Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 27

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac^(talk) 23:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LFConseil

Advertisement. No claim of notability, and founding date doesn't suggest they have done anything important yet (neither does their website). Also to consider is that the article in French wiki has been deleted too. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 09:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A text-only brochure with a few bullet points does not an encyclopedia article make. Anville 11:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If the french wikipedia doesn't want them, I don't think we do either. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 19:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per others. — Phil Welch 01:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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 13:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Midget AAA

• Not sure what this is exactly about. I mean, I know what midget hockey is, but I dont think we should have a page on midget hockey league. However, is this is a league or a level? It is very ambiguous. Only links to Laval, Quebec page. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- Spinboy 04:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete no meaningful content and no context. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:39, 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac^(talk) 23:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moral Fabric

I'm considering this article to be original research because it appears to be some sort of rant about Christian values. Solarusdude 00:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research/POV. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV unless rewritten.. There is a possible article in there thouhj. Dlyons493 Talk 00:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV issues Olorin28 00:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. POV as written, but I can see it being useful with the addition of specific quotes using the trope discussed, or academic sources discussing the rhetorical strategy. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup otherwise delete. Jwissick^(t)(c) 00:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/Cleanup Concept notable, although the current article is junk. DirectorStratton 02:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - article is junk, but term is widely used. Add cleanup tag/rewrite. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: We already have Family values. What could this article cover that wouldn't be appropriate there? Gazpacho 03:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There could be an article on this subject, but this particular article is beyond cleanup. Delete it and let someone start from scratch. It is easy to say keep and mark for cleanup but it won’t get done and meanwhile this junk continues to be displayed for the world to see, which demeans the Wikipedia. If it really needs to be posted in the Wikipedia, put it on the Most Wanted Articles list ♠ DanMS 03:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. Groeck 04:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as POV essay. It don't see the need for a cleanup tag because all that needs to be retained is the title for which we have requested articles. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. utcursch | talk 08:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - broadly speaking, I agree with DanMS. Anville 11:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unsalvageable rant Pilatus 12:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per DanMS. If an article is delete-worthy, but the potential exists for a better article with the same name, then it should still be deleted - nothing stops someone from creating a better article after the deletion, but if gets kept it'll just stay as it is, cleanup tag or none. --Last Malthusian 14:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is difficult to see how a NPOV version of this article would differ from the section on conservative Family values. As I can see there could be a difference a redirect is inappropriate. Sliggy 14:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The rant issue aside, I don't see why this should be an independent article. Dottore So 17:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This article should be deleted for all the reasons above, and if for nothing else, for using a rhetorical question in an encyclopedia article. The mind boggles. --131.183.99.132 19:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per DanMS's advice. Cleanup is a license to linger. Nae'blis 21:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgm. --Scimitar ^parley 21:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with POV removed, it's barely a dictionary definition. Even that is questionable. Dystopos 15:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup - The subject is notable, and it could be salvaged. CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eugenics measures in Japanese Empire

This might be the most horribly garbled article I've ever seen. The topic is certainly notable, and an appropriate article about eugenics in the Japanese empire (or in Japan in general) should be created, but this article offers little that would be of use Paul 22:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Machine translation? Easier to start over. Dlyons493 Talk 00:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If totally rewritten, it should be moved to eugenics in imperial Japan. Neutrality^talk 00:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.Jwissick^(t)(c) 00:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. Maybe I'm being too anti-deletionist, but the topic seems worthwhile (probably renamed per Neutrality's suggestion) in principle. It's horribly written now, I agree, but a good article could exist. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dlyons493. DirectorStratton 02:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not machine translation. That's a lazy comment. Charles Matthews
    • Comment The original version of the article, to which I was referring, looks like machine translation to me.Dlyons493 Talk 13:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Why would a machine ever write reffer? This is posted by a native speaker of Spanish, with idiosyncratic English. Charles Matthews
• Keep and of course, send to Cleanup. I've seen worse. Unfocused 03:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject is noteworthy but this particular article is not. The whole thing needs to be deleted and started again from scratch. Don’t just say keep and clean up. Either clean it up right now or delete it. I often wonder how many people who always vote to keep and clean up have actually made a concerted effort to clean up a mess like this. It makes the Wikipedia look terrible. ♠ DanMS 03:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am changing my vote above after some great editing and cleanup by 209.90.145.149 and Charles Matthews. Thank you. ♠ DanMS 00:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I cleaned it up, but I think there may still be questions as to the factual accuracy of the article. 209.90.145.149 04:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. it looks a little better now, still needs more cleanup. Article addresses a worthwhile topic about Japan's history which I'm sure will get more attention in the future by other editors. Kewp 05:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but agreed that it still needs cleanup, verification, etc. Crypticfirefly 06:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I've removed the self-reference to the article in the first line and created a definition lead. Not the best of articles, but keepable in its current state. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One person's opinion on how garbled an article is ... well, this is quite possible to clean up. I often wonder how many people who always vote to keep and clean up have actually made a concerted effort to clean up a mess like this. Well, I have made User:Charles Matthews/Imperial Japan to address just this. Don't use AfD for clean-up. Charles Matthews 09:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment Well done on cleaning it up. You should appreciate that many of us have no expertise in this area. So an Afd seems appropriate to me for the original state of the article - either somebody knows and cares, or they don't and if nobody does then delete is a good course of action. Dlyons493 Talk 13:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment on comment: The policy page tells me things like 'use extreme caution merging any material', which I really don't like (merging is key to some clean-ups); and anyone can see this article should be moved to a grammatical title. So I don't accept that gun-to-the-head is a good way to expedite clean-up. Charles Matthews

Charles Matthews is definitely right about not using AfD for cleanup. We already have {cleanup} available as a tag, and that's much more appropriate (per nom who states in the AfD itself that the "topic is notable"). Voting "keep", BTW, doesn't obligate a voter to do the cleanup her/himself—doing so is great, but not everyone has expertise in everything. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Looks better after the clean-up and there is a lot of scope for a good article here. Keresaspa 16:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Was cleaned up significantly since Paul's nomination. All who voted "Delete" prior to Charles' work, please review the new version. Owen× ☎ 17:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move What salvageable content is here should be moved to the 'Eugenics and the state, 1890s-1945' section of Eugenics, which is a very fine article and is where readers can find additional information as well as context. With respect, I find the cleanup commendations confounding. The Eugenics article illustrates a number of highly dubious assertions in this. Most notably, the author has conflated a science (genetics) with a social philosophy (eugenics), unless I have somehow missed the Japanese eugenics degree available as a pre-war discipline. Also, the last line, Eugenic thinking probably had wider effects. Japanese soldiers received instruction on how 'inferior' Asian and European races were to be treated. Military personnel who violated these instructions were severely punished is nonsense. Since when did Japanese society, especially the military, need eugenics to promote a world-view based on racial superiority? Instead, the theory of eugenics and social Darwinism worked well within a social system that already fostered such a view. Bottom line: moving this to Eugenics will get this content the cleanup it desperately needs. (My comment is based on the Revision of 10:15, 27 September 2005.) Dottore So 17:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I still stand by my nomination, and while the article is much less of a mess than it was, my reasons for the nomination included the lack of references, the vague information, and the poorly phrased article title. As I did indeed say, the topic is notable and article-worthy, but it would be better to have a one sentence stub than a badly titled, vague, sloppy article. Sure, I could have added the cleanup tag and forgotten about it, but in my opinion it's better to start from scratch. Hey, look, there is potential for an excellent article about the topic, but let's do it right, eh? (Note: I was going to follow Neutrality's suggestion and create the article Eugenics in imperial Japan, but I was unsure as to what the article itself should consist of.) Paul 19:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Had my browser not been glitchy and Dottore So's comment been visible to me, I'd have just saved a couple minutes and said I agreed with him. Paul 19:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Eugenics in Imperial Japan.--Apostrophe 00:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move as per Apostrophe. --Apyule 06:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Question: Will you realy keep an article like this (so short, such statements: "Japanese soldiers received instruction on how 'inferior' Asian and European races were to be treated.") with no references? -- Andy.we 12:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Will you vote to delete an article, not nominated here for lack of references, before requesting that references be supplied? (NB it is easier to get sound references for Nazi Germany, say, on a given point, by a factor of about 100.) Charles Matthews
  • Hi Charles. I did not want to vote, because I have no detailed knowledge about japanese war crimes. In this case I learned that some Wiki-Links lead to well documented articles Sadao Araki or International Military Tribunal for the Far East for instance, so my critical question me be without substance. I hope you will except this as excusion. Greetings -- Andy.we 16:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Move as per Apostrophe.Gator1 18:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep looks better. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep any probs this article has are not solved by deletion. Alf ^melmac 06:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with above comments. Amren ^(talk) 23:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac^(talk) 23:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goln

Non-notable fictional universe. "Several novels have been published" actually turns out to be one published by a vanity press (iUniverse). That lone book has an Amazon.com rank of 'None' and there is a single gushing review that smells like a sock. Al 00:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vanity and pseudo-hoax, then. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 00:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Jwissick^(t)(c) 00:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. DirectorStratton 02:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Pureblade 02:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn ≈ jossi ≈ 03:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, websites have no Alexa rank and searching for Goln+fantasy gets me 501 Googles, none of which appear to be a reputable source but mere advertising by the creator(s). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac^(talk) 23:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Billyspace

Some form of vanity. Kushboy 00:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wow, edit conflict over adding the AFD tag. Myspace pages are never encyclopedic. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.Jwissick^(t)(c) 00:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.DirectorStratton 02:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Pureblade 02:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete billyspace vanity. Essentially just a random homepage. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "You're so vain, I bet you think this song is about you"--Alhutch 19:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac^(talk) 23:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bisque (color)

Contains very little information that does not seem likely to be expanded upon. Only links are to List of Colors and User:Latitude0116, who lists it as color articles the user has created. -Nameneko 00:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete We've just been through this on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles consensus seemed to be that independent references were necessary. Dlyons493 Talk 00:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.Jwissick^(t)(c) 00:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all colors in this batch of nominations as none are referenced. Pilatus 01:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. DirectorStratton 02:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If a color is named after a thing, get a picture of the thing. Gazpacho 03:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content-free color articles. MCB 21:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac^(talk) 23:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cadet blue

Contains very little information that does not seem likely to be expanded upon ("a shade of blue"). Only links are to List of Colors and User:Latitude0116, who lists it as color articles the user has created. Note to admin: if this article is deleted, please make sure to delete Cadet Blue (a redirect) as well -Nameneko 00:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete YANNC Yet another nn colour. Should user be asked to stop creating them? Dlyons493 Talk 01:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep at least this one Crayola has a color on it. --JAranda | yeah 02:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. DirectorStratton 02:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gazpacho 03:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content-free color articles. MCB 21:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the norm for minor colors. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac^(talk) 23:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caribbean green

Contains very little information that does not seem likely to be expanded upon. Only links are to List of Colors and User:Latitude0116, who lists it as color articles the user has created. Only "claim to notability" (as I can think of no better words) is being labelled as an official Crayola color. Note to admin: if this article is deleted, please make sure to delete Caribbean Green, a redirect. -Nameneko 00:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete YANNC Yet another nn colour. Should user be asked to stop creating them? Dlyons493 Talk 01:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. DirectorStratton 02:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, surely some Wikipedian has taken a Caribbean vacation and can upload an image for Caribbean. Gazpacho 03:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  And besides, according to Enya the caribbean is blue. So there. Gazpacho

• Delete content-free color articles. MCB 21:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete More colour Junk. Dudtz Image:Kardos.jpg 9/29/05 6:49 PM EST
• Delete, minor color stuff. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, and redirect to carrot. --Phroziac^(talk) 23:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carrot (color)

Contains very little information that does not seem likely to be expanded upon. Only links are to List of Colors and User:Latitude0116, who lists it as color articles the user has created. -Nameneko 00:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to carrot; the color is discussed in that article. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete YANNC Yet another nn colour. Should user be asked to stop creating them? Dlyons493 Talk 01:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. DirectorStratton 02:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, color of a thing. Gazpacho 03:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content-free color articles. MCB 21:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac^(talk) 23:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheddar (color)

Contains very little information that does not seem likely to be expanded upon. Only links are to List of Colors and User:Latitude0116, who lists it as color articles the user has created. -Nameneko 00:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete But I'll vote Keep for School (color). Maybe! Should user be asked to stop creating these? Dlyons493 Talk 01:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - But if School (color) comes up, i'll extreme keep it. - Hahnchen 02:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. DirectorStratton 02:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, color of a thing. Gazpacho 03:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content-free color articles. MCB 21:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete-another colour article w/ no content Dudtz Image:Kardos.jpg 9/29/05 6:42 PM EST
• Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied by someone else. --Phroziac^(talk) 23:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cappuccino cocktails

Not notable. Blatant spam. Jwissick^(t)(c) 00:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete blatant spam. Dlyons493 Talk 01:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious spam. This is something I'd delete from my inbox, not read on WP. --W.marsh 01:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete spam DirectorStratton 02:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete spam Pureblade 03:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant spam. This type of article is a good argument for requiring users to be logged in before contributing. ♠ DanMS 03:54, 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 and BJAODN. --Phroziac^(talk) 23:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Round Robin sex act

Created by 137.207.80.130 (talk • contribs), who is very likely the same person as Damnationandlove (talk • contribs) (based on [1]), who created a number of preposterous hoax sex-act articles including Greasy Cannonball and others that have already been nominated for AfD. -- Curps 00:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete original research. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Research or just vandalism. DirectorStratton 02:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax - if this is original "research" it probably landed the researcher in the hospital. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The sooner the better. Jwissick^(t)(c) 07:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Very common in france.... uhhhhh.... yeah right... :) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Lulu and Jwissick. --Blackcap | talk 17:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This is physically impossible, as the laying partner would suffocate, having no way to breathe, and is thus obviously a hoax. --Blackcap | talk 17:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, but what if the laying partner has a dorsal blowhole? Or what if he's a zombie, or an android, and doesn't need to breathe? Bet you didn't think of that, now did you! (oh, and delete)DS 17:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Dammit, I forgot all about that. Thanks for correcting my obvious foolishness :). --Blackcap | talk 17:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN but rename to Double dipping cartwheel (sex act). Owen× ☎ 17:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per BD2412. --Apyule 06:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODNDudtz 9/29/05 5:40 PM EST
• Delete After attempting this, my partner is requiring hospitalization. Appears to be a hoax. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hahaha... --Blackcap | talk 05:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Triangle and Robert

This is a very long running webcomic I'm putting for deletion, found here. The strip has been around for about 6 years, yet a google search shows up nothing different about this site and every other website out there. I'm not sure about how The Web Comic list ranks webcomics, but the stats page shows an average of 80 views a month, AzN_PRinCes5's livejournal gets more than that. Just because it is a webcomic does not make it more notable than any other website out there, no matter what WP:COMIC says. - Hahnchen 00:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I hate to vote delete on my friends' webcomics, but I'm sure Noser will forgive me, as his webcomic isn't particularly significant or important in the scheme of things. (By the way, don't use webcomic list rankings. Their "hits" numbers are only the number of times people have visited the comic from that particular site, and the numbers are frequently gamed.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I wasn't sure about the web comic list. But I thought that the spike on todays viewings were caused by me, so thought maybe they did reflect real time figures. - Hahnchen 00:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm the author of the comic. I agree it's not _particularly_ notable as webcomics go, but I don't see why WP:COMIC should just be ignored. T&R has been running for a fairly long time, was an acknowledged inspiration for parts of the acclaimed One over Zero, and is far from unknown among webcomic aficionados.
• Keep: Historically notable as one of the first "experimental" webcomics, and combined with its popularity showed that artistic talent was unneccessary for the creation of webcomics (Pre-dates Bob and George and 8-Bit Theater. Nifboy 02:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A rather surprising choice for AfD IMNSHO. Abe Dashiell 02:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Old age does not equal notability. Being on the internet does not equal notability. Doesn't fulfill WP:COMIC conditions to be kept (will change position if shown to have been popular in the past). DirectorStratton 02:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Penny Arcade, the 800-lb gorilla of webcomics, called it "one of the all time classics". That count? Nifboy 04:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Not when the visibility is so low. Delete Dottore So 19:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• There's nothing verifiable in the whole article, other than verification by the website the article is about. A website cannot verify itself, so delete. Friday (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 06:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Historically notable, esp. among aficionados. GTBacchus 15:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Nifboy. — Image:Ca-on-sb.gif  UTSRelativity (Talk)  16:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notability established above. — mendel ☎ 16:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Nifboy. Owen× ☎ 17:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep even I have heard of this. Secretlondon 22:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The guidelines at WP:COMIC, like 'em or not, are the only guidelines we have for this genre. If they direct us to include the subject, then unless the nominator has a convincing argument to delete, we should follow these guidelines. On the other hand, a number of folks in this discussion have explained this webcomic's historical importance: why not add this material to the article -- even though it's currently listed on AfD -- & help improve the article? Hanchen nominated this article for deletion because none of that info is currently there. -- llywrch 23:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as it seems to have some historical interest. --Apyule 06:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have no prob with this article. Alf ^melmac 06:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Nifboy. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stubble (web comic)

A little read webcomic, found here. Although their forums here show some kind of activity, with 500 members, most posts and threads relate to another webcomic on that forum. Alexa gives a rank of over a million so I can quite safely say it isn't a widely read comic. - Hahnchen 00:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I'm fairly sure Josh Mirman (the creator) has also published at least one Stubble book. I'll see if I can dig up some info on it to add to the article. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply - I had a look around and found this forum post. The creator says there he does not plan to release a book, but that was early this year. I still feel that the comic is none notable. You've heard of the creator, so maybe his other comic Punks and Nerds is notable? But I don't think this is. - Hahnchen 01:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. as per nom. DirectorStratton 02:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of verifiability. (And the incredible low Alexa rank is a factor also.) Friday (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. mikka (t) 06:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 19:29, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boomer Express

A non notable webcomic which can be found here. Although it has had over 500 strips, a google search for the term shows up nothing which suggests notability over any other website in the world. Alexa does not name it as one of the more popular keenspace comics, and is not mentioned in the site report. All this leads to delete, along with all other unnotable websites out there. - Hahnchen 01:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. as per nom. DirectorStratton 02:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of verifiability. Friday (talk) 03:01, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One0media

• del. nonnotable. promo. mikka (t) 01:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad exists just for web link. Dlyons493 Talk 01:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. as per nom. DirectorStratton 02:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 22:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. This is on the edge of the oft-used two-thirds guideline. However, I note that the second merge is unsure of itself and the move (which is really a merge given its description and the obviousness of not actually moving to that title) is very unsure of itself. So I think the two-thirds guideline fits ok here. -Splash^talk 23:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plurality Catholic Supreme Court

A page of trivia about the Supreme Court of the U.S., of questionable value and not worthy of a separate article. NoSeptember 01:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. as per nom. DirectorStratton 02:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• move I suppose this should be moved to the Supreme Court of the U.S. page in some kind of trivia section. I don't even know if its worth that.--Alhutch 19:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- Spinboy 19:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dottore So 19:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Supreme Court of the United States --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 22:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (I guess), though without the extraneous detail.--Pharos 03:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom. Roodog2k (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as speculative and pretty unencyclopedic. NatusRoma 00:14, 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 to Gabriel Knight. No-one wants to retain the content, but there's no consensus to delete it outright. I will fix the double redirect. -Splash^talk 23:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schattenjager

del. Nonnotable fancruft. mikka (t) 01:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. as per nom. DirectorStratton 02:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think this is a fanmade character class for some sort of role-playing game, and while such creations probably are very welcome to RPGers, they are not encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• I seem to remember this title from the computer game(s) Gabriel Knight (but as Schattenjäger), so I say redirect there Lectonar 11:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, as per Lectonar. Also consider Schattenjäger, which I have redirected to this article, as it basically just provided the alternate spelling. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:06, 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 keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acid Reflux

None notable webcomic, which can be found here along with its deforested forums here. Alexa turns out nothing for this webcomic, and Google search only gives links to Acid Reflux disease (?). Further searches still did nothing to show how acid reflux stands out from the masses of websites out there. - Hahnchen 01:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Its forums are a ghosttown and it doesn't show on Alexa because it has been defunct for years. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I have tried to nominate only currently running webcomics for the alexa rank to be of benefit. I nominated this one because there was a large update summer this year with 10 extra strips added on. Had the webcomic been notable, there should have been a spike of activity, whereas there was none. - Hahnchen 02:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Bearing in mind that I voted delete because I don't think it was notable even when it was updating, I don't think noting the lack of interest in a small update after nearly three years of no updates is evidence of a lack of notability. Whether or not it's notable is based on how popular and significant it was when it was still updating, not how many people check the site now that it's long defunct. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • 10 comics? Unannounced? After three years of no activity? Not a member of any large portal or group? --Kizor 18:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what I was thinking. Keep this, as it was very popular when it was still around, and a major part of Bigpanda back when Bigpanda was still around. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. as per nom. DirectorStratton 02:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified, no evidence of significance. Friday (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or add more cowbell as per above --Phroziac^(talk) 06:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment if deleted, recreate as redirect to Gastroesophageal reflux disease —Wahoofive (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gastroesophageal reflux disease, if this ever becomes notable it should still not use this title. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gastroesophageal reflux disease, where Acid reflux already redirects. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Jwissick^(t)(c) 07:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. --Ezeu 21:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it was a pretty popular webcomic back in the day. Searching on Google for:"acid reflux" comic OR "web comic" OR webcomic gives me about 50,000 results, though that still has some results for Acid reflux. If anyone remembers Bigpanda.net, Acid Reflux was usually listed in the Top Comics list. At the very least, it should be transwikied to comixpedia. --Matteh (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! Utterly faulty premise. As A Man In Black says, Alexa is an extremely poor indicator of a defunct website's notability. The web comic was popular and prominent at the definitive web comic portal of its time. The number of strips and the amount of active time both pass the WikiProject Webcomics guidelines with flying colors. --Kizor 18:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sufficiently notable as per the Webcomic guidelines -Abe Dashiell 12:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Please, please stop relying on Alexa. People keep explaining why it's unreliable. You know that it's unreliable. Yet you keep mentioning it in otherwise groundless afd listings. In any case, Acid Reflux is a historically prominent webcomic that easily meets WP:COMIC. The fact that it's old is irrelevant — we wouldn't delete an article about a book just because it had been published several years ago, would we? Factitious 05:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. Dragonfiend 06:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Since I'm being obnoxious, why nn? What's missing from the arguments for keeping above? Honest question. --Kizor 09:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Minor characters in Bloom County, which has already been done. -Splash^talk 23:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rosebud the Basselope

nn Minor Character in Comic Even Says it in the article.Delete or maybe merge with Minor Characters in Bloom County which I think there is an article around somewhere --JAranda | yeah 01:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Minor characters in Bloom County. DirectorStratton 02:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• merge as per DirectorStratton ≈ jossi ≈ 03:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merged and redirected per above. Friday (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merged and redirected per above.--Isotope23 13:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, and pffffft-ack! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy2

.--------------------------------
.| SAVE US OH GREAT STAR EMPEROR |
.|_______________________________|
. O |
. \/|\/|
. /\
. | \
Vote of "keep" withdrawn. _{- The IP who wrote this has asked on my talk page that I not post his IP here again, and that he has withdrawn his original vote of keep. Here is the original vote: [2]. --Blackcap | talk 18:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)}

• Keep I find it honestly ridiculous that so many of you are so eager to delete things based purely on the fact that they aren't relevant 'to you'. Unless the entry is a lie, slander or muddying legitimate data, LEAVE IT ALONE. DJKurtz 11:32, 26 September 2005 (PST) _{- Post actually by 69.230.199.145, not either Vendorx or DJKurtz. This is 69.230.199.145's third edit, all other edits are also to Philosophy2 or this AfD. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 16:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)}

Non-notable chatroom. Was speedied, but does not seem to fall under CSD. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete We don't need an article for every chatroom in the world--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 02:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. DirectorStratton 02:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete agree , unfortunately not speediable -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Finally I get what it is! I've heard about philosphy2 a few times before and never understood. this site rocks _{- Unsigned post by Pinkpinkyoustink. This is this user's second edit. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 16:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)}

.----------------------
.| SPARE #P2 |
.|___________|
. O |
.\/|\/|
. /\
. | \
_{-Unsigned post by 151.200.241.16. This is 151.200.241.16's tenth edit, all of its other edits are either to Philosophy2 or this AfD. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 16:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)}

The chatroom #Philosophy2 is just the visible part of an extense underground movement. It is an important reference to understand the complex world of cyberculture. _{- Unsigned post by 200.125.17.148 as its first edit. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 16:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)}

• Delete. per above. Sasquatcht|c 04:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Jab with a spork or Delete A chatroom? If there was some way it could possibly not be a permastub, I wouldn't have a problem with it. --Phroziac^(talk) 06:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jwissick^(t)(c) 07:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising for said chat room. No encyclopedic content.- Mgm|^(talk) 08:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

.-----------------
.| DELETE |
.|________|
. O |
.\/|\/|
. /\
. | \
as per nom --Last Malthusian 14:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC) (and learn to draw ASCII art as well)

• Delete not worthy of an encyclopedia article. please stop vandalizing this Articles for deletion page.--Alhutch 19:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This should be SPEEDILY removed; the churlish vandalism makes its speedy removal all the more imperative. Dottore So 19:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable nor encyclopedic. Al 21:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Last Malthusian's sign. Nae'blis 21:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dottore So. --Apyule 06:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and fast! alf 11:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per all. --Blackcap | talk 16:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for most of the reasons listed, and if for nothing else, the vandalism of an AFD page. --131.183.99.132 17:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • _{This edit was actually by 67.187.99.253, and is his second edit. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 02:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)}

Delete per Dottoreso - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mehmet Mustafaoğlu

Non-notable bio. A secondary-level diplomat of a small country is not notable enough for Wikipedia. — Mateo SA | talk 02:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and add more cowbell - If it's expandable, keep it. If this is all the info about him, merge it somewhere. --Phroziac^(talk) 06:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: "add more cowbell?" What does that mean? -- Kjkolb 09:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Heh. That just meant to expand it. --Phroziac^(talk) 14:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • See more cowbell.
• Keep. everyone is "secondary" after President. mikka (t) 06:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks like there's potential for expansion. In the meantime, I added more cowbell per User:Phroziac. Crypticfirefly 06:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He's not the president of the universe but IS the representative of a country. And gee, do we really need to continually state that our space is not finite? Moriori 07:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Our space" may or may not be finite, depending from the shape of the universe. However, Wikipedia is not infinite. Uncle G 16:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Neither is Wiki at the stage where we are running out of shelves and need to cull a few books AFAIK. Moriori 21:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • ... which is not what you asserted above. Read what you wrote above, again. Uncle G 23:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry, you lost me. Must have been the extra bottle of red. Moriori 23:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A consul is not an ambassador, and therefore not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Government officials are inherently notable. --Nicodemus75 13:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but notable and notable enough to have more then a stub about you aren't the same thing. --Phroziac^(talk) 14:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Government officials aren't any more inherently notable than anyone else who has a job, but given his award, his article and his mention in a newspaper, I'd say there's sufficient reason to keep. --Last Malthusian 14:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as cowbelled by Crypticfirefly. Hall Monitor 16:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Per the article, this person satisfies the Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies. Keep. Uncle G 16:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This page was started by myself as a good reference example of reprentatives of non-recognized nations. Expatkiwi 18:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. --Ezeu 21:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per reasons given by Uncle G and Expatkiwi -- LiniShu 21:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it seems notable to me but that is just my opinion Yuckfoo 05:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep cowbell is good. Alf ^melmac 06:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fubism

Probable hoax, GameFAQs junk.--Sean Jelly Baby? 02:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• I strongly believe that this article should NOT be deleted. Fubism has gained a lot of steam recently and it has hundreds of followers. It is no different than any other small religious organization and information deserves to be available to all who request it. It would be a great shame if this perspective was shot down in the age of tolerance of religion.

That's just my view. Thanks.

• Delete as with Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Church of The Giant Golden Microphone. Gazpacho 03:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete NN ≈ jossi ≈ 03:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wow, hundreds of followers. Impressive. Groeck 04:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Suspected hoax or joke. Got an impressive 5 hits on Google on the word fubism, none of which seemed relevant; and 0 relevant hits out of 7 on “Joseph of Knox”. ♠ DanMS 04:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Religions that have not been noticed by others in society (as seen by the lack of relevant Google hits) are non-notable. --Metropolitan90 06:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Stop the next Scientology before it starts. :) Jwissick^(t)(c) 07:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - even Scientology is a notable joke, at least. Nae'blis 21:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if only it could be speedied alf 11:29, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Swamped (EP)

nn non-hit song Delete --JAranda | yeah 02:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain. I'd dispute that the song is non-notable exactly - it's by a notable band and on a notable album - but there's nothing here that justifies a separate article. I'd expand it, but Swamped isn't really about anything in particular and isn't a stand-out song on the album, so there's nothing I can think of to add. --Last Malthusian 14:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not a notable record (as an EP would be the issuing format). Very few EP's, and virtually none that are later collected onto albums, are significant events since the early punk days. Geogre 15:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Is fine by Wikiproject album/song criteria. Secretlondon 21:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keepor merge somewhere, no reason to deprive users. Kappa 23:25, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tetrisification

neologism, and a pretty thin one at that, article even admits that it's rare. This was tagged with a speedy>neologism but it really doesn't belong there. Rx StrangeLove 02:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator. -- Spinboy 04:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It admits to being a neologism.- Mgm|^(talk) 08:33, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Community

plus two redirects to it.

NN Web site, ranks 450,000 on Alexa. Delete Owen× ☎ 02:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable webcruft. --Apyule 06:35, 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 Deleted -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sylvain Dubord

This artist gets seven primary results from Google [3], which doesn't seem to make him sufficiently notable. Delete. The article has POV problems which should be addressed if it is kept.-gadfium 03:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Maybe not notable, but great artwork! Take a look at the gallery. ♠ DanMS 04:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -Nameneko 06:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with regret, because the guy can draw. But I can't find any evidence of notability. Crypticfirefly 06:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep just leave it be. He'll be notable enough. (preceding unsigned comment by Corrosionx (talk • contribs) )
  • When he is, he can have a Wikipedia article. In the meantime, however, Wikipedia is here to talk about things and people that are already notable, not to help promote things and people that want to become notable. Delete. Bearcat 16:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of verifiability. Nice art, tho. Friday (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The number of great artists is far higher than the number of notable, referred-to artists. This is an encyclopedia: it seeks to explain things referred to by other things, not to make the fame or recognize the worth or reward the virtue of anyone. Geogre 15:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page. -- Corvus 16:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless can reference at least one exhibit in one gallery or major competition. Is that too much to ask for? Owen× ☎ 17:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • --not major, but he's been a hit at the Montreal Erotic Art Expo 2003 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.82.224.45 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2005 UTC.
• Delete nn/vanity --redstucco 08:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:23, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Zavgorodnij

nn - maybe vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 03:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Without Zavgorodnij, Kadochnikov system would not have recieved it's patent, and he still actively teaches today. His name is well respected in the Russian martial art world. If you are to put Kadochnikov, Vasiliev, Ryabko, and Retuinskih on this site, his name should not be excluded. He figures majorly into Kadochnikov system.(Unsigned comment by Russinfo this is his first contribution to Wikipedia.)

• Delete 3 distinct google hits puts him well below even the most generous notability reading. Agree it could be vanity, although it is probably not speediable. Dottore So 19:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dottore So. -- Kjkolb 23:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Following the links from this article, it would appear that this is part of a series of articles on Russian martial arts. If so, then it wouldn't surprise me that a Google search would result in so few hits. No, I don't know if this is a hoax or some sort nationalistic cultural myth . . . but how much would it hurt to leave this article in Wikipedia (cleaned up, of course because the links & grammar in this article are atrocious) until someone can research this matter further? And if it is proven a hoax, then we can harvest a large number of articles here with a minimum of fuss. (BTW, unsigned comments do not help to convince people to keep this article.) -- llywrch 23:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn/vanity --redstucco 08:54, 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.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 06:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Counts Von Zimmermann

This is of minor genealogical interest. WP is not for material that's merely of genealogical interest, and this is unlikely to be of any interest to more than a few dozen people in the world. -- Hoary 03:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly notable in the context of Maltese social history. It wouldn't be up for deletion if it was an English peerage (or would not be deleted in the unlikely event that it was) and the fact that it is Maltese shouldn't make a difference. This is one of many such articles and I can see no reason for it to be singled out in this way. CalJW 04:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Response I see nothing whatever in the article that is of social significance. What did these counts do? What was their effect on Malta? We don't learn anything of this. I too am unswayed by the fact that this is about Malta; I'd countenance an article on a family of some clearly expressed notability in Malta or anywhere else. Yes, this is one of a number of articles about "noble" Maltese families. I'm picking on this and Testaferrata because among the several that I have examined these are two whose subjects seem non-notable (other nobles have had some notability claimed for them), and because my time and effort are limited. (Analogously, I catch a few examples of blatant vandalism each day; I'd hope not to be accused of "picking on" those particular vandals.) -- Hoary 04:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I’d like to see this expanded per Hoary’s comments above. The article is pretty thin as it stands. ♠ DanMS 04:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable Count. Nobility does not imply nobility as shown in the deletion of the aricle of Dr. Charles Gauci and as explained in the current afd on Stephen Sant Fournier. Changes were done to a comment I placed on the talk page of Stephen Sant Fournier as Hoary said. Maltesedog 12:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Members of the nobility (of any country) are inherently notable. --Nicodemus75 13:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • They are? Really? How? (Well, I know they used to be, in the eyes of the stereotypical and sometimes even actual wives and daughters of American rail, meat-packing, and other "barons" of a century ago. But otherwise?) -- Hoary 14:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Because many, many people, from all around the world are interested in nobility. Nobility is notability. .... added by Vizjim at 15:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment , nobility is not always equals to notability each case should be seen in its own merits Maltesedog 17:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable topic. However, isn't the statement Information provided by Charles Said-Vassallo on the page something of a problem? Vizjim 15:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, It seems that Maltesedog and Hoary have no background on History and are picking on my work alone. Just view their logs alone. This is not fair and they should be BANNED. Their comments do not make sense nor are suitable for editing or placing any item for deletion. Its about time Wikipedia puts these two to rest. Tancarville 06:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Response: I for one am not picking on anybody's work alone; just see my log. If you'd like to have a user censured or banned, you might try an RfC rather than here. -- Hoary 01:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Response: I am not picking on anyone and anybody's work alone! I view afd's, and browse through articles mainly related to Malta and comment on what should be kept, modified, and deleted. I also put forward my contributions. Rest assured that most of your contributions are valid contributions and should be kept in Wikipedia. Maltesedog 17:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Counts and other nobility were highly notable during the period of their dominance in history. Highly notable in their relevant time period is more than notable enough for inclusion here today. Unfocused 15:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Titles of nobility are inherently notable (not to say that every individual that holds them is, though).--Pharos 04:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

keep please erasing this is not in the spirit of wikipedia Yuckfoo 05:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, wikipedia is not a genealogy database. --fvw* 06:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete The title itself never held any authority in Malta, as the HRE had no authority there between its creation in 1790 and its abolition in 1806, so it can't claim notability on that basis. The title is not recognized by the Committee of Privileges of the Maltese Nobility so it can't clain notability on that basis. The Association of Foreign Title Holders in Malta is basically just a modern geneology club formed in 1994, so membership there is not notable. The only basis I can see for the notablity of the title is in its creation in 1790 by either the dying Joseph II or the newly crowned Leopold II (a detail the article really should include if it is kept). However, with the 18th century seeing the creation of so many courtesy noble titles, I'd like to see some evidence that the title actually had some lands held in liege before I'm prepared to accept that the title is notable. That the first Count von Zimmermann was notable, I'll grant since he was able to secure at least a courtesy noble title from a major monarch. If evidence that the title was more than simply a courtesy title can be pointed to then I'll change my vote to keep. Caerwine 16:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if only because of this remarkable man [4]. In general I think we should at least keep the generic articles for a Burkes Peerage title, if we're not having every holder of those titles. Rich Farmbrough 21:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nobility does not imply notability. There are probably hundreds of thousands of counts, and there were millions in recorded history. Claim to notability has been contradicted by Caerwine. Martg76 22:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article (along with a number of others by the same editor) appears to be original research. I also agree with the comments above regarding "nobility" not equalling "notability"; just because someone claims to have inherited a fairly meaningless title does not justify a place in an encyclopaedia. Also, by analogy, one could argue that there should be (say) an article for every doctor registered in the United States, regardless of individual merit. Silverhelm 01:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC).
• Delete Titles aren't inherently notable, and no reaon is given for the notability of this one. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. I don't think you can really merge to a non-existent page. You could move there, perhaps, but not merge. -Splash^talk 23:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Les Associés

Non-notable hocket team. baseball team. Delete -- Spinboy 03:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• A hocket team? That I'd like to see. Maybe you meant hockey? But according to the article, they're a baseball team... —Wahoofive (talk) 04:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sorry, I had just nominated a hockey team. -- Spinboy 04:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Don't mind him, after the last year we've all forgotten what hockey is. — mendel ☎ 16:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I want to know if someone more knowledgable can tell us whether the league itself is even notable. What level of play are they at? If this is a minor league team, then I vote to keep. If not, then it should be deleted. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Ligue de baseball élite du Québec, which could be written based on official website here by someone with better French than me. Chick Bowen 18:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S.Those competitive hocket matches can get pretty ugly. . . . Chick Bowen 18:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• The website is pretty professional. I would agree that maybe a merge is best, as the league looks to be notable. However, whether the team is notable is another question. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Earl Andrew mentions the web site. I assume that this reference is to the Ligue de baseball élite du Québec site, and not the "Les Associés" site ([5]). Unfortunately, this site does not seem to have an "About us" page, that explains in a nutshell what they are all about. They seem, however, to run a number of teams at various levels: "Moustique", Peewee, Midget, Junior, Senior. - Grstain 11:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Les Regents

Non-notable. Delete -- Spinboy 03:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non notable hockey team, in a non-notable league. I couldn't figure out what level of play it is, as it's not listed on the Canadian Junior A Hockey League. The CJAHL is basically the lowest level we should have articles on at least leagues (teams are border line notable). -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Earl Andrew. --Apyule 06:37, 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 speedy deleted. — JIP | Talk 04:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lice Research Group

Not sure if this is vanity or a hoax. No references found on Google. Groeck 04:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Too vague to possibly expand if kept. -Nameneko 06:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Given the author's contribution history, I think we can assume hoax. -- RHaworth 07:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Jwissick^(t)(c) 07:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The fact that the LRG researches lice & woodlice -- which a bit of study will show are two entirely unrelated groups of animals (one's an insect, the other is a crustacean) -- shouts hoax to me. Considering that the institute is located in Arlen, Texas, maybe Boomhauer works there. Let's close this as a Speedy delete. -- llywrch 00:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deletion implemented JoJan 19:00, 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Testaferrata

This is of minor genealogical interest. WP is not for material that's merely of genealogical interest, and this is unlikely to be of any interest to more than a few dozen people in the world. -- Hoary 04:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly notable in the context of Maltese social history. It wouldn't be up for deletion if it was an English peerage (or would not be deleted in the unlikely event that it was) and the fact that it is Maltese shouldn't make a difference. This is one of many such articles and I can see no reason for it to be singled out in this way. CalJW 04:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Response CalJW has made the same objection to my nomination of Counts Von Zimmermann for deletion; please see my response to that. -- Hoary 04:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete modern nobility does not imply notability. Refer to deletion of Dr. Charles Gauci, and afd for Stephen Sant Fournier Maltesedog 11:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• I changed it to a weak delete after reading the other comments Maltesedog 20:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Response So a title created in the 18th century is consider modern to you? The title of Marquis was created by the King of Spain and Two Sicilies. The was even a royal commission in the late 19th century regarding this title which was granted by HM, Queen Victoria of UK. I am so baffled that your a university student. One assumes that one researches before commenting. I formly believe you have an agenda. Tancarville 18:06, 28 September 2005 (EST)
• Keep. Nobles are inherently notable, modern or otherwise. --Nicodemus75 14:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Response Nicodemus75 has made the same extraordinary assertion in AfD/Counts Von Zimmermann; see my response there. -- Hoary 14:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Nicodemus75 and CalJW. The sentence This research was done by Charles Said-Vassallo (Text originally based on that of a website by Charles Said Vassallo, by permission.) seems to be problematic though (just flagging this up for an admin to check). Nobility is notability. Vizjim 15:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'll wish for a more egalitarian world as I recognize that yes, who your parents are makes a difference. Nobility is notabilty. Unfocused 16:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Notability has to be viewed in the context of Malta I'm afraid. So my vote remains delete ....added at 19:22, September 27, 2005 by 212.56.128.185
• Delete nn. Dottore So 19:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, It seems that Maltesedog and Hoary have no background on History and are picking on my work alone. Just view their logs alone. This is not fair and they should be BANNED. Their comments do not make sense nor are suitable for editing or placing any item for deletion. Its about time Wikipedia puts these two to rest. Tancarville 06:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Response Tancarville has said the same in AfD/Counts Von Zimmermann; see my response there. -- Hoary 01:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Malta has a very small population, a bit bigger than my county. I'd delete nobility from here. The fact that it is a new title makes it even less notable. -- Kjkolb 23:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

What an extraordinary statement. Malta is an independent country, with several thousand years of history behind it, and its size should not count against it. Vizjim 11:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, that was going too far. Still it is a very recent title. -- Kjkolb 08:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment The titles and persons involved for deletion are of Ancient Noble families. Nothing new at all. Tancarville 18:08, 28 September 2005 (EST)
• Keep. Titles of nobility are inherently notable (not to say that every individual that holds them is, though).--Pharos 04:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please caljw is right this is notable anyhow Yuckfoo 05:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The article itself does not contain enough to explain why this noble title is notable, and I am firmly not of the opinion that all noble titles are notable. Far too many courtesy titles were created in post-Renaissance Europe for me to accept such titles are notable without further evidence. However, a little fact checking was enough to convince me that it meets my definition of a notable noble title on several points, tho if all I had to judge by was the content of this article, I'd be voting to delete. Caerwine 16:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What might those points be? -- Hoary 09:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Titles aren't inherently notable, and no reaon is given for the notability of this one. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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 --Doc (?) 15:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pumpskully

NN band. Less than 300 Google hits, Allmusic has no record of them, their site on Myspace.com shows performances in small venues and no record of touring, unsigned, no releases. Enough? Denni☯ 04:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. per nominator.--Kewp 05:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• I've put a speedy tag on it for lack of context. If that doesn't work, delete for lack of verifiability. Friday (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Entire text was Pumpskully was an outlaw-country band spawned from a satanic seed direct from the loins of Beelzebub, so speedied no context and nonsense (take you pick) --Doc (?) 15:13, 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 Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Killer Japanese Seizure Robots

Prior nomination was found with no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer Japanese Seizure Robots/Archive --AllyUnion (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This is an article about a single page website Do not click if prone to epilepsy or bad taste. The article references a small part of a Simpson's episode, Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo. I really don't think that the website warrants an article of it's own. It was previously nominated for deletion here. The discussion in the previous nomination tended towards a merge, but I feel that there is already sufficient text in the Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo Trivia section. Does this prank webpage warrant an article? Is there sufficient text in the Thirty Minutes article? I don't think that merging is a good idea, especially given the backlog. - Hahnchen 02:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. ··gracefool |☺ 07:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We can verify lots of none notable websites, just because we can verify it doesn't mean it deserves a wikipedia article. I could provide photoevidence for the existence of a local cul-de-sac, it's verifiable, wiki isn't paper, so let's do cul-de-sac articles! No. - Hahnchen 14:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Well I'd say it's notable enough. Tens of thousands of people know what it is. Whereas a local cul-de-sac is probably of interest to only a few hundred people. But in any case, I don't see how an article on a local cul-de-sac could hurt Wikipedia. ··gracefool |☺ 13:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - This AFD was deformed for its first few days and garnered no votes at all during the most popular voting period. Is it possible to relink this to the current day of voting? I would be grateful if it is allowed. - Hahnchen 18:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'm relisting this as it was deformed the first couple days and didn't draw as much participation as it might have. Rx StrangeLove 04:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Groeck 04:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo. I'm sure I've seen something about this already. Brrr, Déjà vu. Proto t c 08:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete one-joke spamalicious fancruft. --Calton | Talk 10:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Individual episodes are debatable enough but individual scenes? I think not. Marskell 11:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete do not redirect, as I'm pretty sure they're not called that during the show. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo. Owen× ☎ 18:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete I was against this article when I nominated it for deletion awhile back[6], and I still am. I love The Simpsons, but this is cruft, plain and simple. Karmafist 20:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - A small joke in an episode doesn't deserve an article. Fancruft. Wikipedia is not a web guide. --J. Nguyen 20:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Thirty Minutes Over Tokyo --Apyule 06:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not significant to be merged with ep of simpsons. Great episode, great joke, useless article. alf 11:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the episode article. I think it deserves a place here.--Tedzsee 05:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete-I'm not epileptic, but it had some negative physical effects on me. Imagine what it would do to someone who is epileptic.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 a hoax or whatnot. --Phroziac^(talk) 06:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blooki

Looks like a hoax. Delete Groeck 04:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. nonsense. Kewp 05:25, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] URJ Olin-Sang-Ruby Union Institute

Religious camp of which notability not established / asserted in article Hurricane111 04:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless claims to notability are made. (I can't find any on their website) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 22:27, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jim's Tasty Freeze

non-notable fast food place. Under 20 googles. Reads like an ad. Delete Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of verifiability. Friday (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Easy to verify: the place is located on 509 West Elm Street. You can call them up at (336) 228-8916 (map, reviews). It's there alright, but still not notable. Owen× ☎ 18:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, indeed for lack of verifiablity. Yes, we can verify it exists. But we couldn't verify anything about the place that would expand the article beyond a stub, without doing original research. (Calling the place up is, by official policy, not a legitimate way to source a Wikipedia article.) Bunchofgrapes 18:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I wasn't sure what Friday wanted to verify—the only claim this "article" makes is that the place has existed since the '60s. Reminds me of an old skit where two government technocrats are standing on the street in front of City Hall arguing over a recent rumour that City Hall was demolished to the ground; being true to their nature, neither would entertain the possibility of turning around to check for themselves. Owen× ☎ 19:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The presence of reviews makes it more verifiable, IMO. However there's still nothing verifiable in the article. However, it could be deleted for lack of significance and I would not complain. Friday (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a fast-food directory. MCB 21:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Individual restaurants are rarely notable. --Metropolitan90 03:35, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fap Fap Train

Possibly forum cruft, but largely nonsense chowells 05:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Proto t c 08:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It sounds like a friend telling you a really pointless story. Oswax 17:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Something happened in a webforum somewhere: that's the content of this article in less than 10 words. No articles link to this one, & while GameFAQs sheds a sliver of light on what this might be about, the unlinked mention of "Random Insanity" could reference about almost anything (a Google query fails to help) including a random group of schizophrenics. If I understood what the point of this article was, maybe I could decide whether this was notable; but I'm not sure if that's worth the effort. To whoever wrote this article: please work harder on your next contribution to Wikipedia. Only your obvious newbie status is all that protects you from some truly meanspirited jokes at your expense over this effort. -- llywrch 00:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't think of anything that happened in a webforum somewhere that was encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 03:34, 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 Deleted -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aldrich Ames: Traitor Within

To be deleted. Unsourced conspiracy theory/original research. User:84.54.166.36 has been repeatedly inserting this information into various articles and has not provided sources despite being asked to do so. khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Aldrich Ames: Traitor Within was a 1998 made for-tv-movie, apparently. IMDb page. The content on this page doesn't appear to have much to do with it, though. I'll vote to Delete as unsourced material. Bunchofgrapes 18:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. If someone wants to do an article on the movie later, there will be a clear field. MCB 21:08, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spam Court

Renomination after ludicrously fast Speedy Keep. Non-notable video-game webforum. "morrowinds Spam Court" gets 6 Google hits, and "morrowinds 'Spam Court'" gets 0. Delete. --Calton | Talk 07:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• del. nn. mikka (t) 05:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete, no alexa ranking. I've re-added the AfD tag to the article. — mendel ☎ 16:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete per Alexa ranking (or actually lack of one), NN forum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Forumcruft. --Carnildo 20:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Carnildo. --Blackcap | talk 16:44, 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 USERFY. — JIP | Talk 04:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tyler Atkinson

Vanity about an "award-winning" singer-songwriter. There's no Allmusic listing and no Google hits for "tyler atkinson" combined with any of the songs listed in the article:

• "baby loves to dance"
• "summer girl"
• "fight the imperial capitalist overlords"

I'm taking it to AfD instead of speedying it because it at least tries to claim notability, however vaguely. Note also that User:Tyler Atkinson tried to list himself on the "notable alumni" list in the article University of California, Santa Cruz. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 05:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as no evidence that he meets the criteria of WP:music. He could place this information on his user page especially the picture. Capitalistroadster 05:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy until he becomes notable. -- RHaworth 10:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

HE WINS AT LIFE he is super notable and has been to the moon

• Userfy as per Capitalistroadster and RHaworth. Hall Monitor 16:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete, new editor, easy mistake. Note though, that there is a claim of significance on the talk page. On the chance that this guy is significant in a verifiable way, I may change my mind. Friday (talk) 16:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete as above. Boy, talk about three banal cliche song titles! Barno 18:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn/vanity --redstucco 08:55, 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.

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 23:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers in Egyptian Mythology

• del original research in numerology. Verifiability. mikka (t) 05:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I disagree that this is should be deleted as "original research," it is more likely "source-based research." Based on my memory of Egyptian mythology (admittedly, my memory is based on an history class taken three years ago for fun) most of the numbers listed in the article are "verifiable" with reference to the myths (though some of them are rather obscure). I'd tag with "cleanup" and "needs references" instead and let it go at that. Crypticfirefly 06:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC) Okay, I'm changing my vote to weak keep because it is going to be a pain in the tuchis to figure out what was referred to in order to put in some of the references necessary to clean this thing up. It looks like most of the information came from Egyptian Myth and Legend, by Donald Mackenzie, published in 1907. Armed with this information, it should be possible, if tedious, to find each reference. Crypticfirefly 04:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC) Okay, I see that someone who doesn't understand how to use the reference tag put in the other references. I have fixed this so the references make sense. A good start, though it would be nice if they cited something other than various websites. Crypticfirefly 02:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC) Changing vote back to Keep, I've found a print reference that supports some of the choices here (and added one cite to it already). It appears that this article is not "original research," though it has done a poor job of identifying its sources. Crypticfirefly 05:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be verified. Owen× ☎ 18:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree this article is terrible as it stands, but the topic is inherently valuable. This should be cleaned up, not deleted. Dottore So 19:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • <Shrug>. Original research is usually not cleanupable. It is deletable and rewritable from scrathchabe. If you know a way to do in a sourced way and all, by all means welcome. I have no reasons to believe the author in each and every entry. Too much bullshit is known to be slipped by zealous numerologists in between legitimate facts. mikka (t) 20:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Most of these would be easy to verify with a good reference book on Egyptian mythology (which I do not have handy). "Cleanup" would do it.
      • References to specific numbers have now been verified.
• Delete. Without some discussion of why these numbers are important, it's no better an article than List of numbers. --Carnildo 20:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, I like List of numbers. Maybe that's what's wrong with me. :-) But seriously, the way this should be handled is to note that certain numbers seem to have a "magical" function in ancient Egyptian myths and folktales. Crypticfirefly 04:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • What it should have is which numbers have special meaning, what that meaning is, and research (with cited sources; no original research here) in to why the numbers have what meaning they have, possibly referencing contemporary cultures. What it has is List of occurrences of the number "seven" in Egyptian Mythology, List of occurrences of the number "five" in Egyptian Mythology, List of occurrences of the number "three" in Egyptian Mythology, and a little bit of original-research numerological speculation. --Carnildo 07:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Which is why I tried to remove the numerological speculation. However, I am now bored with trying to locate the references for the items chosen. I hope someone does improve it as you describe. Crypticfirefly 01:45, 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 moved to proper name. mikka (t) 23:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian gold (symbol)

• del. No such term mikka (t) 05:50, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of sexual pranks

WP is not a slang dictionary. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, least of all is WP a dictionary of slang terms that are probably hoaxes anyway. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the sooner the better. Jwissick^(t)(c) 07:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable probable hoax. Capitalistroadster 07:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE absolutely disguisting Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Second time around? --Wetman 09:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although I couldn't take them seriously and ended up laughing out loud. Sliggy 10:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I am reminded of the Blink182 song 'What's my age again?' Oswax 17:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a hoax. There are plenty of other websites where sexually frustrated juveniles can spend their free time inventing mysogynistic garbage. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • In case my comment was at all lacking in clarity, I hereby condemn this article to the deepest depths of Wiki-Hell!!!. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. as above comments. except I wasn't laughing. Kewp 07:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's funny, I don't think that it's a hoax, but I don't think that it adds to Wikipedia either. --Apyule 07:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely fictitous. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Weird Conference

One otherwise non-notable chunk of a private online community (WELL). Hell, I'm a member of the WELL, I don't think it's notable, and I can't imagine why anyone else in the world would. Calton | Talk 08:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• The sole author of this article blanked everything except the VFD tag, I am assuming that is a request from him too that this thing be deleted. Therefore, I am speedy deleting this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skybolt Fusion Reactor

At best original research. The concept is unknown in the fusion energy community, and certainly hasn't been published in a reputable journal. Art Carlson 08:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like original research--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 08:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• They laughed at Newton and Einstein too! Oh, uh, sorry, Delete. It's original research, not peer-reviewed or published. And it's not a notable pseudoscience area deserving of discussion, but rather a single crackpot's invention and theory. Bunchofgrapes 18:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Improbable in the extreme; requires references or a proof by existence. Sliggy 20:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "Original research". At this time there is the same diskussion in the german wikipedia. -- Andy.we 07:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  Wo genau? --Art Carlson 09:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Hi Art: Skybolt Diskussion is at de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/27._September_2005 (Nr. 24). Gruß -- Andy.we 12:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• This fusion reactort comes complete with its own Theory of everything but unfortunately without any secondary sources, verifyability or at least a hint that anybody but the inventor is caring about this stuff. Delete. --Pjacobi 12:59, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 05:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two Cunts in a Kitchen

Dictionary Definition --Porturology 08:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, type of television commercial. Kappa 11:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• No it was not a dictionary definition. It was a stub. Dictionary articles and stubs are two different things. The question is whether it is a stub with any hope of expansion, or a stub that has no hope whatsoever of expansion. After reading the article as nominated, I was on the side of deleting it. After reading the article as nominated, it appeared to be no more than an unverifiable concept described in one Stephen King novel, with no hope of expansion beyond the one quotation from that novel. Maybe there was such a class of advertizement, but this surely wouldn't be its name. But after research, I am surprised to find that this is the accepted term for a widely recognized class of advertisement, and is verifiable, with the potential to not be a perpetual stub. Keep. Uncle G 11:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• The question I would ask is what is the evidence that this is widely accepted slang. My Google search shows 8 distinct mentions - only 1 or 2 appear to be ad related. The rest are second hand (e.g "or as they say in the industry..."). If this was widely accepted slang, I would expect many maore direct hits. Secondly could this be a back formation i.e. an adaption of Stephen King's termonology by people outside the industry. I feel we should have input from someone in the industry or we may be perpetuating a hoax.--Porturology 12:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article has multiple references that are at least somewhat credible to support its existence. That is enough to keep the article itself. Unless someone provides a credible rebuttal reference to show it's a hoax, final determination of whether this is a hoax or not should be left as an exercise for each reader. Unfocused 15:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Added reference to use in the 80s and 90s. I think the article is significant in that, as the references say, it is not just a definition, but provides an insight into the thought patterns of the advertising industry. Although it's not all over the internet, advertising industry stuff isn't all over the internet in general, interestingly. Gzuckier 16:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A google search on Cs in a K or C's in a K generates about 60 and 50 hits respectively. What a nasty phrase. Dottore So 17:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not a dict def. Secretlondon 21:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Jwissick^(t)(c) 22:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/Expand as currently written; seems to be evolving beyond a dicdef/slang into an actual summary of the phenomenon. Nae'blis 22:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as verifiable phenomenon and capable of expansion. Capitalistroadster 23:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This seems quite notable.--Pharos 03:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep' please this is not a dictionary definition so why erase this that does not make sense Yuckfoo 05:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa. --Apyule 07:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Objectionable name, but seems to be a legitimate ad industry term that originated in the 1950's. --Meiers Twins 10:24, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All else fails

NN. Jwissick^(t)(c) 09:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. Marskell 11:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there is nothing verifiable here. This sentence makes it unlikely that verification could be added: "They are currently struggling to make a name for themselves in the Singapore underground scene." Friday (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 09:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Struggling bands shouldn't be here on wikipedia. --Miborovsky 10:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is clearly a vanity page and the language is too colloquial. --Charlotte131 18:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not a particularly notable band. Singopo 06:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taifun

Advertising Dismas|^(talk) 09:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Article is nothing but a letter touting for business partnerships. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The letter is from "Powermatic Design Services"; what's "Taifun", anyway? Looks like a test, hoax, or very confused newbie to me. Bunchofgrapes 18:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising. doesn't belong here.--Alhutch 19:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

please delete: carsten Dohrmann

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Davidson

Fake? there's only one hit for "Chris Davidson" "Davidson Enterprises" on google. [8] --WP Talk 09:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Chris Davidson is not on List of billionaires (2005), which admittedly is denominated in dollars. A google turned up several businesses whose name involved "Davidson Enterprises", but I couldn't find one that matched this article. In the absence of further evidence, delete. Sliggy 10:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I've just checked out some of the other contributions of the creator of that article. They speak for themselves (all vandalism, mostly adding nonsense). --JoanneB 23:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, so famous that nobody has heard of him, hmmmm alf 11:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Dodd and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Ong. Lupo 10:23, 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 already deleted. — JIP | Talk 05:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raj Dumbledore

I automatically assume that a page called Raj Dumbledore created by User:Rajdumbledore must be vanity. But makes slightly more claim to notability than the average so I had better check before userfying it. -- RHaworth 10:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Looks like vanity to me, so I'd say delete. If the website one day meets WP:WEB, maybe it could have an article, but that doesn't automatically qualify the creator for a biographical article. Friday (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Vanity page. Bunchofgrapes 18:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Jwissick^(t)(c) 22:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - vanity/nonwiki content. Nae'blis 22:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as article; userfy content if desired. --MCB 00:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete User:Nichalp/sg 12:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn/vanity --redstucco 08:59, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marketplace intimacy

Advertisement, Original Research, originally sigged with a hotmail address, this was removed. Usrnme h8er 11:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• I found this article to be interesting...giving me some insight into bettering my store (unsigned entry by 66.75.110.105 (talk • contribs), also creator of the page and Marketplace Intimacy)

• Delete. Non-encyclopedic. 郵便箱 11:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, reads like advertising -- Ferkelparade π 12:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no indication of widespread use, apparently advertising, no substantial content. Barno 18:27, 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 Speedied. android79 13:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] StreB Company

Patent nonsense! Stephenb 11:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete obviously! Stephenb 11:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, I've flagged it as such. Usrnme h8er 12:15, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Discounting Duderon (total of 2 edits), I would normally pretty much rely on an 8d-3k to be a delete. However, A Man In Black has comprehensively rewritten the article and persuaded at least one former deleter to be a keeper. In this case, I'm not sure there is a consensus given the new information in the article, and I think that VfU would be likely to undelete+relist this. A renomination may be appropriate for the sake of clarity. -Splash^talk 00:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gaming Age Forums

Non notable website, vanity piece. Both forum and main site rank low on big-boards and Alexa respectively, considerably below IGN Message Boards and Gamefaqs message boards which are arguably more relevant. Stx 11:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Al 12:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the re-write. Al 15:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I don't know if it should be deleted, but do please review the edit history and the continual vandalism of this page when thinking about it. I've never been to GAF and, based on how they describe themselves, will never go there, but I'm spending a few minutes every week rolling back nonsense or vandalism from this page. --Habap 16:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Vandalizing this page is one of the favorite hobbies of the posters of a rival forum, unfortunately. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just an average VBulletin forum. Doesn't seem special. Kushboy 16:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN forum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 19:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Jwissick^(t)(c) 22:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteIt is not important Opa-ages
• Delete, non-notable forum on a non-notable website. The Gaming Age website doesn't have an article, so why should its forum be considered more important? Also, a side note: Google gives 635,000 hits for "Gaming Age" but only displays 28 of them. --Idont Havaname 05:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Because the site doesn't much matter. The forums aren't an adjunct to Gaming-Age; they are independently administrated, and largely more popular than the GA site. Alexa backs this up: 87% of the gaming-age.com domain's hits are to forum.gaming-age.com or forums.gaming-age.com. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I'm gonna take a crack a rewriting this, but this is a significant gaming forum, particularly as a barameter of gaming culture in general. I'm also not sure why the nominator said it ranks low on BigBoards and Alexa; it's ranked #24 in traffic on BigBoards, and has a fairly decent rank of about 12,500 on Alexa (despite splitting its traffic between forums.gaming-age.com and a handful of alternate domains). For the number-addicted, it has nearly 2 million posts (this despite automated deletion of stale threads after a certain time), and nearly 8000 registered users (despite requiring administrator approval to register an account). This is emphatically not a vanity advertisement listing; this is a peer of the IGN and Gamespot boards in traffic and influence. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've edited the page to be a little less vain and in-jokey, including a mention of notable posters (people who are notable as something other than GAF posters, not a "OMG KEWL POSTERS" list). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This Opa Ages/Gaming Age blather has gone on long enough. - Lucky 6.9 05:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, being annoyed at trolls isn't a criterion for deletion. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep With A Man In Black's revisions, I think it is a good article, worth keeping. --Habap 13:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I also agree with A Man In Black's revisions. To highlight some reasons why the GAF should have a Wiki article. Many game developers and major game media names visit the site. The forums are very active with around 1000 users online during weekdays and GAF is still growing. 2 million + posts have been achieved in less than a year and a half, since NeoGAF's incarnation, and the forums contain a wealth of information for the average user. Duderon 20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Frédéric Chopin. -Splash^talk 00:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tekla Justyna Krzyżanowska

No other notability other than being Chopin's mother. Should be merged with Chopin article Mandel 12:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Chopin Dlyons493 Talk 13:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Frédéric Chopin. Punkmorten 20:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect/Merge as above. Nae'blis 22:22, 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 Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] De Lemos

Fiction. — Mateo SA | talk 12:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no google hits for some of the strange words and phrases; does seem to be fiction. Bunchofgrapes 18:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax or joke. Same anon author as Michael Gilson De Lemos, a rambling bio tagged for cleanup, possibly authored by De Lemos himself as vanity. (Or possibly an attack on De Lemos, for that matter.) MCB 00:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if not fiction then certainly family vanity. Can someone please check the rest of this person's contribs in and around Libertarianism - are they fiction too? -- RHaworth 19:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 00:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Zakhov Mission

• not notable abakharev 14:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The article became better and the book is reasonably notable, (it was my mistake) abakharev 23:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Seems a fairly notable book, although a lot more information is clearly needed. It doesn't even mention Andrei Gulyashki as the author for instnace. Still, if somebody was prepared to work on it, potential is there. Keresaspa 16:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Keresaspa. -- Kjkolb 08:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I've given the article a bit of a clean-up and I think it might just about be salvagable now. I'll endeavour to read the blasted thing and expand some more afterwards. Keresaspa 15:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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 redirected by Friday Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] XML document

I'm not even sure what this is, but I don't think it's Wikipedia worthy. Kushboy 16:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as totally useless garbage (G1). Someone just copy-and-pasted some XML file from somewhere. -- Plutor 16:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedily redirected to XML. Seems appropriate, and it's certainly the easiest way to deal with this otherwise useless article. Friday (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to XML, as has already been done. Jkelly 16:51, 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sheldon Levy

President of Ryerson University, but otherwise non-notable, and certainly not worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Delete -- Spinboy 16:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Ryerson University and delete President of a notable university deserves mention, but only in the article of his university. He hasn't done enough of note to warrant his own article, at least based on the information in this. --Blackcap | talk 17:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've recently learnt that if a merge happens, then the original article has to be kept as a redirect to follow the GFDL, so I'm striking out that bit to make my vote sensical. --Blackcap | talk 16:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above; keep a redirect, keep edit history in RU article to meet GFDL. Barno 18:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Per BDA's comment below, Mr. Levy is on a few boards and has held a few college administration positions. I'm not convinced any of these (or all in combination) make him notable enough for a bio. Barno 19:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand. University presidents are inherently notable, and this guy seems to have a lot going on that has nothing to do with his University. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It looked the first time like a copyvio, so it needs a serious rewrite or it may be listed there. -- Spinboy 19:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge not worthy of an individual entry. Dottore So 19:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as per BD2412, this figure appears to be notable outside of his presidency. Hall Monitor 19:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as per Hall Monitor. Vizjim 20:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. According to [9] he was previously VP at UOIT and president of Sheridan College, so he has notability outside of Ryerson. -- Corvus 01:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please erasing this is not in the spirit of wikipedia Yuckfoo 05:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you the sockpuppet of Info@ryerson.ca? -- Spinboy 05:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Why would you ever ask if such a well-known contributor as Yuckfoo is a sock puppet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicodemus75 (talk • contribs) 11:53, September 28, 2005.
• Keep. University presidents are inherently notable.--Nicodemus75 18:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- JamesTeterenko 02:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn/vanity --redstucco 09:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Jord 01:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Alf ^melmac 08:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Habitat theory

A google search on the term shows no matches related to the assertion made in article, appears to be original research CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I checked this before creating the new page and found a number of references such as

http://www.wuplet.com/thesis/chapter3.htm http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/~dmiall/travel/history.htm

which seem to suggest that this info is not totally without foundation. Suggest not deleting. It does need more content though - at least some references.- Unsigned by user:86.134.30.182

• Delete totally obscure term that was coined by Jay Appleton. Dottore So 19:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

IMO information should not be deleted simply because it is "obscure". On the other hand, if this really is a one-person coinage not recognised by anyone else then I agree.

• Delete Jwissick^(t)(c) 22:04, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JP Dons

Non-notable fantasy football league. Google search showed a single relevant match. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Fantasy football teams are about as relevant on WP as the office poker game at the SFPD. --Blackcap | talk 17:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A fantasy football team (not a league). No such team, including mine, has encyclopedic importance. Barno 18:32, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PIPOL

Non-notable chat forum. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Blackcap | talk 17:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:41, 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 speedy delete. --Blackcap | talk 18:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC) (Note: The reason I have my name here is because the "end of AfD" tags were not placed by the deleting admin, JoJan, not because I am an admin or because I closed the AfD). --Blackcap | talk

[edit] TJ Foscolo

Vanity. Kushboy 16:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• "The Special Classes"? This may be an attack on a real non-notable person. Speedy delete.
• speedy as A7 or possibly an attack. — brighterorange (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under A7. --Blackcap | talk 17:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The article was speedy deleted by me JoJan 17:12, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 09:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Land of Monsters

nn zine vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Please avoid acronyms on AFD, it annoys people that don't understand them (most newcomers), and most deletables are written by newcomers. --Phroziac^(talk) 23:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nn zine-cruft. Sounds good 'n' worthless. --Blackcap | talk 17:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't use the term cruft on AFD, it's biting the newcomers, and many people find it offensive. And, please don't call peoples work worthless. --Phroziac^(talk) 23:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • From WP:GAFD#Shorthands: "-cruft (for example, 'fancruft', 'gamecruft' or 'forumcruft') is shorthand for 'This article is trivia of interest only to hardcore fans of a specific film, television series, book, game, pop singer, web forum, etc.'" Bollocks to not using "cruft." It's useful, and it's even listed in the Guide. For one thing, newcomers who vote on AfDs votes are rarely counted and are often assumed to be sockpuppets, so the "don't bite the newbies" argument is simply trite and unhelpful. When was the last time you saw a newcomer vote on AfD have a vote that was actually grounded in WP policy and was worthy of being counted? Never, for me. Second thing, if a newcomer can't be bothered to read the instructions to AfD, which includes in its glossary such terms as "nn" and "cruft," then that's their problem, not the person who uses those terms. It's shorthand so that we don't waste our time writing out the same old arguments over and over again in longhand. --Blackcap | talk 00:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: I am entirely in agreeance with not biting newbies, and go out of my way to apologize for and explain misunderstandings. But saying not to use established, easily understood terms that apply perfectly to the article in question to avoid offending the writer of an article that doesn't belong here is too much. --Blackcap | talk 00:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable. Oswax 17:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no indication of notability beyond small local group of fans. I know Athens, GA has many kinds of musicians, but is there really enough Folk punk there to keep a zine going? Barno 18:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless it isn't a permastub, *AND* is verifiable. --Phroziac^(talk) 23:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- sounds like a high school magazine. Non-notable. --Maru (talk) 00:13, 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. -Splash^talk 00:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul heroux

All that is claimed in notability is being a martial arts instructor and working for a think-tank. Not notable? DJ Clayworth 17:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Al 21:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Paul Theroux, as a possible typo. (I agree with the above users regarding Heroux's notability). KeithD (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - possible vanity/sensei-worship page? Contributor's only other entry work is Wing Chun. Also an orphan. Nae'blis 22:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. MONGO 10:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PooHate

I cannot believe I actually wasted seconds of my valuable time googling for this scatological idiocy. It's not total nonsense, surprisingly enough, but it's not notable, thank god. DS 17:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Utter crap. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as band vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The sooner the better Jwissick^(t)(c) 22:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For what it's worth, the creator and only editor of this article has now changed the text to Feel free to delete this page Wiki. --JoanneB 23:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN-Just silly rubbish. Dudtz 9/29/05 5:49 PM EST Yeah, i kind of got the wrong idea of what this site is supposed to be about. At first i thought it was an official encyclopedia, then i saw random stuff on here, so thought id post about a joke metal band. Obviously this is Wiki Mis-use so yeah delete away. I like this whole site tho. Some funny stuff. Cheers, TC PooHate

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO. It's been on there for >7 days, so I've deleted per that process. -Splash^talk 00:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)