16:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the confirmation. By the way, what do you suppose verstohlen would mean? From what I understand of German, the prefix ver- always means something nasty. For example raten: advice, verraten: deceive, sagen: say, versagen: fail, bieten: offer, verbieten: forbid. Would verstohlen mean "failed to steal"? — JIP | Talk 17:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Kaufen = buy, verkaufen = sell. I don't know if ver- is negative, but I do know that zer- is. Punkmorten 18:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • verstohlen is German for sneaky or stealthy in a somewhat negative sense. It does not make any sense in the given context. Groeck 22:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - offensive rubbish CLW 16:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as nonsense. See also Heute gestohlen, morgen in Polen which at least makes sense. There is no verb *verstehlen of which verstohlen would be a past participle; verstohlen is an adjective and means "stealthy"/"stealthily", or something similar (furtive, surrepetitious etc). (Also morgen is spelled incorrectly; Morgen= morning, morgen = tomorrow. -- Austrian 20:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Angr and DanMS.

    Journalist C./ Holla @ me!

    • Creator is on a campaign of derogatory vandalism on Polish sites. WCFrancis 01:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Polish-German relations in WP are already too tense to have articles like this. Shauri 23:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep

[edit] JetBlue Airways Flight 292

An article about a plane that made an emergency landing. This belongs on Wikinews and not Wikipedia. Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, an incident like the others on wikipedia. The initial information and the subsequent analysis is noteworthy as an encyclopedic entry. Florihupf 01:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, an incident like the others on wikipedia. The initial information and the subsequent analysis is noteworthy as an encyclopedic entry. CoolGuy 01:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The event is a part, albeit minor, of U.S. aviation history. There will be plenty of interest in it. And Wikipedia is not paper. Bbpen 01:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, amazing anyone has the nerve to nominate a worthy event as such for deletion. Phoenix2 01:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; as mentioned on its talk page, this is a notable landing. --DanielNuyu 01:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per above. TomStar81 01:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, there will be more news on this. Grant-o 01:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • K obviously. Fawcett5 01:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, aviation enthuasiasts have just as much right to articles interesting them, as you do to having articles on obscure things in Family Guy and The Simpsons. -- User:zanimum
  • Keep, silly. Nominated for delete because it didn't explode, I guess? --Garrett 01:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is a significant event. Yes it is news but it is something that will be remembered as a near-disaster, yet still a happy ending -- 69.251.48.244
  • Keep this significant aviation incident. It doesn't have to be a great disaster to be notable.--Pharos 01:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Significant incidents like this are worthy of an article. --Fjarlq 01:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Just wondering what the statistics are for emergency landings. How many are there a year? A month? Will we be having articles on every one? Evil Monkey∴Hello 01:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It wouldn't bother me at all if there was one article per emergency landing. --Fjarlq 01:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It wouldn't bother me either, but it is a good question as a baseline: How many emergency landings are there a year? Does anyone know?--Pharos 02:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • A summary of aviation accidents for August 2005 can be found on the NTSB website, there are a few per day worldwide: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/AccList.asp?month=8&year=2005 --Fjarlq 02:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Imagine if we kept every emergency procedure due to equipment failure? -Lethe | Talk 01:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment: If we kept every emergency procedure due to equipment failure then we'd have a more-complete encyclopedia. —BenFrantzDale 02:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep An incident that occupies three hours of commercial free national news merits an article on Wikipedia. Jendeyoung 01:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I second that, and it was made even more significant because it somewhat cutaway from their what is going to be 24-7 coverage of Rita. Phoenix2 02:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • And I third it for the same reason. Bart133 (t) 02:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. Bart133 (t) 02:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in agreement with all above, and in hope that the article will be expanded with more news and why the event happened. Significant. — CuaHL 02:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a non-notable equipment failure. The fact that the article consists for a large part of meaningless "coincidences" doesn't help much either. --fvw* 02:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and close this vote as quickly as possible. This article didn't start out looking like much (hence my comments on the talk page), but it's starting to become a solid record of an event that people might be interested in in the future. -- SCZenz 02:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not an ordinary emergency landing, could of been catastrophic. --69.104.18.190 02:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep useful record for anyone studying these types of incidents. Johntex\talk 02:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not an ordinary emergency landing, could of been catastrophic. --.::Imdaking::. Bow | DOWN 02:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A good portion of the United States were glued to these television broadcasts. --AGENT 424 02:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
And Canada. I was watching The Apprentice: Martha Stewart, and wouldn't even have known until tomorrow morning unless these two guys came into the college lounge and asked me to switch the channel to CP24. -- user:zanimum
  • Merge to JetBlue since I think this is the airlines first mark against them in the safety department. Zach (Sound Off) 02:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- ElBenevolente 02:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's an isolated incident that made front-page news. That makes it notable in my book. —BenFrantzDale 02:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Thats why are an encylopedia --Rogerd 02:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Calling this incident "significant" is as pretty big stretch... and claiming that a good portion of the US were tuned into the broadcast pertaining to this is probably an excellent example of hyperbole... but it is a well written article that may be of interest to someone, particularly someone interested in aviation.--Isotope23 16:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. [3] Enough said. - Mike МиГ 22:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not the most important thing in the world, I'll grant that, but if we threw out all the not-so-important stuff we'd only need a few thousand articles.Kevin M Marshall 22:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It occupied all this TV time and hell, like the article said, if the TVs remained on, they would have been the first plane ever to watch themselves on national television. --Saint-Paddy 23:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia should have more articles like this. It's topical, it's interesting to lots of people, it's well written, it shows off Wikipedia as having the sort of article that other lesser encyclopedias lack. Why would anyone want to delete it? -- 00:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cabalamat (talk • contribs) 00:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 1. For the most part, the article is well-written and informative about an event plenty of people were and are interested in, and contains a great accompanying photograph. 2. This incident may be related to a flaw in the Airbus A320, which the investigation may determine. 3. There are detailed articles on things like Aqua Teen Hunger Force including passages such as, and I quote, "Meatwad ... is a spherical mass of compressed meat that was not approved for human consumption. He has a face sporting a lone tooth protruding downward from his upper gums. He has the power to change his shape into things such as an an igloo or hot dog." Yet, people are talking about deleting an article on an aviation incident involving scores of real, live humans in real, live danger. Neurophyre 01:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - agree with above statements. -Hoekenheef 01:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was not a typical emergency landing; it was a major, highly notable occurrence. The fact that the plane didn't crash doesn't change that. —Lifeisunfair 01:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and delist early. This article is probably getting a lot of traffic and it shouldn't have an ugly AFD header. Rhobite 01:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We need more good news these days.
  • 'Keep -RadioActive 09:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not only are commercial airline incidents generally notable, this one is even more notable than the average non-fatal accident because it was caused by a recurring problem, and the passengers were able to watch television regarding their own fates during the disaster, which is apparently the first time that's ever happened. —Cleared as filed. 11:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 09:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protestants in Nepal

carbon copy of Nepalese House churches, which in turn is a carbon copy of Christ Groups, we don't need 3 seperate articles promoting a user's soapbox point of view. 129.2.237.44

  • Keep, but delete the other two. You make the case that we don't need 3 copies of the same article. But do you argue that we don't need one copy? The topic is notable and interesting (Hindus imprisoning converts to Christianity). Make the other two redirects. -Lethe | Talk 02:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Call me skeptical but where are the sources verifying the numbers of adherents? Also where are the sources backing up the claim that a "right-wing" Hindu government is openly persecuting Protestants in Nepal? The creator has had a history of biased POV articles I'm still skeptical. Abstrakt 04:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Lethe, and delete the other two. DDerby(talk)
  • Research suggests that any suppression of Christians in Nepal is coming from Maoist insurgents rather than the Hindu government. The US State Department agrees with this, as do [Christian sources. This article is valid and deserves a keep, but its neutrality is heavily suspect and should be flagged as such.Vizjim 09:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment to Vizjim the State Dept.'s link yielded this sentence: "There are unconfirmed reports that Maoists suppressed religious observance in areas under their control through intimidation and harassment." This information you have presented is unconfirmed, is there a more solid source of information that you have found to back up this article? 129.2.237.44
Please note that i'm not pretending expertise here. The link I should have posted was [4], showing the previous year's report, where numerous allegations of attacks by Maoist insurgents are logged. This Google search ([5]) turns up numerous reports on Christian websites of Maoist assaults. All I'm pointing out is that there seems to be some anti-Hindu POV in the slant of this article. I'd do a rewrite myself, but like I said I'm absolutely not an expert. Vizjim
  • If kept the histories of the duplicates need to be merged where additional changes are made. - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and merge the other two into this, and tag with NPOV or cleanup. KillerChihuahua 14:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Merge and cleanup as proposed. Groeck 16:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Lethe ··gracefool |☺ 21:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Protestants in Nepal. — JIP | Talk 09:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nepalese House churches

carbon copy of Protestants in Nepal, which in turn is a carbon copy of Christ Groups, we don't need 3 seperate articles promoting a user's soapbox point of view. 129.2.237.44

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christ Groups

carbon copy of Nepalese House churches, which in turn is a carbon copy of Protestants in Nepal, we don't need 3 seperate articles promoting a user's soapbox point of view. 129.2.237.44

  • Delete and redirect to Protestants in Nepal.Vizjim 09:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I second this Redirect --MacRusgail 18:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the other two, Delete without redirect for this one. What is the possible natural relation between Christ Groups and Nepal? Nobody creates a redirect from Saratoga to George W. Bush. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur completely with Lomn. Christ Groups sounds like a christian-bashing term, or a very bad list of christian organizations or bands, but I cannot imagine a situation in which I (or anyone else) would search for Christ Groups and expect Protestants in Nepal.
  • Delete without redirect KillerChihuahua 14:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without redirect. Per Google, this does not appear to relate to a specific group named Christ Group in any country. Groeck 16:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. The band isn't fully formed yet, has not performed and is totally unverifiable. Also contains predictions. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Watch the fight

Article about a non-notable band that hasn't even completely formed yet.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 01:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable and predictions DDerby(talk) 02:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: One step below non-notable — C Maylett 02:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • One more example of why garbage like this needs to be shot on sight. Delete ASAP. - Lucky 6.9 02:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete and quickly. A "forming" band? Haven't even performed yet? Don't even officially have a name yet? How much more non-notable can they get? ♠ DanMS 02:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Should have been speedy. CambridgeBayWeather 03:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've taken the liberty to speedy this. Bands that haven't fully formed yet can never meet any inclusion or verifiability criterion. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as verifiably false vanity page. --Carnildo 23:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jamin Shih

Unverifiable/clearly untrue. No google hits, but claims notability (12-year-old published author with Nobel prize, no less). DDerby(talk) 01:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: His age I derived from the user's edit to June 24, which (used to) list his birth in 1993. DDerby(talk) 02:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Snicker I didn't know that Taiwan gave Nobel prizes. Delete -Lethe | Talk 02:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Should be a speedy delete. The claims of notability are obviously nonsense. — C Maylett 02:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under A7. If the claims of notability in an article are obviously false, they don't count as claims of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 12:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above. Groeck 16:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. If speedied, I would not object and would oppose undeletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted, A7: no claim of notability -R. fiend 00:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Donat

  • Delete: Another vanity page Cory Maylett
  • Drat, they're on to our "must include claim to notability" racket. Delete. --fvw* 02:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, I think the claim of notability narrowly fails to reach the requirement (edit: that is, the requirement for not being speedied). DDerby(talk) 02:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but surely this ought to meet CSD. The notability claim is itself patent nonsense. Chick Bowen 03:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't feel right about putting a speedy tag on this, as I edited it. But I see no assertion of notability here. Friday (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Whatever an associate says about Charlie, isn't relevant to the article.
Charlie enjoys listening to the likes of BB King, Eric Clapton and Jimi Hendrix... and he's only 23 years old!
I've come across a twelve-year-old guitarist who likes Jimmy Hendrix and he can actually be called notable because he was a contestant in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest a while back. Charlie is not notable in the extreme. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No attempt to assert notabilty. TheMadBaron 12:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Groeck 16:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I boldly speedied it. playing the guitar is not a claim of notability. -R. fiend 00:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kforce

Non-notable company. No potential for expansion beyond a stock symbol and the company's URL. --Quuxplusone 02:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete (nominator's vote) --Quuxplusone 02:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Publicly listed company on NASDAQ for 10 years. It is a company with 80 offices and over 1,000 staff see webpage [6]. A Google search for KForce gets over a million pages returned [7] and Fortune Magazine listed it as a small cap to watch see [8]. There are currently 8 Google news results. [9]. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep publicly listed. DDerby(talk) 06:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. - Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. Groeck 16:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep could always add information about how bad it sucks to work for Kforce: the McDonald of the IT Staffing industry--Isotope23 16:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above ··gracefool |☺ 21:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep Im closing this one early knowing that this is probaly a kind of Vandalism Nomination --Aranda56 03:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WKRP in Cincinnati

No educational value. It does not fit into an encyclopedia.64.12.116.9 03:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. Is there an exception to the "do not remove AfD notices" rule for this kind of trolling? --Quuxplusone 03:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course. This was an American television show that ran for four years and is a bit of American history. Not one of the world's greatest all-time shows, but notable enough. ♠ DanMS 03:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Why is this even being questioned? CambridgeBayWeather 03:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Different IP address, but probably the same user, is apparently nominating television shows he doesn't like. See entry for 21 Jump Street. ♠ DanMS 03:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Could I remove the VFD tag ? --Aranda56 03:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Obviously notable television program. Why are anonymous users allowed to nominate articles when they are not allowed to vote? Capitalistroadster 03:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Anonymous users are allowed to vote, and they are allowed to nominate articles. They are not, however, allowed to be dicks. sjorford #£@%&$?! 13:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Obvious. --Zpb52 03:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Paul August ☎ 03:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sony Ericsson T637

Delete this and all other articles on individual cellular phones. Merge with List of Sony Ericsson products. There is nothing notable about this phone to distinguish it from hundreds of other telephones. Remember, folks: Notability is the chief requirement to have a page in the Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a shopping guide. And ultimately, in six months this phone will be obsolete and no longer manufactured. DanMS 03:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain - I added a lot of info to this article a while back, so I'll abstain because I'm probably biased. However, I would like to point out a bit of precedent: Wikipedia:What's_in,_what's_out#Products. Sure there isn't anything overwhelmingly noteable about this phone, but if you look at it from a precedent side, it is a current product. Maybe all that changes six months from now, but, WP is not a crystal ball ;) Malo 04:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per nom. WP is not a collection of ephemera. Dlyons493 06:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it depends on the amount of information. If it's a stub that can't be enlarged in an encyclopaedic manner, merge it. If it's a decent sized article (see Sony Ericsson K700i or Sony Ericsson T610 for examples), keep it. I'd merge and redirect this one, as it's not particularly long. If enough information is subsequently added to the List of Sony Ericsson products, it can always be split off again. Proto t c 13:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge this and other related articles into single list as proposed. Groeck 16:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom.'s suggestion. Dottore So 21:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge ··gracefool |☺ 21:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Don't think merge would be appropriate at the time being. --Andylkl (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. DDerby(talk) 05:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 21 Jump Street

Zero educational value.64.12.117.6 03:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Don't be silly. Speedy keep. --Quuxplusone 03:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Someone must be seriously confused about what kinds of articles should be deleted. Crypticfirefly 03:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Different IP address, but probably the same user, is apparently nominating television shows he doesn't like. See entry for WKRP in Cincinnati. ♠ DanMS 03:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep For a start, Johnny Depp was the lead actor on this show. By the way, why are anonymous users allowed to nominate articles when their votes are not counted? Capitalistroadster 03:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Obviously a keeper — C Maylett 04:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 03:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Category5

Firstly, Rita won't be the only Cat 5 soon enough to pose a threat to the US. Secondly, Gilbert never made US landfall. NSLE | Talk 03:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep: The reason this is a templete is because of an ongoing edit war with the wording of the sentences. I am fully well aware that the templete is tweaked for Rita, and that the Rita won't be the only Cat-5 hurricane. The templete can be updated to reflect the changing times and we can remove hurricane Gilbert if it never made landfall, but do we absolutly have to delete this so soon? TomStar81 03:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • We (Meaning me and NSLE) have reached a compromise. As part of my end, I hearby switch my vote and support the delete. TomStar81 03:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: this is article content in the template namespace. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't support using templates as end-runs around edit wars. *Dan T.* 03:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Niether do I, but it was a simple solution to a complex problem. That and Mom wasn't going to put diner on hold so I could find a better solution ;-) TomStar81 03:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Incorrect information (Gilbert did make landfall at Category 5 - but it was a Caribbean landfall, not US landfall) plus it doesn't belong in template format. CrazyC83 03:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete by request of author User:TomStar81. DDerby(talk) 07:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Groeck 16:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a template, so ought more properly to be on TFD. But seeing as things are progressing ok here, I'll let it run. If it's author would like it speedied, might I ask that they so so clearly? -Splashtalk 19:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • As the author I clearly state that if you want it speedied, you may do so. TomStar81 00:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this discussion be held on TFD? Aecis 21:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it should be. But I created this discussion in a bit of haste without noticing TFD, so here it is, on AFD. -- NSLE | Talk 02:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. Paul August ☎ 03:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Many "Krasanian" articles

The following articles are nominated for deletion, plus any I missed:

  • Alex Dristas
  • Black Field Island
  • Karen Lee
  • Naed
  • Nearphotison
  • Prof. Lee
  • Rethnap
  • Yessam

All either fancruft with no context provided, or else simply made up out of whole cloth. I'll point out that several of the names are reversals, suggesting that this whole thing is a hoax: "Dean", "Massey", "Panther". There are no Google hits for "Krasania". --Quuxplusone 03:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as probable hoax, and if not hoax, incredibly obscure and marginal fancruft stubs. If it's demonstrably not a hoax, merge into a single "N.S.F." article. --Quuxplusone 03:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC) (nominator's vote)
  • Delete NN Nonsense. No hoax, just really irrelevant unpublished fiction. All of these were created by User:204.185.75.130, who has been cited as a vandal. Anetode 03:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn fiction. DDerby(talk) 05:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete All as per nom. Dlyons493 06:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete All as per nom. --rob 09:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete all - why does N.S.F. itself not have an entry (or any explanation of what it is in the entries) - doesn't match anything on the NSF dab page. Hence, nn CLW 16:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all as per nom. Groeck 16:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. good nom. --Vsion 03:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all as per Quuxplusone. Shauri 15:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

(several articles)

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Rx StrangeLove 15:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Providence High School

I don't usually nominate schools, but this is almost a joke. I've checked the edit and couldn't find a salvageable version. Unless massively cleaned up and fact checked, Del -- (☺drini♫|☎) 03:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, high schools are almost never notable even if they do have passable articles. DDerby(talk) 05:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • A good rewrite, but I still believe it isn't notable, saying only 4 minor things (two of which are ext links) that anyone couldn't safely make up given the title. However, a move to New Providence School District as per Thivierr below, an entity that is closer to being notable, would be ideal if kept.DDerby(talk) 19:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep: I am from the school, and although i did not write this, i know who did, and for the most part it is accurate, but the way it is written is in a humorous fashion..And although it seems to be false..it is written in the eyes of the students who go there. Should not Be deleted.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.38.85.141 (talk • contribs) , the IP of one of the editors of the article, at 03:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • delete: even if it were true, does the world, unto the n-th generation--- well, just read the thing for yourself before voting, and I think you'll see what I mean---CH (talk) 06:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless a major rewrite is done. Dlyons493 06:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Requires a very substantial rewrite and fact check. If this is not completed delete. Sliggy 09:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the rewrite. I think this information would be most usefully included in the context of its locality, so merge per Average Earthman Sliggy 14:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (see proposal below) the new stub, but it definately needs major expansion. I admit the stub is very short, and normally I would never create a new stub on a school that small, but I wanted to replace the silly content which was there. From reading a bit, it seems to have some potential. --rob 10:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP I am a college student from the rivaling high school. This school is a local legend and WILL be famous in approxamitely 5 years. It's the home of former Bell Labs, hence the intelligent children. KEEP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.150.67.104 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "intellignet" children ought to be able to spell and shouldn't create cruft. Dunc|☺ 12:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Well-mannered adults should be able to overlook typing errors. Kappa 13:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, make sure to discount sockpuppet keep votes. Proto t c 13:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, thanks for the rewrite. Kappa 13:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Did something change about schools? They're being nominated at a horrific rate. Usually a little effort goes into improving an article before listing on AfD. I see nothing on the talk page for this school which indicates its anything but a stub. I concur that the "intellignet" typist needs practice, but that has nothing to do with the article. KillerChihuahua 13:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with New Providence, New Jersey. The High School and Middle School have to share facilities. One or two paragraphs on all the schools in one article gives a better idea of education in the area than four separate articles with one paragraph in each that partially repeat each other. Average Earthman 14:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Proposal: I suggest we keep the article, but rename it New Providence School District. Keep the category, and categories for middle and elementary, thus treating this as a proper school article. Two paras for the high school, 1 for each of of other 3 schools, and one for the board, gives 6 paras, fairly easily. That's a full separate article. Promptly create-the required re-directs before somebody makes more stubs. Anybody searching for one of the schools, will find a school article, about that school. Merging with a borough would mess up categories by merging overly distinct things. Categories are a fundamental navigation tool in wikipedia, and must be meaningfull, but flexible. I see this as a pretty fair middle ground, in between 4/5 stubs and no article fit to be in a school category. Note: my vote stays the same, since my idea does not require an AFD, and with 20/20 hindsight, is how this should have been done instead of an AFD. --rob 15:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete The article says nothing about the school that couldn't be said about a million other schools Paul 15:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep the rewrite. Create a district article for it if you must, but keep in mind that people don't remember what school district they graduated from. Society recognizes schools as an appropriate division point. Unfocused 15:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If merged, a redirect could serve those looking for the HS. DDerby(talk) 19:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as the article now stands CLW 16:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten, the article is informative and beneficial to the community which it serves. Silensor 17:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Not another one. It is likely that in a few years there will be articles about every high school in the developed English speaking countries. Learn to live with it and move on. CalJW 18:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Generic. Gamaliel 19:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yellow Pages stub. Ball High School is above the bar, this one isn't. Pilatus 19:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, While some of the things included are a little ridiculous (Super Bowl XXXIV, etc), most of the things listed have a very firm basis of fact. The CEO of Enron really DID go to NPHS. That's 100% true. There's nothing incredibly derogatory about this page, and as long as someone keeps it a little more reasonable, I see no reason to delete it. User:Jeff(talk) 20:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please this is not a joke Yuckfoo 02:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet another verifiable permanent public institution to keep. --Gene_poole 03:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the sky is blue. —RaD Man (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please don't list articles here for clean up. There's a clean-up page, or better, clean it up. Grace Note 06:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A clear example of the misuse of the AfD process. Nominator was aware that the school was possibly verifiable and re-writable. High Schools have a near 100% survival rate of the VfD/AfD process. AfD is not a tool to force the re-write of articles in WP. Wouldn't it be easier and more constructive to just edit the article instead of immediately nominating it for AfD?--Nicodemus75 11:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Klonimus 23:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete yet another school article which says absolutely nothing of value and probably never will. Denni☯ 01:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep We should allow for these articles to be expanded. All High Schools should be kept. PRueda29 02:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete again *drew 07:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. Many of the delete reasons given above are reasons for cleanup, not deletion. ··gracefool |☺ 22:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - as before on every other none notable school. - Hahnchen 01:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unworthy of inclusion --redstucco 09:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this stub. I see no good reason for deleting it. --Andylkl (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent, informative and concise stub. Well done. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedily kept - bad faith nomination. Dunc|☺ 12:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Dukes of Hazzard

This show is racist. Delete it!!!64.12.116.67 03:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Disagree - This topic (racism of the show) has been discussed on the discussion page. While I agree that a page about a show like you think this one is would be disgusting, such a criteria is not in the list of reasons for deletion. If you think that this article is POV, then the deletion policy page suggests that the POV be corrected rather than deleting the article. Val42 05:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep, unlogged-in user nominating, inappropriate reason to delete. DDerby(talk) 07:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy KeepNetwork television program on air for 6 years on network TV in the US and shown throughout the world. Notable 2005 film based on the program in The Dukes of Hazzard (film). I repeat my concern about anonymous users nominating articles on clearly notable television programs. The previous two debates resulted in speedy keeps. Even if there were verifiable and substantial allegations of racism about the program, that should be discussed in the article in an NPOV manner. Capitalistroadster 07:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. This appears to be yet another bad-faith nomination to delete an article about a well-known television series. --Metropolitan90 07:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per Metropolitan90. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, and make a new policy that anon AfD noms must either be seconded by a signed-in editor, or reverted out of AfD. -- BD2412 talk 09:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, we don't need a specific policy for anon users. We should have one for nominations that don't cite a valid reason. A more serious example: Nazis are disgusting to a lot of people, but deleting the article about it, would be censorship and wiping a problem under the rug. POV problems must be edited, not deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 10:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, this is a bad faith vfd by the same person who put up 21 Jump Street the variation in IP is probably due to proxy servers. Usrnme h8er 11:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and ban this IP. 23skidoo 12:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 05:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christos Trikalinos

Vanity page. IP address is registered to subject's university ([10]). Chick Bowen 03:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • But NB this is not a student but an assistant professor, and his subject is not [insert goofy, worthless non-subject here] but physics. His website is here; unfortunately it's all Greek to me. Neutral for now. -- Hoary 06:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Quite notable in high-energy physics - see [11]. Also president of the Greek national federation of university professors (POSDEP). Dlyons493 06:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I babelfished the page (all your physics...) and it appears to be a student aid page for Physics classes. Other hits were for a faculty union and the Physics department bulletin board. I could find nothing of strong note, but then again he is indeed am assistant professor. Neutral and I hope someone can glean more about him than I. KillerChihuahua 14:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. A president of a frederation of university professors should be notable enough. Groeck 16:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not every professor deserves an article. Gamaliel 19:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete echoing above. The record of publication and talks seems very slight for a professor of any notability. Dottore So 21:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not because every Assistant Professor is notable, or everyone who gets a phsyics paper published is, but Prof. Trikalinos is the president of POSDEP, has been cited in news articles here, here and has spoken at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center here. I can't verify that he has 50 articles published, but, nevertheless, three or four borderline reasons for notability add up to notable enough. Jkelly 22:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • A niggling point, perhaps, but your third link above is for a conference in Armenia at an institute affiliated with Stanford, not actually at Stanford. As for his union, I don't know what to make of it--in the US an Assistant Professor would never be the head of a faculty union. Perhaps that just demonstrates my ignorance about Greece. Chick Bowen 04:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Don't know what to make of the Armenia thing. In Greece, Assistant Professors have tenure. Jkelly 07:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough physicist for mine. Capitalistroadster 22:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. For notability as a physicist, I'd expect at least one major achievement described, and I don't think I'm asking for too much if I expect a link or two to cited articles. Without any of those, notability is missing. Owen× ☎ 23:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think wikipedia is ready to mirror the CVs of all professors. If his work is notable, then I'll change my vote --Vsion 03:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Professors are notable enough for an encyclopaedia of broad scope. If there is no doubt that this guy exists and is what it says he is, he should be kept. Grace Note 06:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "(H)e has published 29 articles in international journals" is the most notable thing this article can say. While this may be a Good Thing, I believe the bar must be set higher for an article to be kept. I would also request evidence of some major achievement. Denni☯ 02:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Despite you believe, a higher bar is not current policy. Keep ··gracefool |☺ 22:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I am well aware that there are many here who seek quantity over quality. I have noted you are one of them. Denni☯ 03:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Seems notable enough. --Andylkl (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Given that a deletion seems unlikely at this point, I have cleaned up the article. Chick Bowen 21:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, defaults to keep. Rx StrangeLove 15:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Directory System Agent

Im not sure what this is but looks like spam Delete --Aranda56 03:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Friday (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knunder

Delete: Sort of a cross between a joke and a dictionary entry. Either way, it's inappropriate. C Maylett 03:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete and as usual should have been speedy. CambridgeBayWeather 03:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - marked as such. Chick Bowen 04:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Oleg Alexandrov 05:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Shell Shock

Obviously not a real condition--Shanel 04:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sounds like a neologism. Only one Google hit and that was on a chat board. Post again when and if this becomes established and recognized. ♠ DanMS 04:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 04:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Changed my vote again. I got this out of my system. Thanks Gadugi 04:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research. Not that it isn't interesting. Citizen Premier 05:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, at least let me finish it before deleting it. I do have 5 days. Gadugi 05:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR and hopelessly POV. (The latter would be salvageable in some articles, but here there's no real evidence that these terms have any independent existence.) --MCB 08:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You are free to help write it. Since you are a attorney. I get to write one good article about this -- even if it gets deleted. Gadugi 08:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Except that I'm not convinced ISS and ILM actually exist, except in the (POV) mind of the author of the article and/or the sole external source. MCB
  • Userfy I really like the article but don't feel it belongs on wiki. Could we persuade the author to write some that do? Dlyons493 12:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, the author has been writing article that do belong. This is one special article the author is writing to benefit the community at large and humanity. It will probably get deleted, but will be saved before that time to preserve the content for perhaps being incorporated into other more relevant and less POV articles. 67.137.28.187 16:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm especially dubious about articles that are claimed to "benefit humanity". Wikipedia is not a soapbox. MCB 18:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
        • But the soapbox section does state that it's ok to write about internet phenomena and internet lynch mobs are an interesting phenomena as are their methods. They are certainly noteworthy for discussion. The article will be scrubbed in the next day or so to reflect a third person viewpoint. 67.137.28.187 20:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research, severe POV, and non-established terms. Groeck 16:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy and delete, not a notable internet meme. Maureen O'Gara and G2News aren't recognized as authoritative or even reliable. They've been mouthpieces for non-factual FUD about the SCO attack on Linux, and this is original research that hasn't established any widespread currency. Barno 19:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I see those sources have been removed. Article has been improved but still hasn't persuaded me that this is anything of lasting significance under this name, or any title that we might put this under. No change of vote. Barno 01:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, OR. Dottore So 21:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, nn, OR. --fvw* 21:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi Fvw. You will find the final section very interesting reading which will be written this evening. I am glad wiki deletes articles based on their merits and policies. Nice to see you taking an interest in this article. I am getting this topic out of my system so I can go back and start on the laguage tutorial next. This is the one and only "controversial" article I plan to author here. Gadugi 21:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - paranoid (insert word). --MacRusgail 18:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Barno -- Dan Lyons of Forbes and Jeff Merkey (User:Gadugi) might love it if this became a prevalent internet meme, since it would assist their smear campaigns, but so far it hasn't. Pure existential fallacy; merely drawing up a laundry list of unverified accusations (like "my enemies are sociopaths who oppress my minority viewpoint!") and turning it into a bogus pseudo-medical classification scheme ("'Internet Shell Shock' is a syndrome experienced when one has one's minority viewpoint oppressed by sociopaths...") does not hide the bullshit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Almost hoax. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 14:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - for all the above reasons and because the original author aparently only wrote it to get the subject of his chest. --MJ 20:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP The Land 18:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Retail Grocery Inventory Service

This seems to be a bit of a commercial plug. I'm abstaining from voting, because I'm not too sure about it. - jmd 04:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment, no vote. Seems to be a legitimate company. Can't say if this page is a commercial plug. As it stands the page isn't worth much. There ought to be a guideline that if a page like this isn't expanded within a certain period of time, it should be deleted. It is of no informative value now. ♠ DanMS 04:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - if the company has the global coverage, number of offices and size of workforce that the article asserts, I believe that's notable enough for an entry. CLW 16:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The data in the article is (roughly) correct per RGIS web site. Groeck 16:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Large enough to be notable. Owen× ☎ 23:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Company is huge (I worked for it one summer while in college), the article is small. Assuming more is added, it's an easy keep. - Jaysus Chris 11:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above comments ··gracefool |☺ 22:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Munich Barbecue Club

Delete. A barbecue club of all things? Take a look at the pics on the external link--That says it all. ♠ DanMS 04:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - I hear their cooking sucks anyway. Oswax 10:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable barbecue club. — JIP | Talk 12:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No attempt to assert notabilty. TheMadBaron 12:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable CLW 16:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Groeck 16:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete extremely nn. Shauri 15:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertising. *drew 07:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Oleg Alexandrov 05:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lucha_Libre_Profesional

Lucha libre profesional is a company. For confirmation look at: LLP - Quienes somos (in Spanish)

  • Delete Advertising. Dlyons493 12:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Possibly advertising too, though how this entry would do any good as an ad I don't know. CLW 16:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. There is an extensive entry on Spanish Wikipedia, so rewrite might be another option if global notability can be established. Groeck 18:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral. This page appears to be a machine translation from some other source. What I've found indicates that this company is the lucha libre equivalent of a small regional wrestling promotion. Would be worth keeping if there was decent article, but what is there ain't it. At best I could make this into a stub for later expansion, but I'm not certain that it's worth an article in the English Wikipedia. Caerwine 02:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: The versions of this article that were deleted as per this AFD discussion had nothing to do with "Ed Metzger (actor)". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Metzger

  • delete: incoherent, not about "Ed Metzger (actor)" at all CH (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 195.92.168.174 20:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete meaningless. Dottore So 21:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Buh? --Carnildo 23:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Waste of time. Shauri 15:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. For those wondering, the "keep"s had a slight majority at the end. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Venado Middle School

  • delete as non-notable. Compare Weld Hall, which I voted to keep. Can someone please explain to me the rationale of creating an encyclopedia article on every elementary, middle, and high school in California? The world? I mean, really, this phenomenon baffles me. Is the intent to somehow increase your state's education budget or what?---CH (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Rationale: All schools are inherently notable.--Nicodemus75 11:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • NN, D. ComCat 04:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand for the reasons provided at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 17:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Silensor. Hillman please remember our aim to to build a comprehensive encyclopedia and put the sum of human knowledge in the hand of every human being on the planet. Kappa 01:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. --Metropolitan90 01:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please agree with silensors reasons Yuckfoo 02:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per m:eventualism --Vsion 02:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet another verifiable permanent public institution to keep. Wikipedia can and should have articles on every enduring public institution and piece of infrastructure throughout history. Then it would actually be encyclopedic. --Gene_poole 03:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --rob 03:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the grass is green. —RaD Man (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing would be lost. Vegaswikian 05:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. An article about a verifiable public insitution would be lost. Grace Note 06:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, perhaps an article would be lost if it actually was an article. Try creating when you actually know enough about the subject to write something more than one substubby line. - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    I see a well-formed sentence that describes the subject of the article and where it is. A good stub, in other words. Grace Note 09:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Almost bicycle time.--Nicodemus75 11:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete substub on an unnotable school. About as notable as Nico's bike. Dunc|☺ 12:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Klonimus 23:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete another generic middle school. Denni☯ 02:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not Notable --JAranda | yeah 07:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. *drew 08:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. ··gracefool |☺ 22:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unworthy of inclusion --redstucco 09:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this short stub. Has potential for to be expanded. --Andylkl (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. I see no valid reason to delete this stub. We should be encouraging this type of participation. Unfocused 21:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all public schools. Gazpacho 23:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (anons ignored) · Katefan0(scribble) 04:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Twinkie-Weiner Sandwich

NN, D. ComCat 04:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete because it sounds disgusting, and also because wiener is misspelled. If it must be kept, move it to Wiki Recipes. ♠ DanMS 05:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and move to correct title, Twinkie-wiener sandwich. Not the worst article, and it is apparently the "official food of Yankovic fans." DDerby(talk) 06:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's already listed in the Yankovic article. Maybe one of the pictures could be used, but the article is redundant as is. Anetode 07:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Anetode. Vizjim 10:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Anetode. TheMadBaron 13:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above Groeck 18:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - another piece of evidence that westerners eat too much while the rest of the world starves. (Okay, that was tongue in cheek. I don't like the article anyway, nn). --MacRusgail 18:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it is kind of gross, but there are lots of things I think are gross that might be of some use to someone who is looking for information on it. I personally found it that way, I had heard the term, so came to wikipedia to look it up. If it had been deleted, I would never have found the info I was looking for. I agree it sounds nasty though. (24.98.198.164 20:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep agree with 24.98.198.164 and Cardsplayer4life (JohnStamosIsKing 22:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC))
  • Note: This is this user's only edit. DDerby(talk) 05:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Or possibly move to the Wikibooks cookbook thing? Crypticfirefly 05:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, or at least put part of it in the 'Weird Al' article and set it so those who search for it are taken to the 'Weird Al' aritcle. Should not be deleated all together. User: Dr. B 7:50 25 September 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of utilitarians

NN, D. ComCat 04:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, utilitarianism is an influential and historic philosophical system, as the article shows. DDerby(talk) 05:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and move to List of utilitarian philosophers or List of utilitarian writers (or something like that, I haven't thought of the perfect one). I think a list of people who wrote on it, advanced it, defined it, etc... would be legit. A description in the cat isn't sufficient to discourage every celeb who happened to say "I'm a utilitarian" to get added; which would make the list not worth keeping. --rob 11:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep maybe move if somewhere better can be found. Dlyons493 12:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Categorify. This is what categories are for. 195.92.168.174 20:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with utilitarianism and correct the errors; who would classify Epicurus as a utilitarian? Dottore So 21:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and turn into category. Do not merge. Owen× ☎ 00:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and correct errors. Penelope D 01:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons above. --MacRusgail 18:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per reasons listed. Shauri
  • Keep and change to category as per Owen× ··gracefool |☺ 22:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St. George's College

NN, D. ComCat 04:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Notable, as colleges almost always are, even though it's only a stub. Keep. DDerby(talk) 07:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yellow Pages. Delete unless expanded beyond attendance, ethnic affiliation of students and the school mascot. Pilatus 11:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This isn't what North Americans would call a college, but even as a secondary school, it is valuable. There is a signficant amount of history related to the school, which dates back to the mid 1800s. Note: The name of the article should probably be qualified as St. George's College (Jamaica). --rob 13:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable, as schools almost always are. Kappa 13:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Almost? Kappa, have you ever voted against a school? Denni☯ 02:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
      • "Notable" isn't a criterion for deletion, but there are many informal and/or temporary schools, especially in the developing world, which would not be suitable for wikipedia. Kappa 16:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Klonimus 23:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per rob CLW 16:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a notable secondary educational institution, reasons for retaining this article are expressed at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 17:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. CalJW 18:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for expand. --Vsion 00:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please this school is from the 1800s and it is historical. Yuckfoo 02:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Vexatious bad faith nomination. Keep article and censure nominator. --Gene_poole 03:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Censure nominator for a/ not bothering to give a decent reason and b/ nominating in bad faith. This isn't war, guys. It's not life or death if Wikipedia has a few articles about schools. Grace Note 06:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, crappy stub, but this one actually mentions an interesting history which can be expanded upon. - Mgm|(talk) 09:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Chronic bad-faith nominator. It is astounding that in the discussion about school articles, deletionists have merely descended into rampant bad-faith, multi and mass-nomination. --Nicodemus75 11:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Primarily, turn into dab page there are several St George's Colleges around the world. The only proper link to it however is about the one in Harare. However, Week keep this however as it appears to be reasonably prestigious within Jamaica. Dunc|☺ 12:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Shauri 16:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools (see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep). ··gracefool |☺ 22:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --redstucco 09:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. A nice stub article. We should be encouraging this type of participation. Unfocused 21:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notre Dame College, Dhaka

NN, D. ComCat 04:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and Expand: Notre Dame College is one of the most famous higher secondary colleges in Bangladesh. This Banglapedia article would illustrate a lot of information on the history and importance of this college in the education sector of Bangladesh. I would definitely want to know the rationale behind the NN claim. Most likely I assume it is a systemic bias. In any case, this article should be expanded. By the way, I'd like to mention that "College" here refers to an institution providing education at the class 11-12 level, equivalent to the junior and senior years of US Highschools. --Ragib 05:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand as per Ragib. The link provided establishes that it is a notable Bangladeshi secondary school with links to the University of Dhaka. Capitalistroadster 05:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, addresses systemic bias. Kappa 10:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ragib, who is thanked for the info.. --rob 11:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand as per Ragib. Dlyons493 12:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand for reasons addressed at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 17:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Nominating one of our all too few articles about a country like Bangladesh (which is not some little place, but has around half the population of the U.S.) is not a good way to help Wikipedia's global coverage improve. CalJW 18:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep resist systemic bias please. --Vsion 00:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep and please try to avoid systemic bias here Yuckfoo 02:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Bad faith nomination. Keep article and censure nominator. --Gene_poole 03:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Censure nominator for reasons given for previous entry. Grace Note 06:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly a bad faith nomination which is indicative of multiple systemic biases against other countries and schools in general. Since notability is not a valid criteria for deleting schools per WP Policy, it makes the nomination of a famous higher secondary college in Bangladesh all the more galling. Bad faith nominators should be censured. The nominator has a history of rampant VfD nominating of clearly notable persons and topics, almost universally with the reason being "NN".--Nicodemus75 11:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The nominator's forthfulness in fighting cruft and the cruftlovers is to be congratulated. He should be given a barnstar, not accused of having bad faith. Unfortunately, he picked the wrong target. Week keep on basis of demonstrated notability. Dunc|☺ 17:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Also, the motives for the nomination seem obscure. Shauri 23:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Klonimus 23:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I will vote to keep a school with demonstrated notability. I wish the "keep regardless" voters could respond in kind. Denni☯ 02:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools (see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep). ··gracefool |☺ 22:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --redstucco 09:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Ragib. I don't understand why this article was nominated; a quick Google search established notability quickly. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent article. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Education overseas is especially interesting to me. We should be encouraging this type of participation. Unfocused 21:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep – in what way is it non notable may I ask? User:Nichalp/sg 13:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bent monkey cage

Appears to be non-encyclopedic.. --Mysidia (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertisement Anetode 06:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless notability is adequately established, Delete Bent monkey cage, delete Circuit Surgery and delete all future attempts to turn Circuit bending into a promotional exercise for Lee Daniel's business. TheMadBaron 13:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN advert, as well as the other articles mentioned above. Groeck 18:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per TheMadBaron, with fire as per me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad. Shauri 16:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect, I moved some content to the Club de Futbol Monterrey page and turned this into a redirect Rx StrangeLove 15:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] La Adicción

Currently just an image. And the article history reveals one bruised and battered page. Better just to start from scratch, if this group is all that notable to begin with, which I currently doubt. -- Grev -- Talk 05:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain 1000-member local fan org, nice website, and I reverted the article to a better version... I don't know if it's notable or not. DDerby(talk) 07:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge any useful content and redirect to Club de Futbol Monterrey, the soccer team that La Adicción supports. --Metropolitan90 07:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect sounds good to me. Friday (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above ··gracefool |☺ 22:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. The weird thing is that I had never heard of them, but yet I'm from Mexico... Titoxd 06:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Destiny Bond

See also the entry for Ember (Pokémon)

This is one of more than a hundred specific attacks in Pokémon, comparable to an article about Fire 1, Fire 2, Fire 3, and all the other spells in the Final Fantasy games. While Pokémon is notable as a cultural phenomenon, individual attacks in Pokémon are not encyclopedic material. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - There's a year-old precedent relevant to this: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mirror Coat. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Pokécruft. — JIP | Talk 05:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--DDerby(talk) 07:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge somewhere or keep, part of covering the pokemon universe. Kappa 10:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete. TheMadBaron 13:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I would love to merge it somewhere but I don't know for the life of me where. Gastly perhaps as the most famous Pokémon to have the attack (as it was on a trading card as well as in the video games)? --Celestianpower hab 17:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm thinking there should be an article created on Pokemon attacks. Wandering oojah 19:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Here we go. Wandering oojah 20:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, WikiGod, you must be joking. That list makes me cry. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 23:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I would have suggested this but there are a lot of attacks... --Celestianpower hab 17:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Good thing we have nearly unlimited space :) Wandering oojah 03:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
There's a difference between "Wikipedia is not paper" and "Lists of 300+ entries are A-OK!" - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
That's an argument for splitting up the article into a number of smaller ones, not an argument for deletion. ··gracefool |☺ 22:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Groeck 18:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sabine's Sunbird 23:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, merge, redirect, or otherwise get rid of it. --Carnildo 23:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - just make it go AWAY. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 23:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Apostrophe 23:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Tuf-Kat 07:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and i placed List of Pokémon attacks on vfd also --Aranda56 05:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per nomination. Don't you dare merge it. / Peter Isotalo 04:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- an entire article devoted to an attack on Pokemon? Why don't we give an article to every joke on Family Guy while we're at it? PRueda29 12:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Given that List of Pokémon attacks seems to be headed for a "keep", I think this article should be merged with that one in some way. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect Could have been a delete but redirects are cheap and there was no solid consensus. Rx StrangeLove 15:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time-Space Conversion Ratio

  • 'delete as useless and redundant stub CH (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant - material already exists under Special relativity Dlyons493 12:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Groeck 18:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Special relativity ··gracefool |☺ 22:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect or Clean up-Dudtz 9/29/05 6:06 PM EST
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP The Land 18:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kiran TV

Someone nominated this article for speedy deletion as hardly noteworthy. I do not believe that is a CSD, so I moved it to Afd. --Mysidia (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep as this seems to serve a signficant sized region, and also some around the world. --rob 12:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per rob. TheMadBaron 13:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, keep. DS 16:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment can be verified on Google, if someone from the region this station serves is willing to assert notability, I'll vote keep.--Isotope23 17:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please we need to stop systemic biases here too Yuckfoo 19:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've saved a couple of these TV stubs, may try again here. Clearly it is a broadcast media outlet (over-the-air, cable, or satellite) with a large audience. --MCB 22:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ··gracefool |☺ 22:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I watch this channel everyday. Jay 12:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep User:Nichalp/sg 13:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pikaflash

It's a Pokémon fansite. Just like when Serebii and Smogon ended up on VFD, this isn't notable, and borders on advertisement. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Alexa ranking is 170,084, btw.[12] If that helps anyone. Postdlf 05:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (or merge if anything seems worth keeping). Dlyons493 12:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Groeck 18:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn site --TimPope 18:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was that there was a Pokémon clone section in Pokémon (video games) with much of the same content already so I just redirected this to that page...Rx StrangeLove 17:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Pokémon clone

Apparently a Pokémon clone is a game that is a clone of Pokémon. Who'd've thought? There's no content to this article that isn't apparent in the name. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, it is not at all apparent from the name "Pokemon clone" that Robopon is one of them. Kappa 09:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, either into main Pokémon article, or into Pokémon (video games). Saberwyn 09:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Saberwyn. The term "Pokémon clone" appears to be a neologism.--Isotope23 17:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please because this is notable there are 2500 matches for it even Yuckfoo 19:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. --Carnildo 23:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, as per Saberwyn. Before it clones (ha ha). Lord Bob 01:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge a/a. --Daveb 12:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Herman f. schaedel

  • Delete: Never heard of this "Inventor and developer of American light industry," and neither has Google. Unable to verify and suspect hoax or erroneous information. — C Maylett 05:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; I agree and also could not verify. I'd support speedy deletion because it really has little or no context; Edison invented the electric lighting industry, if anyone, so what it's supposed to mean regarding Schaedel (oh, I'm sorry, "schaedel") is a mystery. Anyone second speedy deletion? This is going to be a waste of time. Postdlf 06:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I oppose speedy deletion as I can't see any WP:CSD that it falls under. It's not patent nonsense, it's not empty, it asserts notability. Hoaxes, sad as it is, have to go through AfD. I empathise completely with your sentiment, however. --Blackcap | talk 07:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is no evidence for these claims and a Google search shows absolutely no results for this gentleman see [13]. Nor did a Galenet biographical search. This is not verifiable. However, the claim to be an inventor and developer of the light industry is an assertion of notability, however spurious the claim is so it shouldn't be speedied. Capitalistroadster 06:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Blackcap | talk 07:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I tried to tone down the language a bit with the unverifiable assertions. No vote, but current content looks speediable to me. Friday (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Online search of Gale's "Biography Resource Center," said to contain "415,000 biographies on more than 325,000 people from over 880 volumes of more than 135 respected Gale Group sources" including Marquis Who's Who--which in turn includes about twenty of the Who's Who publications, including Who's Who in Science and Engineering, Who's Who in Finance and Business, etc. on (Name contains Schaedel) returned the following results: Rece, Marguerite Anne Schaedel (American psychiatrist, 1934-); Schaedel, Richard P. (American writer, 1920-). Dpbsmith (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, possible hoax and speedy candidate. No reference found on Google. Groeck 18:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ember (Pokémon)

See also the entry for Destiny Bond

This is one of more than a hundred specific attacks in Pokémon, comparable to an article about Fire 1, Fire 2, Fire 3, and all the other spells in the Final Fantasy games. While Pokémon is notable as a cultural phenomenon, individual attacks in Pokémon are not encyclopedic material. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - There's a year-old precedent relevant to this: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mirror Coat. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Pokécruft. — JIP | Talk 06:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • delete DDerby(talk) 07:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 09:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia isn't infinite, either. Remember, this is one attack among hundreds, and this article does not and never will give any information that isn't immediately clear from context (it's a fire attack, it involves blowing embers, fire Pokémon use it). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • None of this is clear from the context: "In the Pokémon videogames, Ember is the standard fire-type attack, and it is learnt by many Pokémon at relatively low levels. When the level depends on the version of Pokémon used, the level for the edition of the Pokémon's first appearance is used.
      • ...While Ember tends to be useful during the first stages of the game (especially for rookie trainers), later it becomes weak in comparison to stronger attacks such as Fire Spin or Flamethrower. It was one of the attacks which already appeared in the first versions of the game, Pokémon Blue and Pokémon Red." Kappa 09:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
        • It would be clear in any context in which someone would encounter the term, either in the Pokémon aníme or games. As for its context on Wikipedia, this is an orphan I found when sifting through Whatlinkshere for Pokémon. This article is left over from an abortive attempt to document every single tiny aspect of Pokemon on Wikipedia, and most of the other articles (save the species and characters and places, which aren't minutia) have been deleted or merged.
        • And I wish I had paid more attention when I AFD'ed it. Some of the statements in the article are factually wrong, to boot. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 12:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
          • If it doesn't have context in wikipedia, wp obviously isn't explaining pokemon combat properly. The fact that some but not all "minutia" articles have been deleted is hardly a reason to delete this. Kappa 12:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
            • So then we should really get moving on the ones we've missed. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 23:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 12:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete. TheMadBaron 13:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This one is a lot better than the one on destiny bond but I still have no idea where to merge it to. I'm going to make a copy in my userspace in case it gets deleted. Perhaps a merge with Pokémon types#Fire-type? I don't know. --Celestianpower hab 17:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Actually, I think all fictional content should be moved to a new Wikifiction and be removed from Wikipedia. Groeck 18:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Can't you wait for this "Wikifiction" to be set up before destroying its potential content? Kappa 18:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The reason for the vote was per nominator and related to an entry in Wikipedia. Criteria for keeping articles in a "Wikifiction" might be different than criteria for keeping articles in Wikipedia. Groeck 18:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please we are not a paper encylcopedia Yuckfoo
  • Delete over embers, and saute every 5 minutes per nominator. Sabine's Sunbird 23:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or otherwise get rid of it. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --Carnildo 23:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as fast as we can. Then delete any other "Pokemon Attack" articles before we go insane. Put them in WikiBooks Pokemon, for god's sake. Something! [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 23:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I really should relist that cultural references article... --Apostrophe 23:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A list of Pokémon attacks isn't the worst idea ever, just so these individual articles die. Seriously. Pokémon attacks with articles. Perhaps we should extend these to actual attacks: cutting somebody with a butcher's knife, anybody? Lord Bob 01:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Make articles on all of the moves. Why not? Is there some problem with Wikipedia being a comprehensive resource? Grace Note 06:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Isn't there a thing on Wikibooks for this kind of stuff? Tuf-Kat 07:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Listify AKA Merge into a list of Pokémon attacks. Comprehensive doesn't mean we need a seperate article on every granular thing in the world. Sometimes merging stuff together in one article with redirects pointing from other places is the better option. (WP:FICT). - Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It is a Pokemon Attack C,mon Delete that junk bring some Pockemon also next time u nominate so I could place Delete also --Aranda56 05:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Kill it with fire JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This borders bad faith. We've obviously been way too generous with keeping Pokéstubs of all kinds. Don't even think about merging this anywhere. / Peter Isotalo 04:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm curious: bad faith on the part of whom? This was a long-abandoned stub I found by surfing Whatlinkshere, written before WP:FICT really solidified and well before the beginning of even the original Pokémon Wikiproject, let alone the current project. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. My goodness, this is an encyclopaedia! --Daveb 12:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge this another attacks to List of Pokémon attacks which seems to be headed for a "keep". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MRPGQOD

nn Flash animation. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Friday (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Groeck 18:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 22:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per nom. Wiki is not an indiscriminate list of information. Just because you can verify something does not mean it deserves an article, what about our local pub? The local playing fields? My personal blog on livejournal? This flash animation? . - Hahnchen 01:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --TimPope 18:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. No legitimate keep votes, but something this much sock-supported would be deleted anyway. — JIP | Talk 05:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brotherhood of Objectivist Thinkers

The article is likely vanity, or at least non-notable. No encyclopedic merit and very NPOV. Bkwillwm 06:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, I'm both libertarian and objectivist, and I support their cause, but founded in 2005 and zero google hits makes me say nn. Usrnme h8er 11:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks to me like vanity, and unverifiable. Delete unless this organization is shown to be notable in some verifiable way. Friday (talk) 14:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. Does this even exist outside Wikipedia ? Groeck 18:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete, this organization is veritable and growing in influence here on Long Island. I attended two meetings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.122.102.1 (talk • contribs) 2005-09-22 22:58:20 UTC.
  • Delete. A brand-new group, no mention of number of members but zero Google hits hints to a very low number. NN. Owen× ☎ 00:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete, I've seen them talk at several conference halls, these leaders are nothing but genius' of the next generation! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.189.85.175 (talk • contribs) 2005-09-23 00:10:38 UTC.
  • Do not delete, I've seen them talk at several conference halls, these leaders are nothing but genius' of the next generation! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.180.83.6 (talk • contribs) 2005-09-23 00:16:43 UTC.
  • Don't Delete,Dan Ryan is an upstanding New English gentleman who would never attempt to corrupt Wikipedia with so called nonesense. I say let this article stay as a means to spread Mr. Ryan's good news of Neo-Nazism and attempts to revive the Ku Klux Klan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.194.18.104 (talk • contribs) 2005-09-23 00:22:27 UTC.
  • Delete. Pure narcissism at its worst, this entry is nothing but an attempt by the founders to show off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.194.0.96 (talk • contribs) 2005-09-23 00:26:05 UTC.
  • Delete. Dan Ryan enjoys long walks on the beach and biting the head off of innocent puppies. Therefore, I have no choice but to recommend this page's deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.194.0.96 (talk • contribs) 2005-09-23 00:29:34 UTC.
  • Anonymous users may like to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:VAIN. If this actually exists we need more proof than your word. Delete as vanity/advertising for new organization with zero internet presence. - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete, I have attended various meetings of the Brotherhood of Objectivist Thinkers, and I have found them to be nothing but wonderful. I love the environment, that they strive to create, in which a person may reach his own conclusions. And this is not a vanity page, there is nothing on it but the information about the Brotherhood. The founders have not used this page as a blog. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.226.195.54 (talk • contribs) 2005-09-23 09:46:11 UTC.
  • Delete Sockpuppets aside, there is no evidence that these "leaders" are credible other than in their own minds. Denni☯ 02:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The article cites no sources, and a search turns up no sources. Unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 05:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per User:Uncle G & User:Denni.Crypticfirefly 05:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete I am a good friend of the Brotherhood, although not a member at the moment I plan on joining. Dan Ryan is a good hearted, hard working man who does not wish to lie about anything he just wants to publicize the Brotherhood by telling us what it is about. There is nothing wrong with that. The Brotherhood has strongly supported me in the past, including providing for my security at some points. They are men/women of high propriety and have done nothing wrong.(preceding unsigned comment by (talk • contribs) 2005-09-26 20:11:23 UTC)
  • Delete non-notable group (and ignore votes that say Don't Delete as malformed. As anyone who even scanned this entire page, it's clear the correct format is Keep.) -- 01:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable --TimPope 18:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete.) Excuse me but, what do you mean 'sockpuppets aside?' Sockpuppets helped build this country. Sockpuppets are the backbone of society. So the next time you say 'sockpuppets aside,' ask yourself: where would I be today without sockpuppets?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Losers fight it

Does not assert notability, fails WP:MUSIC. --Blackcap | talk 06:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Therefore, meets criteria for speedy delete DDerby(talk) 07:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Alas, that's only for people, not bands. --MCB 08:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and I once again cry out for a CSD that allows deletion of "nn-band"... Usrnme h8er 11:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As said, this isn't a speedy, but it is definately not WP:MUSIC. --rob 12:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and I echo the sentiments of Usrnme h8er. TheMadBaron 13:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • How can you say it's non notable? The article makes it clear that this band was formed by its founding members. Oh, alright, I give up, delete it. Allmusic never heard of them, no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC criteria. Friday (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Masquevale

Neologism and dictionary definition. Delete and don't move to Wiktionary. -- Kjkolb 07:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not a useful defintion even for wiktionary, assuming it's use at all. Kappa 09:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef. TheMadBaron 13:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not sure if this is an existing term. Google entries seem to refer to a user name. Groeck 18:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef at best; likely nn-neo. --Daveb 12:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Victorian Vows

NN Appears to be an advert The curate's egg 09:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertisement. Dlyons493 12:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 13:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad. Pakaran 14:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisement. *drew 08:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irwin's Crocodile (Hoax)

This was created by an anon 203.164.94.198 (talk • contribs) yesterday as Irwin's Crocodile, and Smadge1 (talk • contribs) renamed it to Irwin's Crocodile (Hoax). Perhaps he's unfamiliar with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I have reverted Smadge1's odd edits back to the original version posted by the anon. I didn't have time to research this, no vote. -- Curps 09:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax. Google will throw up 1000's of hits for "Irwin's crocodile" but there are related to famous crocodile hunter Steve Irwin, rather than to a genus. Do the search as ""Irwin's Crocodile" NOT Steve" and result is only on Wikipedia and a mirror site. Vizjim 11:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A Google search on this comes up without third party verification. Furthermore, I live in Australia and I haven't heard of it. If a new species of crocodile had been found on Steve Irwin's crocodile farm, we certainly would have heard of it. After all, he is hardly publicity shy. Capitalistroadster 10:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Capitalistroadster, Usrnme h8er 11:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What a crock. TheMadBaron 12:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
That's a gag without much bite. Vizjim 14:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Capitalistroadster. Dlyons493 12:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. C'mon, i aint heard nothin about this, i did the google searchs and came up with nothing, there are no citations or even links to questionable sources...smadge1 01:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as recreation --Doc (?) 13:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sin Star

Has been on AfD twice already in under one month. I closed the first debate with a result of "no consensus" because I had been fooled by sockpuppets. The second debate ended in deletion. Now it's back again. Delete. — JIP | Talk 10:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't that fall under the criteria for a speedy? (General, 4) --JoanneB 10:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Dlyons493 12:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Olate

Advertisement for non notable company JoanneB 10:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertisement. Dlyons493 12:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN advertisement. Groeck 18:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and de-ad, leaving only verifiable information, presented in a neutral way. Exactly how "notable" does a company have to be for an encyclopaedia that encompasses "all human knowledge"? Grace Note 07:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • One has to be part of human knowledge in the first place, evidence for which would be someone else, apart from the company's directors, publishing anything at all about the company. There are no multiple independent sources of information on this company. There are no independent sources of information at all, even. The only things published about this company have as their source the company itself. (The only apparently independently sourced publications turn out upon investigation to have been written by the founder of the company.) This company does not satisfy the WP:CORP criteria. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Delete. Uncle G 06:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - alternatively, the David mytton article below could be a target for a redirect. --TimPope 18:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Deleted as re-creation of afd'd article --Doc (?) 13:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mind Pollution

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sin Star (3rd nomination). Delete. — JIP | Talk 10:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was slightly unclear, but I am calling this a no consensus keep. 6d-3k is borderline, but the deciding factor here is Uncle G's comment based on David Mytton's publications and authorship. That argument for notability has never been rebutted except by assertions of non-notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David mytton

Vanity, non notable, managing director of Olate, see above JoanneB 10:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertisement/Vanity. Dlyons493 12:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN vanity. Groeck 18:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Managing directors of companies are notable. Grace Note 07:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --fvw* 07:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Grace Note is wrong. Being a managing director does not make a person notable. The Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies list no such criterion. (Nor should it, since being a managing director does not imply that humans know anything at all about one.) However, they do list being a published author of books and in periodicals with a reasonably large circulation; and this person has published articles in International PHP Magazine, which appears to be such a periodical, and written a book. It would have helped had the article mentioned this. International PHP Magazine's own biography of this person tells us that he is a 16-year-old, by the way. Keep. Uncle G 06:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Uncle G. 16 year old "managing directors" are not notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ··gracefool |☺ 23:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per above. - Hahnchen 15:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC) previous edit was mine
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Friday (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Post Futurists

This band seems not to be of note. Mrcurly 11:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No attempt has been made to assert notability. TheMadBaron 13:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I tagged it for speedy with an empty tag. There is so little context here as to be useless. If the speedy doesn't work, delete it the slow way. Friday (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Long Scroll of the Treatise on the Two Entrances and Four Practices

Tagged for speedy as "nonsense", but isn't patent nonsense. Doesn't look like WP material, though. -Splashtalk 11:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • You're right, it's not nonsense, and it's also not WP material. Maybe Wikisource? DS 13:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Text referred to at Bodhidharma#Works_attributed_to_Bodhidharma. If anyone can be bothered, this article could be completely rewritten so as to make more sense, perhaps along the lines of [14]. Otherwise, delete as Buddha cruft. TheMadBaron 13:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I did a ton of work completely rewriting the article. This work is actually relatively important in the early Chan Buddhist cannon so it is definitely worth keeping. Although perhaps moving it to Treatise on the Two Entrance and Four Practices and taking off "Long Scroll of the...". But that is a minor point. -Parallel or Together? 15:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename to The Two Entrances or similar shorter name. Groeck 18:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree the name needs to be shortened. Renaming it The Two Entrances is good. -Parallel or Together? 00:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please it is rewritten so now it can stay Yuckfoo 18:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to shorter name as per Groeck Dlyons493 20:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the new version, but rename to Treatise on the Two Entrances and Four Practices, Two Entrances or, my preferred version, Two Entrances and Four Practices. TheMadBaron 02:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep the re-write. Good work, Parallel or Together?! --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, important and notable Buddhist text. Piecraft 17:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep move if you want of course ··gracefool |☺ 07:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 03:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of vegetarians

Someone's true practice of vegetarianism cannot, in most cases, possibly be verified with certainty by historical means. As a result, this article is hopelessly un-encyclopedic and PoV, a potential edit war zone over definitions, allegations and even implied moral judgements. Wyss 11:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as above. Wyss 13:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All it needs is the {{Unreferenced}} template. --Viriditas | Talk 12:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it should be renamed List of famous vegetarians, or List of notable vegetarians, but it seems reasonable enough to me. It can never be completed, but that's true of many Wikipedia lists. It's unlikely that many names will end up on the list unless that person's vegetarianism is a matter of record.... what would be the point in making false claims? The section about Hitler (which I found quite interesting) shows how to deal with people who are erroneously claimed to be / have been "vegetarian". There may be disputes, of course, but that's equally true of any other article.... if that's a reason for deletion, we may as well just delete Wikipedia in its entirety. I fail to see how a simple list can be made to serve a moral agenda, but any attempt to subvert the article to this purpose should be removed, of course. TheMadBaron 12:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Count Duckula?! Princess Daisy from Mario Bros?!?! An enormous list with zero--count 'em, zero references. An alternative to deletion would be to slap an {{Unreferenced}} tag on it and remove any entries without references within a reasonable timeframe (say, two weeks or so) with fair warning given on the talk page. However, I also have concerns that this list could be too broad to be maintainable (for example, every practicing Hindu who has ever lived could theoretically be included). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong meat-free delete for a multitude of reasons:
    • 1) Would be better as a category, anyway
    • 2) Inherently POV (as many 'vegetarians' consider eating fish/seafood ok, many do not, and call the other kind 'non-vegetarians', or people who will/will not eat products containing gelatine and other animal-derived products etc, and will end to countless edit wars, never mind the vegans chipping in).
    • 3) Unmaintainable, as a massive number of notable people are vegetarian, and many people become veggie (or stop being veggie) all the time.
    • 4) Difficult to research, as it is not always easy to find a verifiable source confirming a person is (or is not) a vegetarian. Potential for original research abuse. And thet {{unreferenced}} tag is ass. If an article cannot be referenced, it shouldn't exist.
    • 5) Did I mention it should be a category?
  • Proto t c 13:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per referer. --Ghirlandajo 13:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and concur with Proto, this is category material. KillerChihuahua 14:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, vegetarians are always interested in learning about what famous people are/were vegetarian. They should be able to come to Wikipedia for the answers. Of course we can't verify that particular individuals never ate meat, all we can do is verify that they claimed to be vegetarian and were considered by others to be vegetarian. Babajobu 14:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    The article doesn't say they claimed it, it lists them as being so. Wyss 15:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    Per the above, something like Category:Vegetarians would be equally easy to browse and far more easily maintained. Oh, look! It's already there. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Then why doesn't Isaac Bashevis Singer show up in the category:vegetarians page, even though his own article is so tagged. The whole thing's rotten to the core. Babajobu 16:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
That does look like one for the developers, but software issues are no reason to keep an unencyclopedic, hopelessly PoV article. Wyss 16:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Not a bug -- just use the next 200 link, he's the first one on page 2! — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 :) Wyss 18:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator, and it should not exist as category either. Groeck 18:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename List of famous vegetarians perhaps? 205.217.105.2 18:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
How does one verify if a person was truly a vegetarian? Are there time limits or requirements? If so, how are dates confirmed? What definition is used for vegetarian? Wyss 19:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
That's silly...that essentially means we could never describe someone as a vegetarian. The same would go for calling someone, say, a Muslim. How can we be certain they didn't practice Shinto in private? What if they converted at the age of 30? Can we still say "so-and-so was a Muslim?" These issues don't prevent us from describing or categorizing people according to other labels, why should we be so prohibitively concerned about such things when discussing or listing vegetarians? Babajobu 22:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
No, it means an encyclopedia can't successfully describe a docking list of people as vegetarian out of context and by the bye lots of these WP labels, IMHO, are unhelpful to understanding. Wyss 12:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
For anyone who's listed as vegetarian I presume that the link to their main article will elaborate or provide context. But in order to know who was a vegetarian in particular fields or areas of society, only a list will do. And I don't think it's "unhelpful" to describe, say, Orrin Hatch as a Mormon, Kirk Gibson as an American, or Peter Singer as a vegetarian. Babajobu 12:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as creeping listcruft. --MCB 19:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as list - IMHO a category would work better. Of course, there definitional issues but if it's important enough to an article to add the category it presumably is important enough to discuss these issues in the article (e.g. "He was a lapsed vegan with macrobiotic leanings, according to some scholars") Dlyons493 20:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Category or just leave in each article Amcfreely 20:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it shouldn't be a category either. If it's important enough to the person, it should be in the article itself. -- Kjkolb 22:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, and possibly rename as per TheMadBaron. This is a well-edited list, smartly sorted and interesting to go through. The existing category (Category:Vegetarians) is a very poor substitute for this. Owen× ☎ 00:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if all entries are verified. Very useful list. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, now start putting those references in there. Andrew Levine 04:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Maybe it should be retitled to "famous vegetarians" but this list is useful enough to stay in. Crypticfirefly 04:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a useful list in any sense. Cannot ever hope to be comprehensive. I'm a vegetarian and I'm not even on it! Grace Note 07:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Would you change to Keep if the title was List of notable vegetarians? (Yes, we all know you, but your User page doesn't claim notability...) Owen× ☎ 12:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I'm afraid I wouldn't, for two reasons: I don't like the concept of "notability" because I don't see why a truly broad encyclopaedia wouldn't consider anything and anybody verifiable "notable" -- I simply haven't ever seen a good reason for making Wikipedia restrictive in that way; and I have a general principle that I oppose lists that cannot be sourced on the basis that they represent original research and should not be built. It's not a strongly held principle, so I don't go around trying to get lists deleted, and I rarely even bother to vote against them, so had it been "List of notable vegetarians", I probably wouldn't have bothered, although I might have urged that it only carry the names of people who have publicly stated that they are vegetarian, with each claim sourced in footnotes. Grace Note 00:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I would have thought that, by virtue of being in an encyclopedia, the list clearly only refers to notable vegetarians. But if the lack of explicit mention of this is causing problems and delete votes, then by all means lets change the name to "list of notable vegetarians". Babajobu
I thought I'd mention that to me anyway, it wouldn't seem to make much difference if the title of the article was changed. Wyss 15:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep, References and a title-change are needed, but lists like this are one of the best things about wikipedia... I don't think there's a better place from which to jumpstart into a real topic of study...say, if I want to do a report on vegetarians, anarchists, Irish politicians, Nazis, golfers, directors, scientists, or pretty much anything else. It's a great resource, we just need to start citing. Hell, people are citing in the talk pages, they just need to start doing it on the main page.
  • Weak Keep, harmless and interesting. I would have voted for a plain keep but for the presence of the category. If delete wins, I hope someone will make sure that every entry here is reflected in the category. Tintin 19:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
With that vote, it's now in the refrigerator. Eggs are coolin', jello's getting hard. There's no way there will be a consensus for delete. Babajobu 19:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
These votes, at least, have helped me understand how people think about this list.... thanks! :) (at most a slim majority, not nearly a consensus, would seem to be happy to see it gone) Wyss 21:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the issues raised here have given me (and I'm sure others) real food for thought. It's clear to me now that criteria for admission to the list must be better clarified. It can't simply be allowed to be a list of "people who vegetarians are proud to call vegetarian." And I'm a vegetarian who's interested in lists of vegetarians. Babajobu 21:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, if this had been called Famous people claiming to be vegetarians I wouldn't have nominated it, since that's so easy to cite from the public record. Wyss 00:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as category ··gracefool |☺ 07:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above, seems to be relevant for Vegetarianism, however should be renamed as Famous Vegetarians. Piecraft 14:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but check each entry carefully. Maybe have a Vegan section too. --TimPope 18:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - The main thing is that these people professed to be vegetarians, and so that is interesting, even if we cannot "prove" that they were 100 per cent vegetarian. It's a perfectly interesting page. Davidgauntlett 19:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hardly encyclopaedic, just as "list of one-armed, blind lathe workers" would be. --Daveb 12:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep-It is quite interesting. User:HistoricalPisces
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fug

Pointless entry should be on 'pedia. Irishpunktom\talk 11:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as neologistic dicdef. We've got an article on smog which should suffice. - Mgm|(talk) 12:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dicdefs can fug off. TheMadBaron 12:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a neologism, but a dictdef with a better entry already in Wiktionary. —Cryptic (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Groeck 18:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Move to Wiktionary. ♠ DanMS 00:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. — JIP | Talk 09:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Ivor Linton

By my opinion this article is a hoax and therefore I list it for deletion. The bio is very strange and I found no information whatsoever on this person. If he would have been as well known as the articles implies, something would have popped up. gidonb 00:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Ah, I think I see the problem. From what I can tell - and this is difficult because of Wikimirrors muddling the waters, but this article shows it clearly, with a bibliography that refers to original source documents from the 1950s: he was also referred to as Ivor Joseph Linton, and also by his initials. Israel's diplomatic archives mention "J.I. Linton" as the source of 1954 messages from Tokyo, for instance. Keep. DS 13:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks DS, since the problem was a factual one, I will stop the process. gidonb 13:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting this article for deletion page, anyone. gidonb 13:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe gidonb's vote above, and the consensus here, is meant as speedy keep. Chick Bowen 15:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That is correct, thank you Chick gidonb
  • speedy keep please admins, now that the nomination has been withdrawn ··gracefool |☺ 07:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extensive reading

This feels like an advertisement, somehow, especially with the link to a FREE COURSE at the bottom. But it's not obviously an advertisement. DS 13:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • delete non-encyclopedic howto at best. — brighterorange (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement or not, it's non-encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 13:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I reckon this does count as an advert, 'cos it was probably created to drive traffic to the linked website, even if the entry itself is irrelevant to the site. CLW 16:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisment on how to learn to speak english well, written in poor english. Nateji77 16:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-encyclopedic content. Groeck 18:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dapper's

It looks like a mere advertising, and so I put it up for deletion. Conscious 13:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - doesn't strike me as notable enough. A chain of 40 restaurants, maybe. A chain of 4, no. CLW 15:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. notability not established enough to warrant marking for cleanup. Nateji77 15:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad and not notable. Groeck 18:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. Gamaliel 18:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like an advertisement. No assertion of notability. ♠ DanMS 00:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

[edit] Shweta lal

Would have speedied as vanity, but "singing sensation" counts as a claim of notability, I think. I found two "Shweta Lal"s on Google; one is a geophysicist from California, and the other is a client of a matrimonial agency. I don't think celebrities need to entoll with matrimonial agencies. DS 13:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Very likely NN/vanity. Certainly unverifiable at least. A true "sensation" would have at least one Google hit somewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain – her name is North Indian and I basically being from that region only, I have never heard of this “singing sensation”. Is anyone knows anything more about her? I am requesting the user User:Zora who knows more than me about Bollywood and about singers, and perhaps she may be having an idea about this “singing sensation”. --Bhadani 14:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - the Google hits don't related to this particular person, so nn CLW 15:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Never heard of her. Not that I'm as much of an expert as Bhadani thinks. Zora 17:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, second sentence is fluff. "most beautiful" is POV and a singing sensation who people in the area never heard about and who doesn't garner any Google hits adds up to a delete in my book. - Mgm|(talk) 21:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete– I've never heard of her. User:Nichalp/sg 13:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Deleted +5/-0 User:Nichalp/sg 18:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). I came to 16 deletes and 12 keeps. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gracey (Leontine) Elementary School

Badly formatted substub on a non-encylopaedic topic. Primary school with no assertion of notability, inherent or otherwise. Delete. Proto t c 13:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Why would an article about a school assert it's inherent notability?--Nicodemus75 11:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do you feel the burning need to query everyone whose opinion differs from your own? Many people believe schools are inherently notable, and vote 'keep', irrespective of the quality of the article, the potential for improvement, or the possibility of that improvement. Coversely, many people (I am one of them) believe a school is four walls and a roof, actually take note of WP:NOT, which suggests a school (particularly a ratty little stub) not encyclopaedic in itself. Proto t c 12:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Which part of WP:NOT says that? Kappa 00:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information does not directly relate to this stub. It does not specify anything relating to this article. Secondly, "Wikipedia is not a directory" isn't expressly in WP:NOT. Should there not be some reason for why this article should be deleted? There are numerous articles about grade schools specifically (i.e. Kathy Caraway Elementary School, Freetown Elementary School, Massachusetts, and many many more), why should this one be discriminated fromt he rest? Define what makes Wikipedia a directory and what makes it an encyclopedia. This decision seems pretty arbitrary considering the number of schools listed on Wikipedia with no inherent notability whatsoever. This article is, granted, liable for deletion as it is only a stub, but this is the only reason thus far. Steven Kippel 14:45, 26 September 2005 (PST)
Being a stub is not actually a criterion for deletion, unless the deletionists have held yet another poll to make it one and I missed it. Grace Note 01:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Jwissick 13:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete cruft. Dunc|☺ 16:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please this subject is encyclopedic based on the definition of the word so why should we erase this Yuckfoo 18:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't even provide the info most other school articles include. And I do not agree with Yuckfoo. Schools are often named after famous people, but that doesn't have anything with the school as an institution itself. I don't particularly like school stubs, but if this is to be kept it should at the very least include enrollment info, ethicity of students, and any historically important aspects like the other schools we've got. As it stands now it doesn't even provide the most basic of information a good "definition" would have. - Mgm|(talk) 21:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is a verifiable, public, institution, that actually exists.... but it's not encyclopedic.Gateman1997 21:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability, and almost fails to establish existance. --Carnildo 23:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am in the process of expanding this article. Bahn Mi 01:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and allow for continued improvement. Kappa 01:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The fact that 87% of students have free or reduced lunch seems a particularly significant fact that deserves mention in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Kappa 01:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. per m:eventualism, please accept it. --Vsion 02:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet another verifiable permanent public institution to keep. --Gene_poole 03:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per the usual reasons. Constant nominations for school articles discourages any serious work at improving articles, since nobody wants to invest serious time, knowing it will probably be wasted. This article has *not* been made instead of another more worthy article. It has been made in *addition* to other articles. This AFD nomination has been *instead* of making more worthwhile productive contributions to wikipedia. --rob 04:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • At the same time, constant, uncritical "keep" votes on school articles discourages people from nominating them for deletion, even when they are unverifiable hoaxes. --Carnildo 04:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Well actually I did vote against the last unverifiable school here. Take a look at who created that article, and you'll see it's not the "blanket keepers" who create unverified school articles. Now, for this school, I see different mentions of it in different places like this article, which mentions a former principal, who died in a car accident. It specifically named the school and the district. If this is a hoax, it's well done, involving multiple web sites, and a false death report. --rob 05:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • It would be a good thing if people were discouraged from nominating verifiable public institutions for deletion. Grace Note 07:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vegaswikian 05:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All verifiable public institutions are encyclopaedic. Why not spend your time creating rather than wasting yours and ours trying to destroy? Grace Note 07:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and go ride a bike. —RaD Man (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would like all those that vote keep on schools so they can get expanded to take a break from creating stubs and actually do some expansion of the schools that survived AFD. I would also like to see less of an US bias. Voting keep and expand and subsequently leave it lying around doesn't improve my trust that someone will ever expand them past stub level. - Mgm|(talk) 09:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I probably should take the phrase, "those that vote keep on schools" to be a personal attack. Why make the assumption that it is "those that vote keep on schools" who are responsible for stub creation? Lately, "those who vote delete on schools" have been creating stub articles, including hoax schools to try to make a point. As to an article "lying" [sic] around - give articles some time to grow, just because I believe a school article should be kept for later expansion, doesn't mean I have time to edit and change it right now. The call for immediate re-write is counter-productive.--Nicodemus75 11:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, time doesn't allow it. Too busy voting to keep them to have the time to fix them. Perhaps you'll join me in working on school articles instead of trying to rid us of them? Grace Note 00:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Maybe I'll expand this article some time next year.--Nicodemus75 11:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete crap. Dunc|☺ 12:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    Fix crap. Grace Note 00:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    Many are trying to, by deleting it. Proto t c 11:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    I hope the garage doesn't take the same approach to my car tomorrow! Grace Note 11:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Yellow Pages. Pilatus 12:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and stop with the school nominations this is getting out of hand. --Aranda56 22:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If the single most noteworthy point is that 75% of its students qualify for a free lunch program, then what about this school makes it worth including here? Denni☯ 02:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    It's a school. The single most noteworthy point about it is that it's a school. Glad I could clear that up for you.Grace Note 01:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 01:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. *drew 08:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools (see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep). ··gracefool |☺ 07:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --redstucco 09:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    I note that you are the fourth or fifth person to add nothing to this discussion except to say "delete". Do you really think it's constructive to do that? I'm not saying you shouldn't do it. I'm just wondering whether you actually do think you're contributing to the encyclopaedia by doing it. Grace Note 01:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A superior stub, well up to encyclopedic standards. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Well written, formatted and referenced stub. We should be encouraging this type of participation. Unfocused 21:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all public schools. Gazpacho 23:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    And keep all private ones? At least you're not pretending to have a neutral point of view ;-) Grace Note 01:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Just another little known school. Dudtz Image:Kardos.jpg 9/29/05 7:10

Every encyclopedia in the world is full of little known bits of information, but that doesn't make it more or less equal as far as encyclopedic information is concerned. I thought encyclopedias were meant to learn about things, not to read about what everyone already knows about. By the way, nobody cares. glocks out

[edit] Update

A major update on this article was just accomplished minutes ago. Review the article and resubmit your votes. --glocks out 00:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Nice expansion glocks, definitely a solid article now, thanks for proving it can be done. Kappa 01:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Very nice indeed. Lots of items of interest there now, including why Leontine Gracey has a school named after her. Thank you very much. Unfocused 03:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Don't you just love it when people say "save" or "don't delete" or "leave" when the proper term is "keep"? They might just as well shout "I'M A SOCK PUPPET! IGNORE ME!" right at the start. — JIP | Talk 09:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Godless Monsters Incorporated

Band vanity. Google gives nothing for "Godless Monsters Incorporated" or "Godless Monsters Inc". There are plenty of hits for "GMi", but those are unrelated, as are the ~600 hits for "Godless Monsters". DS 13:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, looks like vanity. allmusic never heard of them. No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC that I can see. Also check their "label", Kriminal Rekordz, I'm putting an Afd on that, too. Friday (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per DS CLW 15:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete in agreement with nominator --Neigel von Teighen 15:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Not much is known at this point about the GMi's debut LP" pretty much admits they arent notable. Nateji77 15:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Leave "Not much is known at this point about the GMi's debut LP" because the LP hasn't been released yet only samplers both artists are well known in Buffalo individually and have each released several albums and been on college radio stations asrecently as last week unsigned comment by 65.145.39.79 (talk • contribs), user's third edit
  • leave - In your guidlines for deletion musical group section it says if a group has done a national tour they are eligible for inclusion godless monsters did the drug induced insanity tour from january to july 2005 hitting such cities as detroit, mi cleveland and toledo oh, pomona, ca kansas city, mo south bend indiana , myrtle beach, sc and atlanta, ga among others unsigned comment by 65.145.39.79 (talk • contribs), user's fourth edit (third located immediately above)
    • Can we get some proof of that, please? A mention somewhere on Google?

DS 16:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

  • damn sorry they arent on your precious google they didnt even have a web site at all till the start ofthe year and geocities sites dont turn up on google
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was already deleted. — JIP | Talk 09:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vyrkantzya

  • delete patent nonsense. See the deletion vote on Emmanuel De Cériz for proper context. --Ghirlandajo 13:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • delete unless its a mispelled version of something actual. Zero hits anywhere I tried. The article says it all: "Vyrkantzya is ... unknown" 'nuff said. KillerChihuahua 14:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Nonsense. CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above -Parallel or Together? 14:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - zero Google hits CLW 15:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete patent nonsense and thus speedy candidate. Groeck 16:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for original nonsense. Amcfreely 20:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, more Ceriz nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Maintain Although very unknown subject this is one of my researches based in few and rare manuscripts.User:ChairLady 03:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, then delete as original research. Speedy and BJAODN just like Virtz as patent nonsense. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - I've tagged this along with Virtz for the reason CSD A1 (patent nonsense)... Also consider banning user Chairlady for making a series of nonsense posts and apparently using sockpuppets to vote Keep: KerikNeter, CyberAnalyst, Hawking, VanVogt, & Margarida Rebelo Pinto - see AfD here [15].--Isotope23 20:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ikon technologies

Nothing more than corprate spam Jwissick 13:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - advertising CLW 15:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN advertising. Groeck 18:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was moved, and extra stub deleted. Friday (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rita Queen of Speed

There is already a more comprehensive page on this subject called Rita Queen of speed (note different capitalisation) I'd suggest this one is deleted and the comprehensive one renamed correctly. LeonGibbon 13:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC) )

I've dealt with this. I deleted the sub-stub at Rita Queen of Speed, and moved Rita Queen of speed there. - SimonP 14:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Distressed farmers of the 1920's

Orphan, not exactly an elegantly named article - this might grow into an acceptable article after some heavy expansion work, but I don't know if we need the information under that article title -- Ferkelparade π 14:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, but add the link (which is reasonably good) to Agriculture, whose History section could use expansion. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • DeleteClumsy title. Not factually accurate either. Giano | talk 20:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't think there is much support for the view expressed in the article, it could come under the category of original research. Not clear where it is referring to: America? Europe?; probably not Asia or Africa. There is already an article on the Dust Bowl which covers the 1930s US rural experience in part.--User:AYArktos | Talk 21:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Friday (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zeke One

Zero relevant Google hits, I cannot establish notability -- Ferkelparade π 14:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks like a nn-bio speedy delete to me, and so tagged. Friday (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You're probably right, but it's a borderline case, so I decided on AFD. I won't cry out in indignation if somebody speedies it, though :) -- Ferkelparade π 15:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 18:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lord of the gays

I don't even know how to list this, its nonsense but not patently so. KillerChihuahua 14:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete offensive nonsense. --Ghirlandajo 14:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete patent nonsense and probable vandalism --Dachgruschow 14:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Unverified, and in its current form unverifiable, tosh. Speedy delete under WP:CSD Article 7 as I can't discern an assertion of this person's importance or significance. Sliggy 14:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy would be nice, wasn't sure if it fit profile. KillerChihuahua 15:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. less than well-intentioned "contribution." Nateji77 15:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - daft and offensive CLW 15:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as offensive nonsense. Groeck 18:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kriminal Rekordz

This article about an alleged record label was created by anons around the same time as their leading act, the Godless Monsters Incorporated, who are up for Afd. I couldn't find them on allmusic. They do have a geocities site, but I see nothing to indicate any notability (or even verifiability, aside from their own website.) Friday (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - non notable label - if they were notable they surely wouldn't be operating with a Geocities website. CLW 15:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN - 35 (real) Google hits. Groeck 17:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Leave- Kriminal hasn't been on the web long so they should be deleted??? that hardly seems fair they're big in NY but not nationally just like project deadman and badmindz who are also on the site unsigned comment by 65.145.39.79 (talk • contribs), user's first edit
  • Leave - In the rules for musicians it says if the band is the biggest on the local scene it gets a page....no other rappers in buffalo are selling out shows or have had a song on the radio (Ghost - Yo Shit Iz Broke) unsigned comment by 65.145.39.79 (talk • contribs), user's second edit (first located immediately above)
  • Delete. Doesn't appear particularly notable as per nom. Word. --Daveb 12:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. I spent a fair amount of time looking this over, the raw numbers are 19 delete votes to 4 keeps, so starting at that level there seems to be a pretty good delete consensus. G4DGET put together a very detailed case for keeping the article which from the looks of it generated a lot of discussion. From my experience when someone presents solid data that supports a keep decision after a AFD is underway it really shows in the votes cast afterwards. In this case most of the votes cast after the case was made were delete votes. The main disagreement was WP:Music and it doesn't look like the case G4DGET made convinced enough folks. I didn't discount any votes for or against as I didn't see any socks (for once) Rx StrangeLove 18:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Davien Crow

Delete. Vanity. I initially speedied this as recreated content (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davien Crow) but the content of that article was: Davien Crow is the singer for the Richmond , Virginia band Sin Star. This is much longer, and makes many assertions of notability, but it is still a vanity page about a non-notable musician. android79 15:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep see my arguments to your claims below.G4DGET 22:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

(NB. The original post of what follows, authored by User:G4DGET, was an extensive commentary stating the reasons she believes the article deserves a place in WP. Owing to its great length, there was some difficulty reading the page. Furthermore, as lengthy, essay-like commentaries are not usually ideal for AfD project pages, I have refactored the comment with an eye to preserving its main arguments yet shortening its length. The original may be found on this AfD's Talk page. As I have refactored the content of comments in a contentious discussion, I abstain from providing any opinion in this AfD.—encephalon 09:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] MY ARGUMENT ABOUT WHY THESE ARTICLES SHOULD BE KEPT

The Requirements Sin Star, Mind Pollution, and Davien Crow meet are listed in the following sections. I have highlighted the guidelines Wikipedia has set and my argument as to why all 3 articles should be kept. If anything as i've said perhaps Mind Pollution should be deleted or be merged under Sin Star and Davien Crow should be kept because of his accomplishments seperate to the band. This is as I said in relevance to Sin Star, Mind Pollution, and Davien Crow articles and their redirects.

  1. WP:MUSIC
    • Being on at least one international or national tour. They have been on 2 which are easily identified in the intangible Internet Archives at Wayback Machine for several sources, claims, and sites that have had information on them. Mainly the official ones.
    • Having 2 Albums (does not specify full length or ep) released on a record label. They have been released on Mushroomcloud Records, Kid Atrium Music, Red Pill Music (self owned), and Independantly. Mind Pollution had to remove their materials with the exception of what was released by Mushroomcloud Records from the market in all forms because of legal trouble noted in several sources.
    • I also realize Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on is in WP:MUSIC but I beleive you guys are being biased and I am going to fight this for as long as I can.
  2. Wikipedia:Notability
  3. In Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies
    (Refactored: see AfD Talk Page for details of User:G4DGET's comments—encephalon 09:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC))
  4. in Wikipedia:Importance
    (Refactored: see AfD Talk Page for details of User:G4DGET's comments—encephalon 09:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC))
  5. Wikipedia:Fame_and_importance
    (Refactored: see AfD Talk Page for details of User:G4DGET's comments—encephalon 09:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC))
  6. THE GOOGLE TEST
    (Refactored: see AfD Talk Page for details of User:G4DGET's comments—encephalon 09:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC))

I Think I have pointed out enough in fact. FAIR IS FAIR, IT MEETS YOUR RULES & GUIDELINES and hopefully you will reconsider the biased delete nominations that have been made because of the voters never reviewing the information beyond what the person who first nominated said (which included false information I may add, perhaps to try to get it deleted faster) or only did so at a galance. If Anything you should leave Davien Crow and then Merge Mind Pollution under Sin Star since they are after all the same band. Another solution would be to merge all 3 and another would be to only keep Sin Star & Davien Crow. Davien however has accomplishments outside of his band that are notable. G4DGET 22:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete. NN. having a poem published does not make you a poet, let alone a notable one. getting a picture on the wall at school does not make you an artist, let alone a notable one. but since the musicianship seems to be whats really at issue, i say Delete until the 2006 album is released, then if (and only if) that album meets the music test recreate. Nateji77 15:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I still think this is recreated content, it's just trying to be sneaky by not being the "Sin Star" article. No allmusic info, looks like vanity. Delete until such a time as he meets WP:MUSIC guidelines. Friday (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I wasn't aware that Sin Star had much the same content at one point. It looks similar, but I'm not sure if it's similar enough to speedy. I'll take a closer look. android79 15:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Ooops, I didn't mean to imply that the content was neccessarily all that similiar. I just thought since the only remote claim to fame for Crow was Sin Star, the subject of the article was pretty the same as the deleted one. Friday (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I added MindPollution, Mind-Pollution.net and SinStar to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. DavienCrow will probably be joining them. Nateji77 16:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
ditto Corey Wade. Nateji77 16:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirects to deleted articles don't need listing at RfD. They can be speedied. I deleted the ones that were. android79 16:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Vanity. Groeck 17:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, vanity, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Get rid of it Sean 22:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment that's a fairly long explaination. 132.205.94.190 22:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per author. She has done enough to establish notability for mine. Capitalistroadster 23:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Thankyou for taking your time to review the info and for your vote.G4DGET 05:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - OK. Until and unless the lengthy rebuttal has been shown to be false, let's keep it. G4DGET, thanks for all the work you put into this. Your tone is a little strident, but it's not like you don't have reason. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: this could get ugly. People may see this as a threat or bully move. Relevant quote: I'm telling you now this isn't going to be the end of this, it's not a threat on my behalf, you are talking about a band that has fans who tricked MTV.com into posting about them. FWIW, I don't see anything in the rebuttal to suggest this guy meets WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • He has recorded at least 2 albums on labels that fit the criterea, has gone on 2 national tours which can be verified in the internet archives we provided as sources on the article. You only have to meet 1 requirement of WP:Music They all meet at least 2 G4DGET 04:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Also this. android79 23:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Zach (Sound Off) 23:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment ZACHS vote should NOT be counted, he did not even give a reason. Perhaps a puppet ? G4DGET 05:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • if you look [18] you'll see that his first edit was on 9 August 2004. that's a long time to keep a sock in a drawer. Nateji77 14:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I am an administrator, plus I do not have to give a reason for my deletion vote. Zach (Sound Off) 05:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, you do. This is a discussion, not a poll. Grace Note 07:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
        • i thought they counted less. after all, "delete per nom" or "delete per above" is essentially the same as simply "delete." Nateji77 14:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Ok, you want a reason, fine. After reading the comments below after placing this vote, I can see that the article is also used for self promotion. And I am also not amused at the tatics outside the AFD that the person who is defending the article is doing. Zach (Sound Off) 17:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity -- (☺drini♫|☎) 23:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --fvw* 23:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • How can you honestly say that after reading any of that ? G4DGET 04:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable vanity. --Carnildo 23:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: For those keeping score, this could also be seen as a threat. Friday (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable vanity. User is clearly writing about himself as is demonstrated by the threat posted to Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. -- Francs2000 23:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you think a professional musician has time to do all of this ? I am writing about them I own the fan site located here G4DGET 04:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
no, the problem is that people don't think a professional musician has time to do all this. Nateji77 14:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, vanity. If he has "trademark neon red hair", how come the photo shows him with black hair? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That's why there was a Date listed Genius ( ;, not to mention that is a WRONG REASON TO VITE DELETE also on the Sin Star page there was a photo of this. I also uploaded a photo of his neon red hair but did not have a chance to add it to the article because of all of this. Check for yourself if you'd like G4DGET 04:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • WRONG REASON TO VITE DELETE No such thing. A vote's a vote when it comes from a legitimate editor. --Calton | Talk 06:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment only for now: The publications and awards Crow received from Poetry.com and the International Library of Poetry are not indications of notability. They reportedly accept everything. See [19], [20]. --Metropolitan90 02:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That does not change the fact that the book is published and widely avalible. It is not a book he self published, it is a book containing his published work. G4DGET 04:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment only for now: Halo guitars make custom guitars and push them. As for "endorsement", the Halo web site does not have a listing under either Mind Pollution or Sin Star or Davien Crow on their artists page. Lack of inclusion makes me doubt the claim that Mr. Crow is being endorsed or that Halo might be making a signature guitar unless it is just a custom order. (Sounds like claiming someone is a published author because of a Vanity press publication.) More later, I may even vote register my opinion. WCFrancis 02:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment You may contact HALO GUITARS at wford@haloguitars.com , artist@haloguitars.com about their endorsement. The endorsement has simply not been put up because Davien has not recieved his guitar. When asking please Reference Sin Star's Endorsement and Custom Invert. G4DGET 04:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Look the point summarized is I am willing to work with you guys on why these were deleted but until now noone has given us any feedback and has even lied about stuff trying to get it deleted. All 3 of them meet the sufficient amount of requirements for WP:MUSIC, the guidelines in WP:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies, Wikipedia:Importance, Wikipedia:Notability (the fact that suicide girls, gidget gein, and marilyn manson are involved and can be verified in those links should proove that) , Wikipedia:Fame_and_importance mainly the part stating "There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)" If you can't tell the community of Myspace.com and Livejournal.com alone are enough to meet this criterea you are blind. If you do google searches, go to forums and search their names, or visit internet archives you can find un-disputable information on the band from reputable sources, first hand accounts that are years older than these discussions, and intangible archives kept by internet archives. IF you want more detail read my above rant, your right I do sound mad about this, because I can't see how you can say they do not meet criterea or that this is a vanity page. Please accept my apologies for anything you have taken to be rude and please re-consider changing your vote. What Harm could it do ? BTW I am not trying to bully anyone, I can show you the location of the people threatening to come here and vandalize the hell out of Wikipedia. But I do not want that to be part of your decision at all. PLEASE THINK IT OVER G4DGET 04:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment To anyone that recieved a personalized message on their User Talk page that took it as spam please forgive me, I was simply replying a little more personally to your vote's reasons in hopes that you would be willing to civily discuss them without making tons of uneeded comments on here. My point has been made but I still feel some of you are ignoring it because of various reasons G4DGET 05:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most of the so-called markers of notability are meaningless and occasionally false. As for I am not trying to bully anyone, that's transparent bullcrap, and I'm putting G4DGET on notice that my vote is final and not up for any discussion whatsoever. Don't even try. --Calton | Talk 06:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It does much more harm to deny this editor her article than it does to let her have it. Wikipedia is far too stringent when it comes to bands anyway. We could happily include articles on any band that is verifiable, so long as they were written neutrally, and none of the delete voters would even notice! Grace Note 07:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This place is intended as an encyclopedia, Dr. Zen, not as a personal psychotherapy site. And the harm is the precedent that anyone who screams loud enough, no matter how bogus their arguments (and these arguments are very bogus, indeed) can get an article to promote their pet cause/project. --Calton | Talk 16:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


  • A detailed argument deserves a detailed response. It seems that all but one of the points given don't establish notability. No one has noted a specific actual national tour they were on (their own tour, not a one or two-time guest). The music guidelines require release by a major label or major indie label, meaning one "with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". Publishing on poetry.com also is not notable; the idea is that someone's own entire work, more than a small amount of poetry, is published. Having things on the web, whether personal or business sites, reviews, blogs, forum posts, etc. are not notable unless read by many tens of thousands of people. Anyone could join BMI, and lots of non-notable garage bands are listed on sites and forums on the same page as other names. So the notability question comes down to one point, his cult following: if it exists, Davien Crow and his band are notable. If there is a small or no cult following, they are not notable.
  • Upon examination, it seems that there is not a significant cult following. Davien Crow gets 0 mentions on a xanga search, and the same for "sin star"; one blog ring for sin star has only 4 members. Sin Star has 849 MySpace friends, compared to a random 18-year-old with 769. No actual cult following here. Delete. DDerby(talk) 06:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per the arguments given by DDerby. --G Rutter 08:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with the assessment by DDerby that most of the facts given to establish notability aren't very relevant. To me it comes down to one thing: the band. If this guy is notable is any way, it's as a musician, right? As far as I've been able to see, certain things are lacking: There's no mention in allmusic. There's no indication of an actual national tour. There are no records on a major label or an important small label. Having rubbed elbows with more famous people doesn't automatically make one famous by extension. It's unfortunate that things got heated and that the band supporters took this Afd personally. Please understand, this is not a judgement that the subject of the article is bad or untalented. This is simply about whether this subject belongs in an encyclopedia. Many, many bands that are real, have played lived, and have made recordings have been deleted before. Friday (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
agree. it was before my time, but i think a lot of people would have voted delete on Ian MacKaye, claiming Dischord Records to be a self-published vanity label, during Minor Threat or even Fugazi's early days. Crow's only 20, word will get out--or it won't.Nateji77 14:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Once again, Delete: DDerby is right on the money here. Having a livejournal group devoted to something doesn't make it notable. --Sean Jelly Baby? 15:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment So being featured on a site with 35,0000 members, having user upon user on place like myspace.com, having a site againsr you with 6,000 people on it's LJ community, having toured nationally, and so on and so forth is not notability ??? ... lol What about notability in a particular SCENE of music G4DGET 23:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, part of the Sin Star/Mind Pollution set of articles. I would like to point out that fighting tooth-and-nail to get an article kept (and even resorting to sockpuppets and insults and threats) not only doesn't work, it can also have the opposite effect and cause people to vote to delete out of ill will. When and if you participate further on WP, I hope these tactics change. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per DDerby and others. My vote is not a reaction to the strident defense of the article, but simply that all the arguments and citations, if analyzed, don't distill down to a lot of actual facts establishing notability. --MCB 22:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; non-notable. Ral315 WS 03:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, unencyclopedic. CDC (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 17:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vargas Gang, Ramirez gang

Nominated by User:Check two you. He/She writes in edit summary: "Need to be deleted. Need more evidence". See also Ramirez gang. Nomination completed by Zeimusu | Talk page 15:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain Zeimusu | Talk page 15:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep needs much work and references, but the Vargas Gang itself seems noteable. KillerChihuahua 15:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs much work and references. Dudtz 9/29/05 5:42 PM EST

I understand. But I found more reference on another Filipino gang. I would like the both of this artticles to be deleted and make references about it on the other article I'll write.

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Friday (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bwob

says it is non-notable. And it smells like a hoax. Unless someone can verify the existence of this 'war cry' then I propose delete. RJFJR 15:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - would clearly seem to be a hoax judging by the second half of the entry. CLW 15:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BølerLAN

Article about a non-notable LAN party, reads like an ad. I've left a note at the author's talk page to point out that WP:NOT an advertising medium, and I don't see how this can evolve into encyclopedic info. Delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 15:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. advert. Nateji77 15:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as either ad or vanity. Groeck 17:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Annette Daniels

WP:NOT a memorial. Non-notable; 360 Google results, no info on allmusic.com. Paul 15:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment the page looks much better now that it has been expanded; assuming all this info is valid, as it appears to be, then I'd withdraw the nomination. From my searches, it didn't appear that the page could reach this level of quality, but if it has then no reason to delete. Paul 21:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's not a memorial. Wikipedia has many articles on performers who are now deceased, but those articles are not deemed "memorials" to be deleted. A single line stating when how she died seems pretty fair and normal. Per WP:MUSIC "has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in a large or medium-sized country". Now, I think the "spirit" of the guideline covers numerous performances in opera in multiple cities: "Daniels appeared with a variety of opera companies in the United States including Houston, Washington DC, Dallas, San Diego, Cincinnati, and Portland. She also performed numerous oratorios as well as concert works with orchestras." . Finally, 360 unique hits on her exact name is not bad. --rob 16:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Allmusic appears to know her name, but has no info. Delete unless shown to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Someone who has lived in several cities and performed in each one, for example, is not the equivalent of having gone on a "national tour". I could be convinced otherwise with more info, but to me current article content does not suggest that she meets the music guidelines. Friday (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - WP:MUSIC guidelines are decidely skewed towards popular music. I'm no authority on opera, but how many artists outside of The Three Tenors actually could meet WP:MUSIC if you discount longer term stints they may do with a local opera company? It always seemed to me that most opera performers are like orchestral conductors: they work in a particular city for a while before moving on and taking an engagement elsewhere. Maybe I'm wrong about this... like I said I'm no authority on opera... but it would seem that perhaps a slightly different set of criteria should apply to opera performers.
There is a decent amount of information about Annette Daniels available, but I don't know nearly enough about the operatic world to have an educated opinion on this. NO vote.--Isotope23 18:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to vote Keep and thanks to Wahoofive for posting some references.--Isotope23 14:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: You make a good point. I'd probably be willing to suggest a keep, even if she doesn't meet the guidelines, if she can be shown to be an important opera singer somehow. Just being "an" opera singer isn't enough for me, tho. Friday (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: She seems to meet point 2 of WP:MUSIC as much as it could be applied to opera, consistently winning major roles with well-known companies, and her Carmen sounds like it approximated the opera equivalent of meeting point 6 for a local scene. If she'd had a full career I think notability would be clear by the end of it, so she gets the benefit of my doubt. Unlike sopranos and tenors, mezzos will rarely gain much fame outside of the opera world, so allmusic being quiet is unsurprising to me. The first viola of a major symphony is a notable violist, even though they're nowhere near as notable as those symphony's concertmasters; similarly, consistently getting lead mezzo roles makes an opera singer generally notable even if they're not as notable as the most notable opera singers are. — mendel ☎ 20:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • As a rule of thumb, I'd suggest if somebody flies her out to sing, she's notable. She seems to have performed in Houston 1990-92 [21], Houston 1995 [22], San Diego 1995 [23], Augusta, GA 1996 [24] Ohio 1997 [25] Omaha 1998 [26], Raleigh 1998-99 [27][28], LA 2000 [29], Knoxville 2000 [30] (requires login), Raleigh 2001 [31]. Multiple locations, undated: [32] Weak keep, seems to have been in demand nationally in last couple of years. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems reasonable to me. I took back my suggestion to delete, and I guess I'll say weak keep too. Friday (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per WP:music. She has done enough as an opera singer for mine. Perhaps we should have WP:classical. Capitalistroadster 23:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As casual opera fan devoted to my own local opera "scene" I admit that I don't recall having heard of this lady. But looking at the list of roles that she has sung and the places she has sung them, she is notable enough for inclusion. Hereis a nice article from the Houston paper about a production of The Barber of Seville she appeared in, illustrated with a photo of her. Crypticfirefly 03:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC) I should also add, that while she hasn't been "featured prominently" her performances have been reviewed on at least five ocassions in Opera News (a widely-read opera publication). Crypticfirefly 03:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep absolutely. Alf melmac 09:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Stop using Google and Allmusic as proof of notability, they're not even according to many exclusionists. ··gracefool |☺ 07:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James hellem

Can't find anything on Google. Perhaps possibilty name incorrectly spelt, but a "1700s communist" doesn't sound quite right anyway. (A thought: did the term "communist" only start with Marx?) Finbarr Saunders 12:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn and probable hoax ---CH (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible speedy candidate as hoax. There was no communist movement in the 1700s. Groeck 17:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and it certainly appears to be a hoax.--Isotope23 18:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. There was no such thing back then. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. *drew 08:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nn-bio--Doc (?) 18:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffree Star

Unencyclopedic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nv8200p (talk • contribs) 11:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC).

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedy if possible. Looks like an nn-bio to me, so tagged. Friday (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I put the article on deletion review.--grejlen - talk 23:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 14:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jelq

  • Delete. No valid references provided, seems to be something I would get in a email with the title 'fr33 va@gra!!1111 make l0v3 to he)r all nite longggo! Also, wikipedia = no orginal research, right? --ben dummett 21:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I might get an email with the subject "Ref!n@nc3 ur h0me" but that doesn't mean we don't need an article on mortgage. The article is not original research and references can be provided. If you'd like to help, check Thunder's Place (e.g. [33]). LWizard @ 00:03, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Then, kindly, provide these references. I hardly think a website entitled 'penis-enlargement-manual' is a valid or respectable citation source and reference. Until the quality and hence respectability and factual veridically of the article is improved, significantly, my vote will remain as thus. --ben dummett 09:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
You mean you just don't trust websites at all? Because as websites go, one entitled 'penis-enlargement-manual' seems like a good place to find information on penis enlargement. I don't suppose you trust the penis enlargement wiki at that site either, because wikis are completely unreliable and worthless, right? I've found that attacking an article for lack of references mainly happens when someone doesn't like the content. Xylanase has no references and never gets criticised because of it. LWizard @ 16:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
While I appreciate your vigour for this topic (lets not delve not much into psychoanalysis), however misguided it maybe, that doesn't change my initial argument, that we should strive for inclusive of more reputable sources, that have tested their hypothesis with the upmost respect for proper scientific method, etc etc. --ben dummett 05:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. My visit to wikipedia today was solely to find out what the hell "jelqing" is, and by god, there was actually an article about it! 68.13.248.151 04:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with last comment. Also, the information on the previously mentioned website seems even better than that of some highly ranked scientific paper. In the statistical analysis a large enough population for a trend was used. [Previous unsigned comment from User:80.58.35.236]. LWizard @ 04:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Cleanup. There are some 181,000 Google hits on Jelqing, so even if the subject may be objectionable, it is clearly notable. Groeck 17:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • strong keep based on number of google hits! There appear to be articles about the exercise in reputable publications, as well. — brighterorange (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I was all ready to vote delete, but by damn, this appears to be a legit term for the practice.--Isotope23 18:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless references are provided. --Carnildo 23:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Carnildo --Vsion 02:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep whether or not you like the topic ··gracefool |☺ 07:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 18:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Williams (wrestler)

Delete There are thousands of wrestlers working out of national guard armories. There is nothing notabale about this guy. 66.32.97.158 17:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Not only was he an important part of ECW (an influential promotion), he has owned and booked his own promotion for the better part of 9 years. His accomplishments go well beyond being simply a wrestler working in armories. Yes, he is a bit of a controversial character, and not entirely popular in his chosen profession, but wikipedia is not about making value judgements, but in capturing influential and notable information.

  • Controversy has nothing to do with it. Nothing you have listed is notable at all. There are hundreds of promoters who have ran shows for 10+ years. Also, you saw that he was an important part of ECW, yet nothing about ECW is mentioned. Shall we have an article for every independent wrestler in the United States? 66.32.97.158 17:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

- I doubt there are "hundreds" of promoters that have run for over a decade, but this discussion is not about other people, but rather if Ian Rotten (John Williams) is notable enough to merit an entry. While there are a myriad of other promoters, a very small number regularly book well known and well respected talents including Sabu, Samoa Joe, AJ Styles, et al. Simply put, his promotion (despite its questionable business acumen) is known as putting on highly regarded events, including arguably the most respected annual independant tournament, the Ted Petty Invitational. Outside of his ECW tenure (most notable perhaps for the already mentioned "Taipei Death Match"), he is well known in the industry for participating in (and occasionally promoting) the subset "Death Match" style. To answer your final question, yes, perhaps in time we SHOULD have an article for every independent wrestler, in the name of completeness. In the near term, however, lets focus on the more well known ones. Certainly Williams/Rotten qualifies.

This should not be deleted. Rather it should be expanded. And he is notable enough to warrant an article.
↪Lakes 20:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. McPhail 02:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn---CH (talk) 04:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. There is infact a large number of "keep" votes, except that they all say "maintain". In addition, all of these votes are from entirely new accounts, and the last edit to this page actually removed a "delete" vote [34]. I think that all these "maintain" have been cast by the same person, and due to WP:SOCK I am discounting them, and deleting this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Emmanuel de Cériz

nn vanity; also see Emmanuel_De_Cériz Groeck 16:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Incoherent gibberish bordering on patent nonsense — C Maylett 18:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. TheMadBaron 02:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, more Ceriz nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Maintain, plus Ceriz. Hits on google-Portugal=77 (www.google.pt) [Resultados 1 - 49 de cerca de 77 para Emmanuel de Ceriz. (0,21 segundos)] User:CyberAnalyst|(talk) 15:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Funny, when I search for "Emmanuel de Cériz" on www.google.pt, I get 10 hits, only 4 unique, and one of them is to this very page. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Maintain: non vanity evidences; also see Emmanuel_De_Cériz User:Kerik Neter 15:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Maintain: Absolutely coherent; recent books ("IGNIUS" and "Transmutalism") found in two different languages: Portuguese and Euskera User:Van Vogt 15:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Maintain votes were all by 83.132.240.187 in single edit. Groeck 16:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note that 83.132.240.20 (talk • contribs) deleted Groeck's comment above. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsense built upon nonsense. Denni☯ 02:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - no such prince exists. - Nunh-huh 08:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - such prince is very unknown now but lots of evidencies show that he will be very important in the near future over all geo-political situation. User:CyberAnalyst 13:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Mantain Non Vanity evidence. The author have published books in Euskera and in Portuguese. His name is sometimes written with small diferences: "Emanuel Ceriz" have 79 matches in Google Potugal (www.Google.pt); "Emmanuel Ceriz" have 74 matches in Google Potugal (www.Google.pt); "Emmanuel De Cériz" have 36 matches in Google Potugal; "Emmanuel De Céríz" have 62 matches in Google Potugal; "Emmanuel De Cériz" have 36 matches in Google Ireland (www.Google.ie); "Emmanuel De Cériz" have 62 matches in Google Ireland (www.Google.ie); "Emmanuel De Cériz" have 62 matches in Google Spain (www.Google.es)... and so on. Should not be deleted for this and many other reasons. User:VanVogt
  • Delete nn --TimPope 18:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Maintain, I have a book in my own hands of HRH Emmanuel de Cériz. Title: "Ígneos - Operadores do Impossivel Próximo". The book is published and registered with ISBN: 972-8698-02-X. In my opinion this is reason enough to maintain this item in Wikipedia. User:SirWallis|(talk) 20:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Maintain: I make some interchanging works about advanced axiomatic concepts in quantum physics with prince Emmanuel De Cériz. Also I've been reading some works of him made in colaboration with CERN; User:Hawking 20:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete HRH Emmanuel de Cériz is very well known in Euskadi, Spain, Portugal, Brazil, Ireland, Vyrkantzya, although his most preserved incognity. User:CyberAnalyst
  • Maintain How come could someone said that (HRH / SAR) Emmanuel de Cériz should be deleted from Wikipedia? I, myself, am a Brazilian writer as well and I read some of his books. How come someone could say (above) that he only appears in a few Google matches all from “geocities”. The following is a list of various sites where Prince Emmanuel Cériz is mentioned or with articles about him. Please judge for yourselves: User: Jorge.Amado Emanuel Ceriz (Google, Brasil):

br.dir.yahoo.com/Artes_e_Cultura/ Literatura/Autores/Ficcao_Literaria/, www.fusic.com/pt/emanuelceriz/, br.busca.starmedia.com/artes_e_cultura/, literatura/autores/Ficcao_Literaria/, www.semlimites.com.br/artesecultura/ ,artesecultura_literatura_autores_ficcaoliteraria_2.shtm, www.topbuscas.com.br/searchserver/ XcDirViewInCat.asp?ID=22&CMD=&page=10 www.topbuscas.com.br/searchserver/ XcDirViewInCat.asp?ID=21&CMD=&page=4 www.cbiarte.com.br/links_01/conteudo_109.htm www.geocities.com/EmmanuelCeriz/ www.sitesbrazil.com/categorias/artesecultura/ artistas/autores/ficcao_literaria/ficcao_literaria3.htm www.acheiaqui.com.br/www/ browse-arte-e-cultura-488-79.html pagewizard.clix.pt/tools/guestbook/ler/1252836/1 busquenet.globo.com/pginas/1737.asp www.ditudo.etc.br/buscador/artes_e_cultura/ literatura/autores/ficcao_literaria.html www.malavirtual.adm.br/heowhe.htm www.sintos.com/linkspagept.asp?artist=emanuelceriz

  • Maintain as per above. HRH Emmanuel de Cériz is also a registered member in the SPA (“Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores”, Portuguese Authors Society), as everyone should confirm:

Contactos: SPA Av. Duque de Loulé, 31 1069 - 153 Lisboa Codex TELEFONE 213 594 400 FAX 213 530 257 E-MAIL geral@spautores.pt User:Margarida_Rebelo_Pinto 01:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Maintain - Such prince really exists. - ChairLaidy 02:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Maintain HRH Emmanuel Ceriz is a writer as well as me. --TM (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oody boody

Delete hoax. 9 unique google hits, none of which support the notion that this is an actual phrase. TM (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I didn't find anything useful either. Groeck 17:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Even if it is a legitimate bit of slang (and I have my doubts), Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. — C Maylett 18:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and move to Wiktionary IF it's verifiable. ♠ DanMS 00:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and don't move to Wiktionary unless it's verified. TheMadBaron 02:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Do Not DELETE I found proof in Tobin's Spirit Guide and it is also referenced in Hemingway's the Fisherman and The Sea

  • Delete Jwissick 17:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Certainly doesn't belong here. Whether it belongs in wiktionary is another debate to be had. --Daveb 12:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 18:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ecomagic

I have been unable to verify the concept behind this article. A google search returns only 274 non-duplicative hits, many of them being Wikipedia clones. The rest appear to be blogs and personal websites. Google is not everything but absent some form of independent verification, I think we have to nominate it for deletion. Rossami (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep a fairly superficial view of some of the sites on Google shows that "ecomagicians" apparently have their own organization: the Dragon Environmental Network. It is a fringe group, but wikipedia is full of similar fringe belief articles. It's an overly vague stub thought that could stand a cleanup... even if it is just a better written and defined stub.--Isotope23 17:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not an established term. Groeck 18:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless a substantial amount of material is added during term of vfd. Currently its only a definition. Dlyons493 20:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dicdef. TheMadBaron 02:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary. Owen× ☎ 11:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Jwissick 17:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geek 2 Geek

Advertisement, no actual information. Aleph4 16:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete ad. --TM (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. Ah, Fred and Ginger... Heaven, I'm in heaven/And my heart beats so that I can hardly speak/And I seem to find the happiness I seek/When we're out together dancing geek to geek. Imagine Fred Astaire play the role of a geek? He could haved acted one, but he could never have danced like one. (Ray Bolger, maybe). Ginger, I'm afraid, was irrevocably poised and attractive. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert.--Isotope23 17:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Groeck 18:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 02:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Smallbone10 21:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ProfitLogic

Non-notable company. Reads a bit like advertising. Al 17:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete NN. Groeck 17:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom... and what kind of commas are those anyway?--Isotope23 18:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know what the character represents, but it's not a comma. It is Unicode 0x3001 (hex) or 12289 (decimal). It's a single character that includes the mark and the (apparent) space after it. ♠ DanMS 00:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising filled with nonsensical buzzwords. Gamaliel 18:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. TheMadBaron 02:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. You'll note every "keep" vote is from an anonymous IP address, with very few (or none) contributions outside this article and its AfD. At least this time they bothered to learn the correct term for "keep". — JIP | Talk 07:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Graffe's Wizard Compilation

per author: nothing much to say about it; also NN vanity. Groeck 17:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Wow, not much there. I halfway think it could be speedied, but I'll just say delete instead. Friday (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Isotope23 18:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep." This is a work in progress, not everyone is a Wikipedia ninja - things evolve.
  • Delete I guesss there isn't much to say. DES (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per article. --TM (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep." Tens of thousands of users use Graffe.com - and it is a respected community.
  • Delete. Borders on speedy. If the contributor says "there really is not much to say about it" then why did he say it? Isn't there an old saw about having nothing to say but saying it anyway? ♠ DanMS 00:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No attempt has been made to assert notability. TheMadBaron 02:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability has been established see graffe.com
  • "Keep." This is a work in progress, and the website in question is quite influential with regard to EverQuest and World of Warcraft. --J. Abd al-Hajjaj
  • Keep - it needs to be fleshed out more and it will be. Graffe.com has a page ranking with Goolgle.com of 5/10 which is quite high. Most sites on the web are 1-2 range. 5+ is considered to be an authority on a specific subject matter or collection of interests/topics. Cam
  • *Keep* - After over a year of posting there I still see new people (with over 1000 posts). It has a large active community and well deserves an entry. klietus
  • *Keep* - No reason to destroy it when it's just getting on its feet. We're making progress. -Ayralin
  • Keep ··gracefool |☺ 07:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn forum. --TimPope 18:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Casting Delete spell. Rolls 2D6.. Critical Success! :) --Sean Jelly Baby? 18:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity and nn. Sock-puppeting and erasing votes doesn't help their cause either. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 22:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confuzzled

dicdef and unnecessary WCFrancis 18:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. I was jsut about to put this on AfD, but you got there first. DES (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Neologism (and listed as such on the web). Groeck 18:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and move to Wiki Dictionary of Slang. Whoops! We don't have one. Oh, well... ♠ DanMS 00:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. Great word, though. TheMadBaron 02:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary if verified. I seem to remember it being used in quite an area, but I can't really prove it. Otherwise delete as dic def. - Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Transwiki is not an option. See above. Uncle G 07:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 18:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David "D.K." Row

as a columnist, he has to have had regualr media exposure, so I guess he doesn't quaslify for a speedy delete under WP:CSD A7 (nn-bio). But the article indicatesd nothing notable about him except that he is an art critic for a major paper. This is not enough for an article on wikipedai, IMO. Delete unless greater evidence of notability is presented. DES (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nominator. Groeck 18:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • (Weak) Keep. Because nominator noted that D.K Row is "an art critic for a major paper." Sounds notable to me, I suppose it all depends on how important you think art critics are . . . . I vote "weak keep" because the article should include more information about this guy. Be careful not to confuse him with notable New York artist David Row. Crypticfirefly 03:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per DES. -- Kjkolb 05:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. You can't get greater evidence than "Art critic for The Oregonian Oregon's largest newspaper." However you feel about art critics if he's got a column in a major paper, people will want to know about him. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep according to current policy. ··gracefool |☺ 07:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to the main article. --TimPope 18:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep and expand, he's the main art critic for the only state newspaper of a state that's as big as the whole NE corridor, need more about him though. KunstNow 16:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Neutralitytalk 18:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional Hurricanes

two hurricanes from the simpsons, two from family guy, one from invasion, none of them real. my guess is that this is more katrinacruft, but really, having the episode guides from these shows link to the hurricane article ought to be enough. even if desirable, unmanageable. Nateji77 18:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete in its present list form. An analytic article about hurricanes/violent storms in fiction could be interesting though, relationship to protagonist moods, catharsis, human insignificence ... Must have been already written many times in Eng Lit 101 and higher! Dlyons493 20:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to List of fictional hurricanes. Just because it's fictional, isn't a valid reason for deletion. Obviously Katrina and Rita have sparked interest in such info. - Mgm|(talk) 21:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Question would List of hurricanes in fiction be more or less useful? Dlyons493 22:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but move - either of the above names will work. -- BD2412 talk 01:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rename to List of cyclones in fiction so that it includes tornadoes, cylones, typhoons and hurricanes. Vegaswikian 05:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment that'd be better all right. Dlyons493 07:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: As long as this is moved I'm happy. I don't have a particular preference for which title to use. I just chose the shortest one, but I'm willing to go with anythign that's backed up by naming policy. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and useful topic. Rename if necessary. Kappa 10:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 19:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of sports announcers

Woefully incomplete and offers no utility beyond Category:Sports announcers. Al 18:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, definitely a job for a category (and probably some addl subcategories by sport) — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. users who wont use the requested articles pages will use this. categories dont have entries w/o articles, or room for brief notes. Nateji77 18:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see why Wikipedia could cater to those too lazy to use Requested Articles, and I don't know what brief notes could be useful enough to justify a list in this case. Category forever! Lord Bob 01:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. --Metropolitan90 01:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, its kinda helpful to know what sport these people cover. Kappa 01:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep but move to List of noteable sports announcers or some variation of that. Vegaswikian 05:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer it if the word notable was spelled correctly. ;) By the way. We won't list notable sports announcers anyway, so the notable bit is sort of implied in the title. - Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you mean "we won't list non-notable sports announcers anyway..."
  • Delete. List is overly broad, and just a bad idea anyway because it lumps all sports and all broadcast media (radio and TV) together. Should also include all notable dead sports announcers too, so just use categories instead. Quale 06:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but organise by date or Country to make it useful --TimPope 17:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another list that really adds nothing/little that can't be better done by a category. --Daveb 12:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Easier to just use category to keep updated. This list is almost like a solution looking for a problem. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 22:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 19:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duncan's Ghost

incomprehensible, irrelevant too sach1tb 18:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as nonsense? user experiment? No context or encyclopedic content. --MCB 19:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 19:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jalal Haddad

Vanity article. First, Do a search for this person on google, and you wouldn't find any relevant links. Second, I remember seeing the image in a a forum belonging to a certain user, the picture doesn't seem also to be a promotional cover. And last, check the contributions of the anon user who created the article, they are all vandalism. (Please if this article get deleted, delete the photo as well.) CG 18:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. A Google search for "Jalal Haddad" composer gets 0 results. --TM (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, no vote. User:Cedar-Guardian, who posted the nomination, seems rather proud of making nominations for deletion. He keeps a page of his nominations. This makes the nomination somewhat suspect. Could he be trying to up his count? ♠ DanMS 00:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • lol, the only reeason I'm keeping my nominations in my page is to remember to check them, because I usually tend to forget nominations I've made, or questions I've asked. It's not that I'm proud of it. CG 15:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Dan, people keeping a list of their nominations is not completely uncommon and it can serve many purposes, please assume good faith rather than jumping to conclusions. --TM (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected. I apologize to User:Cedar-Guardian. I retract the remark. No hard feelings, I hope. ♠ DanMS 00:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your apology. No harm done. :-) CG 15:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per CG. -- Kjkolb 05:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Right Media

Vanity page, self-promotion, non-notable Jdavidb 19:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete ad. --TM (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. TheMadBaron 02:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP and clean up. — JIP | Talk 07:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] STREONESHALH

personal essay, copyvio -- (☺drini♫|☎) 19:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I think it very likely that the contributor is the original author, in which case a removal of the copyright notice is all that is needed to avoid copyvio. No vote yet. DJ Clayworth 19:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It would need more than a removeal of a copyright notice -- it would need an explicit GFDL release, or a PD statement. But if the contributor is the author, those are perfectly possible. DES (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The main issue is original research -- (☺drini♫|☎) 20:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Whitby. Current article appears to be largely comprised of an original research paper on the etymology of the name.--Isotope23 19:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • As a new contributor (and the original author), I am not yet fully aware of all the Wikipedia conventions. I have removed the personal references and copyright notice (these were copied and pasted from a previous article). I hope this means the article can stay as it does bring together a number of accepted and important, little known pieces of information (sources supplied in text) --CW - U.T. 19:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Double underlined and emphasised Keep and cleanup. Move to Streonsalh and add on info about contemporary village. David | Talk 20:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite/cleanup and cite sources and references used to write article. — Wackymacs 20:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep information and cleanup as per David and Wackymacs Dlyons493 20:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with cleanup per above editors. WCFrancis 01:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (delete reasons given above are reasons for cleanup, not deletion) ··gracefool |☺ 07:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elvira_Thunderpussy

This (very badly written) entry apparently concerns a character in some unknown japanese movies, and has no apparent value, only linked from another similar article I've also marked for deletion. Corma 19:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn, 2 unique google hits. --TM (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Just curious, how does one push the limits of good taste? On second thoughts, maybe I don't really want to know. Dlyons493 21:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: "...push the limits of both good and bad taste." Umm, yeah. — C Maylett 22:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Jwissick 17:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electra_Raygun

This entry apparently concerns a character in some unknown (pornographic?) japanese movies. It is badly written with wrongly inserted links and no information that belongs in an Encyclopedia. Corma 19:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn, 7 unique google hits. --TM (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per TM. Dlyons493 21:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Jwissick 17:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Water laser

I'm not really sure what this is - it's an essay and original research; it definitely isn't in the style of an encyclopedia, and the author has re-invented the water hammer, the hydraulic ram and Pogo oscillations. BJAODN is a good home for this. Pilatus 19:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • delete non-encyclopedic.. and has got to be a hoax based on the things he says. — brighterorange (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Wikipedia is not for original research. Plus, the idea is garbage. Amcfreely 21:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- while "water lasers" apparently exist (primarily as dentist's tools instead of drills [35]), this article isn't about the ones that exist. Clear it out so someone else can start over later. — mendel ☎ 21:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- and get rid of the link to it in Hydraulics. Pfalstad 22:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but the article needs work. Found some valid Google hits on this: [36], [37], [38], [39]., etc. There is also a water laser used by dentists but it's not the same thing as discussed in this article. ♠ DanMS 01:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • delete sounds like a Pressure washer and there's no article on that. WCFrancis 01:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as original research. Groeck 16:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per DanMS. ··gracefool |☺ 07:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Expand and Clean up - seems to be relevant and according to Google this is a notable phenomenon as per DanMS. Piecraft 15:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete OR "I came across this phenomenon in an industrial plant" --TimPope 17:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete OR as the article clearly states: I have refined the concepts to produce this ‘Thought Invention’. It may prove impossible to build, and may have no useful purpose whatsoever, but it’s a great original invention! Paul August ☎ 20:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heroes Die Trying

band vanity, no WP:MUSIC, no amg. — brighterorange (talk)

  • Delete per nom. -feydey 19:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Friday (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 02:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn CLW 10:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Sasquatcht|c 22:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tawnee Stone

There are lots of naked people on the internet. The article does not establish why an encyclopedia should care about this particular one. Delete. Gamaliel 19:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Maybe Gamaliel has missed all the current controversery (e.g. AN/I, article's talk) surrounding this article, and is not trying to prove a point, but google has 1.6 million hits on "Tawnee Stone" [40] which is certainly notable enough for me. There are WP:NOR, WP:V and privacy issues to be resolved here, but making a blanket statement of not notable is not the way. While we are at it, see also the previous AFD. Dragons flight 19:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually that controversy is what brought the article to my attention. In my opinion this is not a way to avoid the controversy; the controversy is irrelevant since this article does not appear to be encyclopedic. I have read the previous vfd and wish to echo Quale's comment: "Google test is not persuasive for porn. Normal bio criterio would be more persuasive: accomplishments, awards, recognition outside the porn world". That's why I listed it again for vfd. The previous vfd contained many assertions of notability but no citations or proof. Gamaliel 19:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No, normal bio criteria should not be used because porn identities like this are not real people, they are roles in the same way Han Solo or Judge Dredd is a role. It's a work of fiction and the only verifiable information (and the only information belonging in the article, in my opinion) is that which the marketing/production studio provides. If you want to argue that this particular role is in some tangible way less significant than the bazillions of other minor fictional entities that worm their way into Wikipedia, then alright, that's your choice, but I don't agree. Dragons flight 20:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Han Solo (born 29 BBY), a character in the fictional Star Wars universe, is played by actor Harrison Ford", "A film based around the comic strip was released in 1995, starring Sylvester Stallone as Dredd." -- Both quotes from Wikipedia articles on these characters. Anetode 23:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Fine, but I don't see any evidence that this "role" is notable or encyclopedic either. Gamaliel 20:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Bleeh, how anyone ever got me to search adult industry news, I'll never know, but here you go. Dragons flight 20:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • "Well, to begin with, there’s Tawnee Stone, the Lightspeed Girl and Internet superstar who has become the single-girl site model for success since she exploded onto the scene in 2001. Despite four years time and the apparent short attention span of porn surfers, she still owns the company’s number one site." [41]
    • "A by-product of Jones' magic touch has been the emergence of a bona fide Internet star, Tawnee Stone (www.tawneestone.com), a sexy teen and Lightspeed contract player whose site has been a boon to amateur teen traffic." [42]
  • I'm not entirely convinced, but I'll withdraw my objections if the article reflects this information. Gamaliel 18:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Why are we starting a *second* AfD on her, when the last one was resolved as a firm keep in July? Careful attention has to be paid to keep the article biographical and unsensational, but she's certainly as famous in her own genre as Meryl Streep or Bob Hope were in theirs. Sherurcij 19:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If she is really that famous, then it should be no trouble for someone to come up with some sort of substantiation besides google hits, which we all know are manipulated by porn sites. I know the porn industry has its own news sites and publications, so let's see a citation. Gamaliel 20:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
You failed to address a single one of my comments, good job. As per "other substantiation", ASU seems to substantiate the facts being bandied about. (Although I do not suggest this information be mentioned in the biography, merely in the AfD since you asked for evidence)
Image:Saris.jpg
Sherurcij 20:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I directly addressed your comment about her fame. It is your comments that have failed to address anything relevant, since her true identity is not the matter at hand. Gamaliel 20:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Absolutey zero Nexis hits. Doesn't sound very notable to me. Google is an unreliable source. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Sherurcij. If she survived an Afd in July then I consider her notability or otherwise irrelevant a mere two months later. Dlyons493 21:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dragons flight's research and Sherurcij's argument. DES (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep; notable porn performer of the Internet age. And revert to standard biographical details; there is no reason Wikipedia should redact factual material (birth name, place, etc.) that would be standard in the bio of a scientist or politician. And additionally, keep on the basis of a previous AfD/VfD and no change in circumstances. --MCB 22:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment I echo this sentiment, her actual name and hometown are fairly basic - mentioning her academia is slightly less basic, the fact she used to waitress at IHOP is no different than trivia about Drew Barrymore working at McDonalds or something. But get rid of the details on her brothers' names and stuff, that starts to toe the line. Sherurcij 23:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No, there should be no personal information about a real life person in this article. The only known association between the stage name "Tawnee Stone" and the name of a real person is a couple of posting on a couple web forums by people claiming to have gone to high school with her. That is not a verifiable and credible source. Encyclopedias are supposed to be using information that is beyond reproach rather than relying on internet gossip. There are only 32 websites that claim to identify Tawnee Stone's real name and more than half of these are us and mirrors of us. The original research quotient runs very high in any attempt we would make to say who she really is. Dragons flight 23:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • In any other context, 10+ sources (independent of WP mirrors) confirming a fact would be considered more than enough, in the absence of any contradictory evidence. --MCB 22:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, I just went through and counted. Of the 32, there are 4 unique entries that are not obviously derived from us. All of these are posts on internet forums. (Of course, some of those might be based on reading it here as well.) Dragons flight 23:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough for mine. We shouldn't have different standards for actresses in various genre films. Capitalistroadster 23:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep & keep basic details as per mcb. These are a matter of public record, it's not like Wikipedia is allowing for a Tawnee-Stone-Stalker-Club to be hosted. Anetode 23:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Only they aren't a matter of public record because there are no real public records that anyone has located to say what the actress' name is. Dragons flight 23:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • USC Title 18 Section 2257 Custodian of Records: Lightspeed Media Rob Appgood 14867 N 66th Ave Glendale, AZ 85306 Anetode 00:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
        • And you have a copy, do you? Those records are required to be offered to the Attorney General upon request, but they are not public in the sense that you or I would ordinarily be allowed to see them. Dragons flight 00:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
          • No I don't. But if verification is your main concern here, you can try to contact Rob Appgood or Tammy Saris. Anetode 09:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gamaliel . --Vsion 02:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable celebrity. TheMadBaron 02:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability WELL established, and Wikipedia is not censored. -- Grev -- Talk 06:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Worthless information. CalJW 07:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Certainly in the top 10% notable performers in her field.--Nicodemus75 11:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability already established on the previous AfD, and I've seen no new information to contest it. Owen× ☎ 11:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep as per above Roodog2k (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Definitely keep. Sorry, but she's definitely notable. We have much less notable pornstars here anyway. Redwolf24 (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - just because you think it's worthless doesn't mean everyone does. ··gracefool |☺ 07:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, she is definately notable - possibly the most notable in this genre of internet porn. The article should only contain information that is verifiable as with any other Wikipedia article though. Thryduulf 12:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --R.Koot 18:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertising and totally nn. Marcus22 19:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep she's seem notable, but keep personal information out.
    • —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.132.121.141 (talk • contribs)., the only contribution from that IP address. Thryduulf 10:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

This AfD should be scrubbed of personal information once it's completed. Wikipedia is not in the business of investigative journalism, or of "outing" people whose real identities aren't public. What if we made a mistake? The potential risks are too large for something that isn't in our mission anyway. There's no educational value in the personal details of porn actresses, since their personal details have nothing to do with their notability.

Also, has anyone at any point contacted this girl to tell her what happened? She might appreciate a "heads-up" that she's been outed here. Isomorphic 07:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sasquatcht|c 22:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guy Porter

Not notable, web page promotion. feydey 19:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • This web site was created in September, 2005. Nothing to indicate notability. If comedian behind it had an article, I'd suggest a redirect there. But there's not, so delete. Friday (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Very notable, not web page promotion.
  • You must be mistaken. The article obviously states the site was created in August of 2003 (suggesting notability)and David Hamilton, the comedian which you speak of is in fact clearly already mentioned on Wikipedia,David Hamilton (Canadian politician). This is further evidence of the articles notability and legitamacy. I vote to keep it for the above reasons.Mendel the Monk20:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: BTW, you should mention that you're the article's creator in your comment. I see the date in the article was recently changed from 2005 to 2003. So perhaps this website is older that I'd thought. Friday (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Web page appears to be created recently, and it had a total of 174 hits when I checked (including mine). That it may have been created by a politician does not make it notable. Groeck 23:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm. This is a tough one. While you all make good points I'm inclined to think keep the article on the condition some things are cleaned up and revised. As far as not many hits on the discused webpage it is certainly gaining popularity since the site is already up to 508. I think the date discrepincy is a little curious but not unheard of. Often times someone doing research may copy a date wrong and than finding the error go back to change it. That doesn't really mean anything. Another thing that might have to be changed is some opinions in the article. Again though I think its alright aside from a few things here and there.|Sjop 00:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)|
  • I would strongly suspect that its hit count goes up as result of its AfD entry ;-). Groeck 00:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, User Sjop's only 2 edits [44] are to the article and this AFD. -feydey 10:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it having only 508 hits after all this time, if it was created in 2003, makes it even less notable. -- Kjkolb 05:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn CLW 10:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I just reverted blanking of this page AfD entry by 199.224.5.49. Groeck 13:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page, contents are non-verifiable speculation. Badly-written, too. -- Corvus 16:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] German saying

original research, insulting, incorrect generalization, unfixable POV Groeck 20:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nonencyclopedic. See Category:German phrases instead. Karol 21:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support delete nomination by Groeck for reasons given--User:AYArktos | Talk 20:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Don't let the Poles take the page away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donhalejandro (talk • contribs) 22:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
(First edit by this user - unsigned tag added by --User:AYArktos | Talk 00:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete. Pointless and unencyclopedic. This article was created just today (22 September 2005). It was probably created for the sole purpose of making a link to Heute gestohlen, morgen in Polen, which is also nominated for deletion. ♠ DanMS 01:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete along with insult example. W. C. Francis American of Gaelic descent 01:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Groeck and DanMS. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per reason stated above.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 23:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Lubbert

Not notable; 45 hits on Google. Groeck 20:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete No real assertion of notability. --InShaneee 20:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not every meteorologist is notable. Gamaliel 20:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd probably call it a nn-bio, but I didn't tag it as such. Friday (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. If for some reason not speedy deleted, delete as non-notable. DES (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Not just anybody can release a rawinsonde, but there's no claim he was a notable releaser of rawinsondes. So is releaser of rawinsondes in itself a sufficient claim to fame (as would say be true of even an undistinguished U.S. President). Perhaps not, so Delete. Dlyons493 21:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

It has been Speedy deleteed. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merged as required per GFDL for proper attribution. - Mgm|(talk) 21:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei: Allegations of being a cult

Delete because I have already merged article into Opus Dei and the Cult Issue: Allegations and Responses. No reason to keep this around. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • If you've merged it, you need to Redirect it there. No AfD required.Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, okay. There was never a proposed merge or anything. But I'll check if anything even links there. Thanks. And, now, do we have to wait for the AfD to die? I've gotten yelled at in the past for making a redirect while the AfD was still active.--Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 21:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • You can redirect it now, I don't think anyone will complain, as nobody else has voted yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Nah, I've done the redirect. There's nothing to discuss. A merge requires a redirect per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 21:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interactive Life Forms, Inc.

A one-line article about a company known only for one product, and that a minor varient on a well establsihed idea, does not seem notable to me. DES (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nominator. Groeck 23:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete already article for Fleshlight and Artificial Vagina. WCFrancis 01:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn CLW 10:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Jwissick 17:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jyutping names of Yue speaking cities with more than 100000 residents

unimportant list that is just taking up space. Abstrakt 21:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • deletefor above reasons Abstrakt 21:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete absolutely agree. Groeck 22:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Don't see many people typing that mouthful. Dlyons493 22:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft. --MCB 23:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. We have some pretty pointless lists in the Wikipedia, but this one deserves some kind of (booby) prize. ♠ DanMS 01:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparently this article is supposed to be a list of major cities where Cantonese is spoken, as romanized according to a Cantonese-specific system. I can't say that it's likely to be useful to English-speaking people as such. (This is the English Wikipedia.) The information would be better served by identifying the cities in the Cantonese (linguistics) article using the pinyin or other better-known English forms of their names. (Also, given the population of China, I would set a higher minimum population than 100,000 for a city to be mentioned specifically in Cantonese (linguistics).) --Metropolitan90 01:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - pointless. CLW 10:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Jwissick 17:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • MERGE the Jyutping names into the various city articles, and merge into Cantonese culture articles. 132.205.45.148 20:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International Fellowship

This is a non-notable article. This group has only a thousand members? Doesn't seem notable to me. The creator of this article has had a history of creating soapbox articles. Feel free to defend it but I ask for a delete. 129.2.237.44

  • Delete The term itself as used does not appear to stand for an established organization (International Fellowship of what ?). No clear reference found on Google. Groeck 22:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not only unverified but might be unverifiable due to vagueness. WCFrancis 01:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - would not seem to be notable CLW 10:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Move - title is too vague but a thousand people is enough for me (and current policy) ··gracefool |☺ 07:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete actually according to the article: "It has less than a thousand members." This seems to be a non-notable stub to me, that is why I also vote for delete. Abstrakt 17:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Sasquatcht|c 22:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Technopets and Flazo

Page promotion for not notable web page. Delete also the article about the "character". -feydey 21:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Agreed. And what is manga release ? Groeck 22:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both as per nom CLW 10:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't be deleted. Just because theres no .com at the end doesn't make it not notable. I think manga release means the manga will be released soon.
  • Dont Delete This is a great article, it just needs to be expanded. The article only needs some attention.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bradley Jaynes

Tagged as nonsense, which it emphatically is not. The tagger should re-read patent nonsense. Whether this is made up or not, I can't tell by reading, so I'll leave AfD to its work. -Splashtalk 21:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Seems to be nonsense. No Google hit for "Bradley Jaynes" combined with "pirate". Groeck 21:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifable, probable hoax. DES (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - even if he were the most notorious pirate in history, Google would probably know about it. If he were an even vaguely notable pirate, Google would still probably have something. NN CLW 10:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and the author gets to giggle for five days while this little joke of his sits in AfD. --Outlander 13:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete I'll have you know that Google is not the be all and end all of Pirates lore. Do you really think a Pirate would want records of all his pillaging all over the interweb? This record of his existense is intended to further his reknown as a dreaded pirate, and not to satisfy a search request for Google. This pirate has pwned the seven seas for some time, and will continue to do so with or without your "interweb". First_Mate_Mandy 20:51, 05 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. – Sasquatcht|c 23:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous womanizers

I think that it should be deleted maybe. The list isn't really needed, and I don't think that some of them are "confirmed womanizers". So I think it should be deleted, but I could be wrong. The Fascist Chicken 21:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - it's just a "who I hate" list. 81.104.214.161 21:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I started this, so I think it should be deleted, I also agree with 81.104.214.161. The Fascist Chicken 21:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Slanderous and opinionated — C Maylett 22:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It's not clear how you maintain a NPOV with a title that is not NPOV. ChemGardener 22:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. All above. -feydey 22:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy it's been blanked by the original editing IP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I can imagine how a list or catagory of something like "notorious libertines" (admittedly a slightly different catagory) possibly could be useful or interesting. The problem with this list is that the bar has been set way too low. Casanova, yes. Hugh Hefner, yes. Lord Byron, maybe. Albert Einstein, not so much. Crypticfirefly 04:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep but with a serious trim for unverifiable claims. - Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: as per ChemGardener CLW 10:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. "Slanderous"?! Most of the people on the list would have gladly admitted to being a womanizer. The fact that you believe it is a bad thing doesn't make it POV. And Crypticfirefly: it is a well-established fact that Einstein was a womanizer; there was even a recent article on Canada's National Post about it. Owen× ☎ 12:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps. But it isn't exactly what Einstein was known for. Crypticfirefly 02:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
      • He isn't known for being a socialist or a vegetarian, but he's on those lists too. Most womanizers are not career womanizers like Casanova. Owen× ☎ 02:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Precisely my point. As I wrote above, I believe the bar is set too low for this page to be useful. Which is why I voted to delete it. Crypticfirefly 03:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The page contains no defination or standard for "womanizer" so arguably it could include anyone who has ever had relationships or affairs with more than one woman. In fact it contains no text of any kind to indicate the importance of the lsit, or its relation to any other item of knowledge. In the absence of agreed standards the list in unmaintainable and inherently PoV. In the absence of any text this isn't encyclopedic, merely a "pointless collection of information". DES (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC) This was my comment, but I seem to have been unknowingly logged out when i posted it. DES (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but of course needs to be cleaned up to include only self-admitted womanizers. ··gracefool |☺ 07:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sources and inherently subjective inclusion criteria. The list has no encyclopedic value in any case. Quale 06:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POVlist --TimPope 17:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patently non-encyclopaedic. --Daveb 12:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AnalSilencer

Delete: Unable to verify that this punk band even exists — despite claims in the article of some notority. No references on Google. Suspect promotional hype. — C Maylett 21:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. allmusic.com is unaware of them. The label they released on, Fantastic Plastic (http://www.fantasticplastic.co.uk/), doesn't show them as an artist of theirs, and I can find no reference to the album name anywhere on the net. Regardless, one album (especially on an indie label) is insufficient to pass WP:MUSIC. --Durin 22:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -feydey 22:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No hits on Google; no reference to a band when searching for term with a blank between the words. Groeck 22:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but with congratulations on the band name (most amusing to visualise!) Vizjim 22:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Durin's research CLW 10:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Neutralitytalk 18:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Momona Road

Judging from the article, non-notable local street. Delete DES (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator, despite 15 hits on Google. Groeck 22:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete this —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.44.21.193 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 22 September 2005.

  • Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 00:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article spends more time discussing the businesses near the road than the actual road. A road is a piece of infrastructure, not a location. --maclean25 01:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn. CLW 10:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Petros471 19:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota Twins: All-Time Team

Relisting (someone tell me if I'm doing it wrong) for the following reason:

This was originally a list as published on thebaseballpage.com. The link to that source no longer works. When I checked it, I saw that thebaseballpage.com has modified their choices and added new players -- see [45]. Why should WP be a mirror site for one webpage's opinion of the best Twins players of all time? NawlinWiki 21:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The normal AfD procedure for renominating is here. Ziggurat 23:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no context, no sources, no shoes, no article. Ziggurat 23:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I completely agree with NawlinWiki. It's just some web site's view of who the best players on a certain team were. Even if this was the Twins' or the MLB's official view, it still probably wouldn't be notable enough for an article. A league-wide all-decade team would be acceptable; one would imagine that a team's best players would be summarized in that team's article. -- Kicking222 00:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - 'nuff said. BlueValour 01:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What, no Johan Santana? Err, I mean one site's POV does not a Wikipedia article make. BryanG(talk) 23:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The list itself is not encylopedic. At most put a link to the live page on the Minnesota Twins article. ScottW 00:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


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


[edit] Minnesota Twins: All-Time Team

Is this an "official" all-time team list or just someone's opinion? I assume the latter, so delete. But if this is from a notable, credible source, attribute and merge with Minnesota Twins. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 22:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete No idea what this is about. Groeck 22:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge It's "about" what the title says. Has a source... All right then, fine. Delete it, jerks. Bojanglesmn 23:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This looks as it has some sort of source from the baseballpage which seems to have lists for other teams see [46]. Would be better in own space linked on Minnesota Twins page. I don't know whether thay have released their own list but we have other list of notable persons or things according to reputable sources and this appears to me to meet this category.Keep Capitalistroadster 23:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There's no reason that wikipedia should host "fantasy league" lists compiled by fansites (other All-Time Team lists were created by governing bodies of sports leagues or respected panels of sports writers). Move the citation link over to Minnesota Twins. Anetode 23:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, with link to The Baseball Page in Minnesota Twins. Any team with Kirby Puckett on it has my respect, but it just isn't an article on its own. Lord Bob 01:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Capitalistroadster and WP:NPOV. Kappa 01:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Alright, so how about if it was just moved to the very bottom of the Minnesota Twins page, and this one is deleted? Better idea? Bojanglesmn 03:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Although I do like the idea, if memory serves me right merge and delete (which this amounts to) is not a valid vote because the history is lost. Although we could merge the team list with Minnesota Twins and have the all-time team redirect there. I would still rather see it deleted since I don't think this inherently POV all-time team should be kept on an encyclopaedia, but a merge-n-redirect wouldn't make me unhappy. Lord Bob 17:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Not in this case. The "article" is simply a list of names. Simple lists are not copyrightable under U.S. law. Quale 07:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and follow Lord Bob's suggestion. Andrew Levine 04:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge and redirect re Lord Bob ··gracefool |☺ 07:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was LÖSCHEN. — JIP | Talk 09:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heute gestohlen, morgen in Polen

Should not have its own entry, similar to all other sayings in all other languages. If anything, merge with Anti-Polonism if the content is considered relevant enough to be kept. Groeck 22:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed, though your example is really a quote, not a proverb or saying. To bring this in context, the saying discussed here would be somewhat equivalent to the American The only good indian is a dead indian, only that it is much less known (with 1,400 Google hits vs. 11,400 for the American proverb). Is an article for the American proverb warranted ? If so, it might be warranted to keep this one, and to create an entry for the saying about indians as well. Groeck 01:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and see above Afd on mis-spelled article on the same phrase. Jkelly 22:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    You mean Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heute_verstohlen,_Morgen_in_Polen; that was a different issue, it was pure nonsense. This one is just offensive, not nonsense. --Austrian 09:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as with mispelled version. WCFrancis 01:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable insult. I've never heard it, although I live in Germany not too far from Poland. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 05:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    Me neither, but Google does. --Austrian 09:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Löschen, aber dalli! — JIP | Talk 06:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muffin Paradise

Delete: Fails WP:WEB; Does not register on alexa.com. Forum membership is <100. No mention in major media. --Durin 22:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable. Groeck 22:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -feydey 22:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Jaxl | talk 00:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - nn, tedious CLW 10:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to GURPS. – Sasquatcht|c 23:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GURPS Traveller

Jibberjabbercruft list of books in the GURPS Traveller series with absolutely no context, explanation, justification of notability, rhyme or reason. Delete. Eddie.willers 22:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Replace with Redirect to GURPS. List is pointless, not encyclopedic, won't fit into article and failed its saving throw. WCFrancis 01:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Traveller (role-playing game) or GURPS, per WCFrancis above. The list by itself is useless. ♠ DanMS 01:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bernhard Preim

  • No explanation of the subject's notability. Delete unless the article can be expanded to establish notability. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: This was previously tagged for speedy deletion, then reverted for not meeting speedy criteria. Though from what I gather it could be an "A7." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep He's prolific in computer visualistion and VR, see [47]. Authored one book, is a full professor. Dlyons493 23:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dlyons, more notable than a Slate journalist. Kappa 01:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but Dlyons, please add additional info to the article. Crypticfirefly 05:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I've added selected publications and the Google Scholar link to the others. Dlyons493 12:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ··gracefool |☺ 07:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied A7 --Doc (?) 23:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sharpeyez

Claims this handle represents an "Internet Celebrity". Are there guidelines for that? WCFrancis 22:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Claiming to be a celebrity does not make it so. Groeck 22:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. feydey 22:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn ≈ jossi ≈ 23:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Del nn-bio Anetode 23:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied as nn-bio - using the word 'celebrity' without an assertion of what they are notable for us not an enough! --Doc (?) 23:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied A7 --Doc (?) 23:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toan

Another "internet celebrity" WCFrancis 22:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn-bio Anetode 23:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and possible speedy per rule A7. Groeck 23:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about romance (including breakups)

This list would, if complete, be immense. I don't know what percentage of popular songs are about romance, but I'd be surprised if it came in under 75%. The list is thus impractical; it also lacks point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete — just to make things clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -Lethe | Talk 23:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Sigh. Groeck 23:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Aren't there many lists here, which will never be complete? OmegaWikipedia 23:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and most of them probably need deleting CLW 10:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete List of songs NOT about romance would be 3 times as useful if Mel Etitis is right. No problem with lists which will never be complete but bthis will be huge, unmaintainable and uninformative. Dlyons493 23:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Write a sad song about it if you please. Sabine's Sunbird 23:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, in D-minor which is the saddest of all keys. Unmanageable. Can we start a Wikibook of lists to get rid of all this listcruft? WCFrancis 00:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it might as well be "list of songs" DDerby(talk) 02:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Note, however, that it's a pretty nice-looking list, with many sections: I don't know if it would be appropriate to userfy or something. DDerby(talk) 02:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - can't be completed CLW 10:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It may well be list of songs because most songs are about romance (unfortunatly). However, I appreciate the amount of work that went into categorizing this list which makes it much more informative than it would've been without sectioning. - 131.211.210.12 10:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with User:131.211.210.12 that is the categorization which makes this list useful. I've seen several romance songs lists, but not one who classified them by themes. That it would never be finished it doesn't means what already is here isn't useful. --Andromeda 10:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • weak delete. The structure of the list is completely ad-hoc (and will stay like that forever), since the topics are often non-exclusive (e.g., "divorce" usually implies "separation"). Why is there "bitterness" but no "sadness" (where Yesterday would fit well, better than in the nondescript "separation")? --Aleph4 12:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! This is the first serious attempt I've ever seen to categorize love songs by topic. The list doesn't need to be complete--it will never be. But even as is, it is already useful for social reseacrh. Owen× ☎ 12:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    "it is already useful for social reseacrh"? Could you expand? This is a puzzling claim. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    Anyone looking for cultural references for Western society's attitude towards marriage, adultery, jealousy, etc. has an easy source list for their research. Owen× ☎ 13:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    Anyone who thought that the titles or even lyrics of pop songs could simply be taken to reflect Western society's attitudes would be sadly deluded. I seriously doubt that this is or is likely to be a useful resource; it's just a list, made by people who like making lists about their hobbies. It's another version of train-spotting, and while it's harmless, it shouldn't be here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    Whether correctly or not, pop culture is often used as an indicator of society's views. Owen× ☎ 15:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    Regardless of the value of the categorization, it's original research. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unmaintainable + original research. — mendel ☎ 17:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete... what is it, autumnal equinox is listcruft season? --MCB 23:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but I'd prefer it as a category ··gracefool |☺ 07:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Xoloz 08:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This list will never be complete. The sections constitute original research. Article has no encyclopedic value. Quale 07:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete overly broad topic for a list --TimPope 17:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly non-encyclopaedic; no real value added. --Daveb 12:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. A list is a terrible way to organize these songs. We can either have a woefully incomplete list or a absolutely unmaintainable one. I agree that 75%+ of songs would fit the criteria of this list. We wouldn't keep an article such as List of all songs, so why would we keep a list that's only 25% smaller? Carbonite | Talk 12:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just conclude this ballot since all these people have voted delete. (unsigned comment from anon)
  • Keep What about all the other lists of songs. I think the list is a bit odd but someone may have a use for it. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with brackets in their titles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of song titles phrased as questions. It's either that or where do we stop at deleting lists? CambridgeBayWeather 22:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unmaintainable. Extraordinary Machine 11:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Divorce, uh, make that Delete. You couldn't even make a reasonably short list of all the love songs released this year, never mind a general list. Haikupoet 17:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Completness or even the lack of possibility of completeness is not a problem. Categorization while problematic is not original reasearch. Paul August ☎ 02:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Basabasi.com

Was speedied, but does not seem to fall under any speedy criteria. Nevertheless, it is a barely stub sized, biased, semi-advertisement for an nn-website. Really odd that non of those faults are CSDs, but, there you are. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I was thinking "link spam" and "no content," not to mention semi-literate.  :) No previous contribs from the IP. Delete one way or another. - Lucky 6.9 23:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN vanity. Groeck 23:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Currently not notable - let's hope it becomes successful and then is recreated with more content. Dlyons493 23:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Jaxl | talk 00:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn CLW 10:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Lucky 6.9's comments. PRueda29 02:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Lucas Burge

Seems to be primarily a promo for his book, complete with a convenient link for buying it.—Wahoofive (talk) 23:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as ad. (Perfect pitch is not a claim for notability) WCFrancis 00:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as the original is apparent spam. No sufficient claim of notability. DDerby(talk) 03:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per DDerby CLW 10:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BC Sikh youth

Non-notable local service organization. DS 23:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • A website trying to become a Western North American movement, but it hasn't made it yet. Delete for now. DDerby(talk) 04:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per DS. -- Kjkolb 05:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Jwissick 17:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Spinboy 02:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN *drew 08:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enrico Longhin

Singer of a non-notable band —Wahoofive (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I see no assertion of notability, so I put a nn-bio on it. If that doesnt' work, delete slowly. Friday (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; non-notable. The band has no AMG entry. Jaxl | talk 00:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, poss. vanity CLW 10:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Handel Choir of Baltimore

Non-notable choir. The ensemble is known for an annual performance of Messiah by George Frideric Handel. Now there's a mark of distinction. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • It's also been performing for seventy years, which makes it notable in my book. Keep Tuf-Kat 00:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • My church choir's been singing for 70 years, can it have its own page? 67.125.88.249 01:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC) (User:Wahoofive)
      • If it only performs at church every week and isn't particularly known for that, I'd say no. Tuf-Kat 01:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep a group that can get away with charging $20-40 tickets for performances (see its website). DDerby(talk) 02:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:MUSIC 6; two albums on Brioso ([48], [49]; I can't get to Brioso's website right now, but they seem to be the classical equivalent of an "indie label") makes borderline WP:MUSIC 3; also notable as the oldest community choir in the state [50]. I wish WP:MUSIC was better tailored to classical artists, but this one seems a clear keep on point 6 plus their history. — mendel ☎ 15:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I proposed on the talk page (prior to this nom) adding something that allows groups with a long documented history of performances, specifically for orchestras and similar groups that may be very notable without meeting the other guidelines. Anyone who has any thoughts, feel free to stop by. Tuf-Kat 17:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep They arguably pass WP:MUSIC Roodog2k (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, borderline case, err on the side of keeping. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ··gracefool |☺ 07:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indietronic

Another imaginary music genre. The bands listed as purportedly part of this genre are described with different terminology in their own articles—Wahoofive (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I don't know much about this, but "indietronic" gets 17,100 google hits. "Indietronic" can be a real trend in popular music without there necessarily being many bands primarily identifying themselves by that label.--Pharos 03:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
17,100? I got 706 -- Kjkolb 05:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I did a general search in all languages, not just English. The term seems to be somewhat more common in some other European languages.--Pharos 05:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Oops, I forgot I had the English only turned on. -- Kjkolb 06:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment just because a portmanteau term like this gets used a lot, that doesn't necessarily make it worthy of an encyclopedia article; it just makes it a neologism and dicdef. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If it can be expanded into a proper article, it's not a dicdef. And certainly it's not a neologism if it gets used a lot ··gracefool |☺ 07:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand - despite being bad portmanteau. --MacRusgail 18:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ··gracefool |☺ 07:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--69.234.106.60 00:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2005_September_22_4e40.html"