Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 28

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 as per discussion --Doc (?) 12:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dibbuns Against Bedtime

After creating this article, I realized it fell under fictional story material (characters, settings, etc. which are only interesting to fans). It could also be considered another advertisement for a site. So Delete is my vote. 69.81.252.232 02:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Gaming groups are generally considered not notable for WP articles. Delete in agreement with article's creator. Barno 04:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, as a request for deletion by article creator (ed: IFF anon user prooves he is User:WriterFromAfar755). Usrnme h8er 08:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, yup go ahead. David 08:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Article was in fact created by WriterFromAfar755. Confirmation from him that he is in fact the same editor as this IP address would be neccessary to speedy delete.--Scimitar ^parley 15:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• If you'll look at my talk page, Talk:69.81.252.232 it redirects to my other page User:WriterFromAfar755. So yes, I am the same person, just too lazy to login. 69.81.252.232 22:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

unfortunatelly that is far from proof, cant you just make it easier by logging in a prooving it? Usrnme h8er 08:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• OH for goodness sake fine. I don't care if it's speedied or just deleted, just Delete it. *Sighs wearily* WriterFromAfar755 00:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• *Smiles happily*, I've now flagged the page csd for admin attention. Usrnme h8er 07:28, 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 (8 deletes, 1 merge, as verification was not provided). Scimitar ^parley 17:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lifeguard (poker)

Dicdef, can never be expanded, neologism. — Phil Welch 00:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Beyond the nominator's comments, I have played poker and read poker publications for 3 years and have never heard the term. It is not in regular usage. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Poker jargon, which seems to have millions of such little-used terms. Nifboy 01:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Hmm... I'm not convinced this is a real term, what with the attribution a link to some guy's IMDB entry. Delete pending verification (couldn't find any on google).--Pharos 04:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. If verified, merge with poker jargon. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless this is verified, in which case it should be merged (I found nothing on Google, others might have more luck). alf 10:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless this is verified, in which case it should be merged. -- Spinboy 01:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Killer river, river rat (applied to the player chasing it) maybe, but not Lifeguard. Alf ^melmac 08:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, not in the official dictionairy of poker. Klonimus 04:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete unanimously discounting the sockpuppets. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 04:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World 44

A conspiracy theory related to the number 44. I don't understand it at all. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced OR, probable hoax. No relevant Google hits. MCB 00:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per MCB (I confirmed no google hits) Steve Summit (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious joke. Nobody thinks fork manufacturers are taking over the world. Vizjim 00:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Noone must learn of this before our time is come.--Pharos 04:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Suppress the secret knowledge through deletion. Parody which fits WP standards of "hoax". "The Roman Empire’s powerful and longstanding reign could be an analogy of the New World Order intended by World [Silverware] masterminds. The weapon used in Caesar's murder [in 44 BC] was a knife, which eerily relates to World branding their knives with the number 44." Barno 04:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious joke alf 07:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, funny, but totally unverifiable and the mentions of 44 are a prose list of unrelated events. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although it did make me laugh! Jezze 17:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, The above comments only DEMONSTRATE World 44's power! The only explicit evidence of World 44 is being suppressed, probably by World 44 masterminds themselves! Some Random Concerned About World 44 19:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC) _{- Edit actually by 128.36.60.116. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 02:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)}
• Keep, Might be a joke, but this is pretty interesting. I say we let this one slide. 20:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC) _{- Edit actually by 128.36.59.253. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 02:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete. The Caesar stuff may be BJAODN material. Chick Bowen 23:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• OhOh. The one who Deletes it will probably be a secret mastermind. -- Andy.we 00:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I like it. One of the better articles on Wikipedia. - Pistacchio 01:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC) _{- Edit actually by 128.36.60.116. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 02:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)}
• Keep, Ditto above. Also, I have seen some of these forks with World 44 on them. After reading this article, it's like my life has taken on a whole different meaning, what with the world-domination plots right under our noses and stuff. - Peanut_the_Rhino 02:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC) _{- Edit actually by 128.36.60.116. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 02:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete, though funny to read. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm playing the blues on my BJAODNonica. --FOo 06:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is obviously not a joke, the ramifications of such a conspiracy are very serious, and the doubt with which many people have greeted this attempt at unraveling said conspiracy only serve to show how well ingrained World 44 is in the current society.--Selfish gene 21:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Here's what I think. There are many mysteries and phenomena we perceive yet fail to understand. This has been the case for centuries, as man has witnessed all kinds of examples, paranormal or not: the Illuminati, ESP, UFOs, midgets, a lucrative bottled water industry, and now, World 44. Despite any seemingly valid arguments skeptics may have, like World 44 being a hoax or discriminatory to Jews, it nevertheless exists. We ought to keep this article, as it serves Wikipedia's purpose to inform the people of a modern-day conspiracy. (preceding unsigned comment by 68.206.67.193 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 1 October 2005)
• Delete, The reasons are obvious, and the course of events inevitable. TO THE READER: Please momentarily stare at this screen, until a flash is observed. If you do not see a flash please call (252) 440-1142 from your nearest payphone. 07:18, 02 October 2005 (UTC) -- 441.0.1.100
• Keep, Just saw this on Wikipedia, which is usually pretty accurate and frequently updated by people. (World 44). Turns out it does have some validation. 10:44, 02 October 2005 (UTC) Edmitinny (preceding unsigned comment by 128.36.60.116 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 3 October 2005)
• Keep, I tell thee, thou foolish Wikipedians, that I grudge the information I give to such men as do not belong to me and to whom I do not belong. There is a class of persons to whom by all spiritual affinity I am bought and sold; for them I will cover up a conspiracy if need be; but your miscellaneous popular charities; the education online of fools; the building of forums to the vain end to which many now stand; alms to world masterminds; and the thousandfold deletions of valid articles;--though I confess with shame I sometimes succumb to these acts, it is a wicked temptation, which by and by I shall have the manhood to withhold. 11:22, 02 October 2005 (UTC) Self-Reliant Waldo(preceding unsigned comment by 128.36.60.116 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 3 October 2005)
• Keep, What hoe! What hoe! These fellows are dancing mad! Their views on deletion are of the tongue but not of the heart! 11:37, 02 October 2005 (UTC) Poe Greek (preceding unsigned comment by 128.36.60.116 (talk • contribs) {{{2}}})
• Keep, The blab of the pave....the tires of world conspiracies and the sluff of non-believers....the talk of Wiki promenaders. I guess it must be the flag of my disposition, but I'm voting to keep this one. 11:55, 02 October 2005 (UTC) BigWhit456 (preceding unsigned comment by 128.36.60.116 (talk • contribs) {{{2}}})
  • You do know we can tell you're making these all from the same IP, right?--Pharos 03:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes.
    • OK, just checking :)--Pharos 04:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Good deal. Keep(preceding unsigned comment by 128.36.60.116 (talk • contribs) {{{2}}})
• Delete There is no conspiracy, move along. Klonimus 04:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Awww...that was a lame one! Just for that I'm adding another Keep comment. Only funny and original comments will be allowed. And by the way, you sound like a stormtrooper. (preceding unsigned comment by 128.36.60.116 (talk • contribs) {{{2}}})
• Keep, Because I like cheese, and I'll be damned if World 44 takes that away!!!! (preceding unsigned comment by 128.36.60.116 (talk • contribs) {{{2}}})
• Keep, There is a fine and terrifying line between run-of-the-mill utensil manufacturers and the average masterminds seeking world domination. (preceding unsigned comment by 128.36.60.116 (talk • contribs) {{{2}}})

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. But, please note that this was not patent nonsense. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plookie

Yet another non notable neologism. No Google results related to the term at all [1] Shauri Yes babe? 23:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NNN (non notable neologism) might even be speediable as nonsense. Johntex\^talk 23:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • How about “non-notable nonsense”? ♠ DanMS 00:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Please avoid acronyms, newcomers tend to not understand them. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A term invented by cousins who live in Pennsylvania and Virginia. No Google hits. This is an easy one.--Sean Jelly Baby? 00:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete speedily - should be gone already. Vsmith 00:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Re tagging for speedy, coming up! Shauri Yes babe? 00:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy, Nonsense. The article says it “can mean whatever the user wants it to mean”, therefore it means nothing. ♠ DanMS 00:29, 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 delete (6 delete, 1 transwiki). Scimitar ^parley 17:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snarfle

dictionary definition Delete --JAranda | yeah 00:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Why do we have to waste so much of Wikipedians’ time on dictionary definitions? They should automatically be speedy. ♠ DanMS 00:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Any real dicdef should be transwikied. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What if it already has a better definition on wiktionary? I've seen a few of those on AfD. It would be nice to speedy them. -- Kjkolb 06:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary, assuming this isn't a joke. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete probable hoax. — Phil Welch 01:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable hoax. Nothing on dictionary.com - Mgm|^(talk) 08:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Do not transwiki. ESkog 14:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, needs citation or solid etymology. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:08, 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 (unanimous). Scimitar ^parley 17:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bay Area DateLink

advertisement/vanity for nn local dating business. --MCB 00:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The company may or may not be notable, but this is not an encyclopedia entry, it’s an advertisement. ♠DanMS 00:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no salvageable content. Will change to keep if article is keleted. — Phil Welch 01:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing but advertising (and bad one at that) alf 08:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, oh how much lovelier Wiki would be if this was a speedy criterion. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 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 The Land 12:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Careena Collins

More porncruft. Actress has no claims to notability other than having done porn. Website doesn't exist. Please note that the Google test is of highly limited use in establishing notability for pornographic actors due to linkspamming. Vizjim 00:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom Porncruft --JAranda | yeah 00:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability established by IMDB (60 films). We would keep an actress who had been in 60 non-porn films; and even applying a test of a 5-1 or even 10-1 ratio, she would qualify. I'd say she fell on the "porn star" side of the "porn star"/"porn performer" line. --MCB 01:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per MCB, notable pornstar. — Phil Welch 01:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not even "into" the stuff and I recognize the name. Notable within the genre. 23skidoo 02:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Porncruft??? So now we're removing articles because they've only done porn? That's completely out of the spirt of Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes 03:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Only if we remove them (which is a matter for votes, not your humble nominator, to decide!) The idea behind the nomination is that, to judge by the article, this person may have done a fair few films but has not established any kind of notability within the field. I'm not suggesting that porn-only actors should be banned, merely that the same criteria should be applied to them as anyone else. Vizjim 09:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• keep please erasing this is not in the spirit of wikipedia Yuckfoo 05:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a noteable porn star. I'm not sure why people even keep nominating these. Even the questionable ones get kept and she is far better known that most. --Apyule 07:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep so why aren't articles about B-movie actors and actresses being similarly nominated for deletion? "Notability" is a very difficult thing to quantify. -EdgarAllanToe 10:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Because originally I stumbled into this area following the controversies on the Jordan Capri and Tawnee Stone articles: I'm now looking through the porn starlets' listings to ensure that the same kind of abuse is deleted from other such articles. A couple of the articles I see don't seem to establish any reason for such a person to be in an encyclopedia: this seemed to be one of them. Judging by the responses this nomination is getting, I got it wrong on this occasion. Vizjim 10:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

From what I understand, Capri and Stone are isolated cases... for most porn stars, their birth names (or their alleged birth names) are nearly impossible to withhold and I don't think most care once the information is out. I'm guessing that Capri and Stone made such a stink (if they even did) because they are very young and hope to completely bury the fact that they were in porn after amassing a few million dollars. -EdgarAllanToe 10:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now that I've looked at the articles you mentioned, I agree with those decisions. They were written with an antagonistic tone ("despite being billed as a teen sensation", etc.) and should at a bare minimum be rewritten to fall more in line with the "typical" porn star page. -EdgarAllanToe 10:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this information is of no value. CalJW 16:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No value is rather subjective, so how can it be used as a reason for deletion? The question is more about is the topic encylopedic. Is the claim that articles about actresses are not encylopedic? If I feel that articles on road markings are of no value does that mean all of those articles should be deleted? Vegaswikian 05:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable pornographic entertainer in accordance with WP:BIO. Hall Monitor 17:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm completely resigned to this being kept. Nonetheless, and purely out of interest, I'd like to ask which of the WP:BIO elements you meant? I quote: "Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by: a) Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers b) A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following c)An independent biography d) Name recognition e) Commercial endorsements". Cheers Vizjim 22:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Marcus22 19:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I am a firm believer that if you can learn something new, doesn't matter if it's about an event, a book, or a porn star, you should be able to learn it. i never heard of her before but now i have so i learned something new :-) KnowledgeOfSelf 23:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep probably notable. Klonimus 04:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus and the article will therefore be kept. DES ^(talk) 06:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pat's Hubba Hubba

nn restaurant 336 google entries most from phone books etc Delete --JAranda | yeah 00:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Verifiable, and just about as notable as your local high school, which always gets kept, so no sense deleting this. — Phil Welch 01:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a restaurant there are hundreds of thousands of those out there Question is does we want an article on those hundreds of thousands of restaurants. --JAranda | yeah 01:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • And that, my friends, is the best argument I've heard lately for deleting non-notable high schools. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Lack of notability is not a criterion for deletion, even though it is continually used as such. -- Reinyday, 21:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, I don't consider "well, we have x, and y is as worthless as x" a good reason to keep: less worthless stuff is good in my books. Lord Bob
• Delete per nominator unless someone can show independent importance. Phil, the WP consensus reasoning has been that high schools (not necessarily schools for younger kids) are a major nontrivial part of people's lives, form large ongoing communities that take an interest in sports teams and budget votes, are verifiable in terms of not just existing but having their issues widely discussed in print, and so forth. The consensus has been that restaurants (and stores, malls, and most other commercial operations) aren't in the same class of importance, and (partly to avoid advertising) WP keeps their articles only if some broad notability is verified. Barno 05:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Kewp 06:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Marskell 10:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just because there are useless articles about boring highschools in here, doesn't mean we should keep adding new articles (I'll be taking a look at useless articles about educational institutions which can be merged, i.e. TAFE in australia, if it'll make you feel better). alf 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dottore So 11:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• KeepThis place is a landmark and has cult status. Its not just some restaurant. Whats with comment after my post? Im just a guy who edited this page and my name is Tom. I'm not registered because I wanted to provide useful information, unlike "per nom" before an entry gets deleted by people who don't know anything about it. Since when is Google the be all and end all for posts on Wikipedia? If thats the case, then why does Wikipedia even exist? Also, what does "beware of socks" mean? If you have something to say, then say it, or is Wikipedia just about some elite group of insiders who use some kind of WikiSpeak to get rid of entries they simply dont know about or dont like? Like Biermacht mentioned, Pat's has been written upn in the New York Times, as well as commented on on espn.com. I've been to Pat's, I've talked about Pat's. To some people it's legendary. I have no financial gain whatsoever to Pat's being listed on Wikipedia. If you have a valid entry to make, then say it. If you think this should be deleted "per nom" than take the time to support "nom"'s argument, otherwise, shut up. Tom 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC) this user has made no edits ... not even to this page?
• Keep Listen here, college boy. I'll hit you in the balls 336 times, and then you tell me that's not a lot of hits. Pat's is a landmark and a very formative part of my youth and that of many of the people that grew up in the Port Chester community.IkeVandergraaf 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)user's only edit
• Keep I am the author of this article. It is noteworthy, verifiable and doesn't fall under any of Wikipedia's categories of problems that require deletion. Nom's statment that "It is a restaurant there are hundreds of thousands of those out there Question is does [sic] we want an article on those hundreds of thousands of restaurants" is unhelpful and contrary to Wikipedia's own policies ("Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page"). Furthermore, any contention that this article is advertising is contradicted by the lack of an address or phone number in the article, and the fact that the business doesn't even operate under the name "Pat's Hubba Hubba" anymore. Any concerns about this article involving a "very small 'garage' compan[y]" is satisfied because the information is third-party verifiable (and reported in the widely circulated New York Times, among others). The NY Times articles describe the cultural phenomanon that is Pat's, and are not simply restaurant reviews. The "broad notability" requirment mentioned above is thus satisfied. And finally, just because commentators like Dr. Alf thinks the information in this article is boring does not mean that one should prevent the information from being posted. Others may not share his sentiment about the content of the article. In short, don't limit readers' access to information by broadening Wikipedia's deletion policy because you yourself aren't interested in the articles contents. Biermacht 10:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)(All previous edits are to this page)
• Delete not notable - and beware of socks. --Doc (?) 15:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Please read the sources before posting that this is not notable. Otherwise your posts are based on your opinion and are not made in good faith. (if you can't link to the sources directly, click on Google's cached version of the page.) It is notable enough for the most respected newspaper in the United States to write two seperate articles about it (one entitled "Everybody Comes to Hubba's. O.K., Maybe Not the Health Food Crowd" (Click here for associated slide show)) Biermacht 15:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Never mind socks, beware of getting hit in the nuts. --fvw* 15:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Famous place to grab some food (unsigned by 65.0.173.127 (talk • contribs) - 3rd edit)
• Delete. Another local business. -R. fiend 17:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • R. fiend, that the article is about a local business is per se not grounds for deletion. You as an administrator should know that. -Biermacht 15:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I verified the New York Times article. Port Chester is about 31 miles from New York, so that means something. The article is: "Everybody Comes to Hubba's. O.K., Maybe Not the Health Food Crowd." Peter Applebome, July 10, 2005, p. 25, Column: Our Towns. So this seems to be part of a systematic survey of towns. I conclude that the New York Times vouches for Pat's Hubba Hubba as locally notable in Port Chester. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'd encourage Biermacht to save the article text, and, if deleted, boil it down to a paragraph and put it in the Port Chester article. That's certainly appropriate. Because of the labor involved in a GFDL-friendly merge-and-delete I am not going to vote merge-and-delete though. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep If its a local cult restaurant, I'll buy the authors argument. Roodog2k (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Marcus22 19:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment If you can't write more than 2 letters than please don't bother to become part of a discusssion. I vote to delete this 'comment' as it's utterly worthless. And by the way, the what does someone born in the UK and living in France know about the legitimacy of a an entry for Pat's Hubba Hubba? Have you ever even been there or heard about it? I haven't been or heard about a lot of relevant places in France, does that make them worthless and not notable. Why not take the time to write some kind of opinion besides a cowardly "nn". - Tom
  • I happen to live in a free country Tom. I'm entitled to express an opinion even if it is one you disagree with. I don't need to explain my reasons to you or to anyone else. In this case, given the little I can find out about the place, I consider it a non-notable restaurant and thus not worth keeping. Hence the delete. I'm sorry if you find nn too brief. Perhaps you should try brevity sometime - you may win more friends and stop irritating people so much! Marcus22 20:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • "I'm entitled to express an opinion" Um yeah, thats sort of the point. Express it then and dont just write "nn". "I don't need to explain my reasons to you or to anyone else" If you're posting on Wikipedia, then yes, Marcus22, you do. Read the rules. "I consider it a non-notable restaurant and thus not worth keeping" Again, Not-Notable is not criteria for deletion. How many times does this have to be pointed out to people? - Tom
    • Comment to Marcus22 Biermacht the author here. Actually, you do have to explain your reasons when voting on a listing for deletion. You might want to brush up on the rules for commenting on a listing for deletion before voting again. You might have missed the important stuff in the rules; I mean, it it was only emphasized in italics. "When expressing an opinion, please include your opinion, your reasoning, and sign (with four consecutive tilde characters)." If you don't want to "explain your reasons to anyone else" then I suggest you stop voting, because your votes are unhelpful. Biermacht 14:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Votes with no comments are often counted, never mind votes that simply say "not notable" (which is what "nn" stands for). So don't count on this vote going down on that basis. By the way, Tom, I suggest making an account rather than just linking to the article on Tom all the time. Non-users often get tagged with accusations of being sockpuppets because that's often what they are (not that I'm saying you are). Lord Bob 03:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, thank you Lord Bob, JAranda and Marcus 22 for turning the bold idea of WikiPedia into nothing more than a popularity contest and ego trip for users. Have fun. I won't waste my time making a login as this experience has made it clear that WikiPedia is just another metafilter.com or slashdot.com, and not the impartial, objective resource it was intended to be. I mean some guys in Florida and France actively go after the deletion of an entry for a legendary local restaurant in New York they have never heard of or been to, without offering much, in Marcus22's case, no argument at all. Why? It's just sad really. - Tom
        • Like all of Wikipedia, AfD rests on the assumption that a group of people can come to reasonable judgements on subjects in which they are not experts by the use of due diligence, basic scholarship, and simple research. Your argument that only people with direct knowledge of the restaurant should participate in discussing is like saying that only people with botany degrees should edit articles on trees. For better or for worse, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You don't need to know Hubba to express a valid opinion on whether a restaurant that is famous in Port Chester, New York and a surrounding area—probably greater than a county but less than state—needs an article of its own. Personally, I think a paragraph in the Port Chester article is probably what is appropriate. What is your compelling case for needed a separate article rather than a section in Port Chester? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
          • That's not what I'm saying, that's what you're inferring. "participate in discussing", as you put it, is the problem here. Writing "nn" or "per mod" is pretty much the same thing as "trees suck, huh huh huh". I see a lot of "valid opinion" for keeping the article and lot of posting "Delete" so they can get a link up to thier profile page. To me writing "nn" or "per mod" is nothing more than self promotional comment spam. - Tom
• Me, I'd vote to keep it, despite the writer's best efforts at annoying all and sundry. It does seem to be something of a local landmark, judging by the links. Then again, I'm in England and haven't been to this restaurant, so maybe my vote shouldn't be counted either? Vizjim 13:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment to All, and Lord Bob in particular, from the Author - As stated above, lack of notability is NOT a criterion for deletion, nor is it even being considered as a criterion for deletion. I thus call on the administrators to give no weight to the nominators post, and all the posters that parroted him/her. They are per se invalid. Let's stop this nonsense of of using false criteria for deletion right now! Limiting information is a very powerful thing, and to do so arbitrarily or based on made-up rules is completely contrary to Wikipedia's mission. I am very troubled that an accurate, verifiable article that doesn't violate Wikipedia's rules and guidelines is in danger of being deleted because of negative votes that offer no valid discussion and no valid basis for deletion. Comments that the article is worthless, useless, and boring are not helpful in the discussion because they are opinion. Furthermore, regardless of whether notability is a criterion, the subject of the article was reported in widely circulated and well-respected media outlets. The subject is widely known in the largest metropolitan area in North America. It has been called a "landmark" by the New York Times. It's notability is unquestionable. And one more thing, I am the author of the article. Tom is not the author, nor is he my sock puppet. What I think Tom is saying is that if you are from Canada, France, Florida or anywhere outside of the New York City metropolitan area, don't say that the article is not notable without reading the sources first. Otherwise, when you post "nn" you are simply saying "I have not heard of this place, and I don't find it important to me." Take the time to research an article before voting to prevent the information from being published.Biermacht 10:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Notability has always been and still is a de facto criterion. It has never been formalized as policy because nobody has ever been able to agree on criteria. Therefore, judgements of notability are hashed out case by case in individual discussions, without the benefit of codified policy, leading to contention. Notability is a criterion for some categories of articles, e.g. biographies. You say "I am very troubled that an accurate, verifiable article that doesn't violate Wikipedia's rules and guidelines is in danger of being deleted." However, many items of information that are accurate and verifiable, yet unencyclopedic. And nobody is preventing the information from being published. In fact, nobody is preventing you from using Wikipedia to publish it. This information can go in the Port Chester, New York article, in a suitably abbreviated form, and you are certainly free to put the entire article on your personal user page, which you do not presently seem to be using for anything else. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Dpbsmith, I appreciate you taking the time to express your viewpoint in a reasonable and rational manner. I only wish the vast majority of "delete" posters took the time to do the same. If someone believes that the article is not notable, then they should say why it is not notable. I believe that is all the more important because notability is not an official requirement. Taking five minutes to explain one's point of view is not too much to ask when they are voting to delete information from Wikipedia. I do disagree with you about them not preventing information from being published. You are the only person that took the time to offer an alternative method of information distribution. Everyone else voted to shut down the article, period. Censoring the flow of information is a very powerful thing, and voting to to do so deserves more than the glib response that the majority of "delete" voters gave. And once again, I maintain that Pat's Hubba Hubba is notable and deserves its own page. It is a landmark in the largest metropolitan area in North America, as verified by several major media outlets. But thanks for providing me with alternatives.Biermacht 12:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, you want to know why I think this restaurant is not notable? Because it's a restaurant. That's all it is. There are millions of restaurants. What's special about this restaurant? I examine the article, and the closest thing I can see to being special is a glowing endorsement, in passing, of one of its dishes from Bill Simmons. I like Bill Simmons, when he isn't interviewing two-bit authors instead of doing his job. But, in my opinion, this article does not establish that this restaurant is any more special than millions of other restaurants. Having really hot chili and a former chain smoker for a proprietor does not notability make. And why didn't I write this all in my original vote? Because when I say something is "non-notable", I very seldom have to go into considerable detail of why it is so because people can see it for themselves. Perhaps it's notable to people who eat at it, but Wikipedia is not Westchester County, New Yorkpedia. Being a landmark isn't notable, there's a freakin' hill in my hometown that's a landmark. Lord Bob 16:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I am guessing that the New York Times, and the Victoria Times Colonist for that matter, never wrote an article on a hill in your hometown. If they did I would say that your hill is obviously noteworthy, since they took the time to note it in their newspapers. BTW, I linked Google's cached version of the NY Times article, so if you have had trouble getting access to it, why not read it? It might change your mind. Also, I am not trying to turn this into New Yorkepedia, but since when is national or international notoriety a requirement? Isn't it more important to put things in Wikipedia that aren't universally known, so that people can learn about them?. Isn't that the point of an encyclopedia that is not bound by paper pages?Biermacht 14:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Everybody's definition of what's notable varies, from my experience. The hill in question has been articled several times, although not in the New York Times (nor the Times-Colonist since I wasn't born in Victoria and the hill isn't there), but I don't think everything in the Times is notable because it was in the Times. There are many people who think that local notice is enough, and as Dpbsmith pointed out below, there are enough people who think this restaurant is notable that it is almost certain it'll still have a Wikipedia article when this AfD closes. I respect people who say that local notability is enough, but I disagree with it, which is why I voted delete, above. Lord Bob 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
            • A hill that's a landmark and has been written about in articles. Now, that really sounds interesting. This must be one special hill. It's too bad there's no WikiPedia entry for it. Seriously. - Tom
      • Biermacht, just in case you aren't aware... I presently see eight keeps and eleven deletes. That means that my personal guess is that the article is probably not going to be deleted. When a sysop "closes" a discussion, he or she looks at the discussion and judges whether there is a "rough consensus for deletion." Barring voting irregularities and special circumstances, most of the time most sysops take a 2/3 majority as a guideline. AfD tends to bring out the very worst in Wikipedians. The reason so many comments are curt is that there's no very good way to decide what should go into Wikipedia and what shouldn't, so anyone who participates in AfD has heard it all dozens of times before and everyone tends to be curt and short-tempered. That's not an excuse, just an explanation. I see someone's added references to the article. That's a Good Thing. I see someone else has edited to tone down the promotional language. That's a Good Thing too. Cheers. How do you like the article on Playland? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Hmmm.. not sure about the 8 for and 11 against. Some of the votes for (but by no means all) are a little uncertain in origin. All the same, if it stays good for Pats Hubba Hubba. (ie. There's really no need to take it personally Tom). Marcus22 20:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Article's with such interesting names must be kept :). Plus, not-notible is not a criterion for deletion. If you see anything that is close like this message me so I can vote to keep. --ShaunMacPherson 08:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems notable enough to get mentioned in the NYT and ESPN.com and anyways notability is not a criterion for deletion! Klonimus 04:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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 REDIRECTED. — JIP | Talk 05:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] .hack/SIGN

Grammar is abysmal, organization is abysmal, topic already exists under the CORRECT title (.hack//SIGN), and the information given is purely redundant when compared with the actual topic. Merge would be pointless and a waste of time. - Zenithan 01:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Dude, just Redirect to .hack//SIGN. There's no point in deleting the page outright. Nifboy 01:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect For future reference, you should feel to redirect pages like this to the correct entry. There is no harm in having a redirect, and people might search for the incorrect "spelling". In general, its not necessary to bring this here. Be bold! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, it does not seem to be useful for a merge, and one slash could very well be a typo. -- ReyBrujo 01:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I've redirected. Will some admin please be bold and do a speedy close on this? — Phil Welch 01:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Al Majdal, withdrawn by nominator. Pilatus 02:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Majdal

Infrastub with no content. Give it expansion or give it death. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Al Majdal, which has an extensive article. Not to be a pain or anything, but wouldn't checking that have saved the time in putting together this AfD? :) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops. I must have checked Al majdal. Grutness...wha? 01:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I had to take a detour through google to find out we had an article. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP the rewritten version, withdrawn by nominator. Pilatus 02:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scotton

My first thought when I saw this was "Oh, for fxxx's sake." The entire text of this thing which cannot even be dignified with the name "stub" is Scotton is a place. Well, so are the Democratic Republic of Congo, Peoria, and the crater Tycho, but at least someone has written something about them. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

keep the dab page. Thanks Hahnchen. Grutness...wha? 01:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Can't that be speedily deleted under A1, "no context"? The name Scotton is farless intriguing than Haddersfield in Jamaica. Pilatus 01:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)Keep now. Pilatus 02:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Its a place in Lincolnshire, which I found on List of places in Lincolnshire. I added that to the page, and removed the speedy tag. Now we should probably decide if its notable, but if its not someone should deal with all the redlinks at List of places in Lincolnshire so that it isn't recreated by some well meaning person. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Changed it to disambig, Google maps says theres 3 of em in the UK. I'm sure at least one of them will be worth keeping. - Hahnchen 01:47, 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 Move and write a new article.. – Rich Farmbrough 14:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irritability (webcomic) (Moved from Irritability)

Does longevity equal notability? Just because this comic has been running online since 1998, it does not mean it is more notable than any other website which has been running since 1998/9. You can find the website here, its Alexa ranking is over 600,000. A google search for irritability webcomic, without quotes gives 100 links, and nothing which suggests notability. And if we take a look at what links here for irritability, we find that the majority of links are for the medical condition! Looking at this, we must ask ourselves, why does this website deserve an article? What makes this website any more notable than every other website out there? Just because a website has been running for 6 years, does that instantly make it notable? Hahnchen 01:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I'd say between longevity and veritability it's worthy. — Phil Welch 01:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It doesn't even seem to fufill Rule 3 of the very lax alternate proposal. There's also no evidence of a large following. -Nameneko 05:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. However, If Kept, Move per Mgm. -Nameneko 22:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Note to admin: If kept this should be moved to Irritability (webcomic) and a stub put in place here for the medical condition, so the whatlinkshere links are saved. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom, Keep, but move and replace with a medical article or possibly a digambiguation page. Usrnme h8er 08:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete longevity does not equal notability. Dottore So 11:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm not sure why User:Nameneko thinks that it doesn't fulfill rule 3: I see 6 different non-anonymous users contributing to the article, none of whom is the comic author. This is a long-standing comic with a sizable archive and it's certainly verifiable. DenisMoskowitz 13:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep good articles about marginally notable topics. — brighterorange (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move per Nameneko. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 19:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Absolutely longevity does not equal notability. Marskell 22:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Per Mgm|^(talk), and I'll add that it is not only long-running on the web, but also formerly appeared in the Daily Texan, the student newspaper of one of the largest academic institutions in America. Surely this sort of exposure nets a bit of notability.ret3 01:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether this should be kept. I only said that if it was it should be moved. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant to convey that I think it should be kept, but altered in the way Mgm|^(talk) suggests.ret3 16:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, good article about marginal topic. Vizjim 13:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Question can we go ahead and move the article? I don't think anyone would mind (I certainly wouldn't) as long as it won't throw off the AfD links. DenisMoskowitz 18:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Be Bold! - Although I still feel it should be deleted. If this wasn't a webcomic and just a website, I'm sure it would have gone - Hahnchen 04:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Article has been moved. DenisMoskowitz 14:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. Of course, now we need something better than "Irritability is a medical condition" for the new page. Hahnchen, you're planning on working on that, right? Factitious 19:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Nominated it for medicine collaboration of the week. Even if it doesn't get nominated, it will still increase visibility. There's already some stuff there. Wow, afd is being constructive! - Hahnchen 20:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey, cool! It's already getting pretty informative. Factitious 22:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have no problem with this article. Alf ^melmac 08:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by Nominator. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subh Milis

This is a non-notable poem by a poet who may not be notable himself. Withdrawn -- Kjkolb 01:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete poetrycruft unverified. — Phil Welch 01:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Séamus Ó Néill. It's a short, poignant verse in Irish (Gaelic) by an underrecognised Irish poet. You can see it (including a translation) at [2]. Counter systemic bias against the Irish :-) Dlyons493 Talk 07:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. This link from the James Hardiman library shows an extensive list of his work. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Please note the correct spelling of Séamus Ó Néill. It does not have an apostrophe after the O like the entry originally said. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: If someone writes an article on the poet before the AfD is over, I have no objection to a merge. -- Kjkolb 08:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Give me a few minutes and I'll see if I can drop in a stub. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• There's not a lot of info out there. All I could find was birth and death dates and a few lists of his work (I don't even know if they're poems, novels or translations). I'll try searching some more, but I have in the meantime tried to contact User:Ludraman Irish expert extraordinaire for help. I'm not sure when and if he'll respond, he's been away since August 1. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Addition: If we don't have an article in time to merge this to, I change my vote to keep until it can be merged. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: that's okay with me, as long as someone really intends to work on it. :-) -- Kjkolb 22:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Our library has a few books by him, including Colm Cille : drama i gceithre radharcanna (Columcill, a drama in four acts) under his English name of Seamus O'Neill. I'll see if I can add anything on him to the article - will take a few days though. Dlyons493 Talk 12:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: why don't we close this as a keep and it can be redirected to the poet's article when it is created. -- Kjkolb 07:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I've created the article Séamus Ó Néill and merged the poem into it (I think it's so short that quoting it in full is fair use). Will need to dig out the dictionary to check accuracy of translation but it's broadly correct. Thanks for the support on this. Dlyons493 Talk 13:21, 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. Rx StrangeLove 04:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manga-Gaga

Effort has been put into this article. That can not be denied. But we should not judge whether to delete it because of the quality of the content, but what that content actually refers to. The webcomic, which can be found here, has zero alexa stats. The deadspot forums can be found here. Note that the forum is shared between 3 webcomics, and has less than 100 members. The claim that there have been 150,000 visitors to the site since its inception is due to the shoddy nature of their webcounter, you click refresh and it updates! I have probably added about 5 to it just by browsing around the site, and the none existent alexa numbers back it up. Moderate success on newgrounds? Is the "Daily 4th Place Award - 08/13/2004" moderate success? I could write a great article on the lamppost outside my house, that doesn't mean it's notable. Same for this webcomic, nothing here suggests why its more notable than any other website. - Hahnchen 01:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

So, basically your entire logic for the need for this article’s deletion is because you don’t think that enough people care about the subject matter? That’s completely absurd for an online encyclopedia that exists for the sole purpose of providing information for people on as large of a scale of subjects as possible. I’d agree with you that an article on the lamppost outside your house should be deleted, as it covers a subject that would be just about identical to every single lamppost in existence (other than location, of course). Comparing said lamppost to a webcomic, no matter how small however, is an utterly gross exaggeration of the situation at hand. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to only make individual articles that will only be popular to as large of a degree as possible; an encyclopedia’s purpose is to provide a plethora of all types of information so as to allow anyone who comes with a reasonable and legitimate interest in a subject matter to learn more on the topic at hand. That’s one of the great things about Wikipedia! The fact that anyone can submit material and create articles on whatever they wish allows for the online material to grow larger and larger and let the amount of possible material to be covered to become more and more complete as time passes. Simply saying that a subject doesn’t deserve coverage because it’s not popular enough goes completely against the essence of Wikipedia at large. Your logic that we should delete article because of the content regardless of the quality is likewise flawed because it suggests that a horribly written article on Star Wars would be on a higher level than a very well-written article on a relatively unknown novel. Sure, more people would be interested in a Star Wars article, but does that immediately discount the people who would have a legitimate interest in a smaller subject matter? If it does, then I’m obviously missing the entire point of an online encyclopedia. – RPH

• Reply - No, a horrible article on Star Wars would, and should be kept. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The place for very obscure and unnotable webcomics is not wikipedia. The lamppost may be a poor analogy, but judging from the links given above, there is nothing which would lift this website above any other website. I am sure that there will be some teenage girl's livejournal with a larger readership than this. Do you know about comixPedia? It is the place for none notable comics to go. And Manga-Gaga is already there. For those wanting to find out about comics, comixpedia is great, and Manga-Gaga belongs there where those who want to find out about comics can go. If it attains notability beyond other websites and other webcomics, then it would be worthy to import it back to wikipedia. We have to stop wikipedia being used as a web directory, and so standards of notability have to be maintained. - Hahnchen 02:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, deletion precedent is on the side of keeping the Manga-Gaga article on Wikipedia. [[3]] The term "notability" is used as the key for keeping webcomic articles on Wikipedia, and Manga-Gaga clearly meets the citeria listed there. The only mention there is of the need for a webcomic to have been updated once a week for at least a year for it to be considered notable. There is no mention of a webcomic's popularity in regards to its notability. As of now, Manga-Gaga has had three full seasons, each one averaging out at one comic a week for a full year. Therefore, using that logic, keeping the article on Wikipedia is in concordance with the regulations and precedent set by past decisions by the site's administrators. - RPH
  • Reply - Please see the talk pages on WP:COMIC, they have been criticised for being overly lax. Compare those guidelines, (guidelines, not policy), to say WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. The guidelines were not set by administrators, and did not take into account past deletions/decisions. By the webcomic guidelines, every comic with 100 strips would be included. This is clearly wrong, what about bloggers with 100 posts? wikipedians with 100 articles? I still maintain that a webcomic with no alexa rank, no mentions of notability on google and only 98 forum members in a shared forum does not meet common sense notability criteria. - Hahnchen 03:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You may think that if you wish. Heck, you can even try to change the Wikipedia guidelines if that's what you truly believe, but the fact of that matter is that is the policy that has been set by precedent for webcomic articles on this site. In your previous post you even said that "standards of notability had to be maintained," and Manga-Gaga fits the standards laid out by the site itself. It may be different for other types of popular (or unpopular) media, but it's not for the individual users to make arbitrary decisions for the deletion of articles based on what they may or may not see as important by themselves. However, even if we used the guidelines proposed in your link [[4]], they clearly state that a comic that has been regularly updated for three years deserves a place on Wikipedia. Manga-Gaga fits under that guideline, arbitrary though it may be. RPH
    • As much as I enjoy defending webcomics, this one statement:

"the policy that has been set by precedent for webcomic articles on this site."

Is completely false. Never has the "100 comic" rule saved a webcomic from deletion. What it does do is get webcomic articles under 100 deleted really really quickly. Hence my introduction of the "500/3year" rule, which I'm sad to say has never even been discussed. *sniff* Nifboy 04:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • Well, you may be right about that. I really don't know as I've never followed the deletion patterns on Wikipedia. All I know is that the official discussion on the subject matter defends Manga-Gaga's place on the site, so unless there's listed evidence elsewhere, it deserves an article on Wikipedia. RPH

• Delete per nom. The faulty nature of the hit counter (as in not counting unique hits) and the ambiguity of the forum usage makes their mentions in the article seem POV. Also, the more-than-one-author rule of the alternate proposal of WP:COMIC goes against this article, in this case, so using it to support an argument wouldn't really help (as Nifboy said earlier, the 100-comic rule has never saved a webcomic article). However, in a sense, that is beyond the point, as it isn't even a guideline. What those proposals seem to be are ways to make the deletion of non-notable webcomics easier. The rest is personal, logical judgement. This is mine. -Nameneko 05:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Reply You said: The deadspot forums can be found here. Note that the forum is shared between 3 webcomics, and has less than 100 members.

The forums have had to be reset several times (IIRC around 3 or 4 times, due to things outside the author's control), its only split between two webcomics,the second webcomic is pretty damn new, and the merger of the forums only occured when Manga Gaga moved servers at the suggestion by the new webcomic author. So citing that as a reason is pretty moot considering the circemstances. Manga Gaga does not have mulitple authors (unless I have mis-read one of the arguements here), and the only time other artists have taken over is during Guest Comics, which nearly every webcomic has periods of. So that arguement is moot. As for the faulty nature of the hit counter - there aren't many hit counters around that provide Unquie vistor stats period. At least none that I know of. And if the comic wasn't popular - why do I seem to see it mentioned in lists about "My Favourite Webcomic" on the many forums I visit? Every time I see the topic, theres around 3 - 4 people mention it. That seems popular to me.

• Delete per Hahnchen's unimpeachable arguments. Dottore So 11:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Beware of sockpuppets. ESkog 15:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Marcus22 20:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Your very arguements DO seem flawed, is no-one seeing that? Mind explaining how a faulty counter is grounds for deletion? (and please, point us in the direction of a counter that counts truely Unquie hits.)

Or how a recent merger and reset of a forum which is ISN'T dead due to the moving of hosts, and has plenty of well posting members, is grounds for deletion? Check your facts first, its a forum for two comics, and as stated above, the one has barely begun its run. If its the POV stuff in an article (I can see some words that aren't very, ahem, neutral), then remove the POV stuff. It's notable enough for me to see it mentioned on many forums. Personally I find your other arguements for deletion moot. Care to convince me otherwise? And ESkog - we're trying to have a serious discussion here, take your stupid comments elsewhere.

• Sorry, but I really haven't seen that logical of an argument for deletion of the Manga-Gaga article yet. The only legitimate complaint against Manga-Gaga's presence on Wikipedia is the question on it covering too small or specific of a subject, which I don't see as fair or legitimate as the site's servers have changed multiple times over the course of the comic's creation. Simply put, there is no legitimate count of the comic's fanbase or interest level. Sure, there can be no denying the fact that Manga-Gaga has a relatively small fanbase when compared to the titan webcomics (8-Bit Theater and Penny-Arcade, just to name two), but where on Wikipedia is there a stated size limit for websites to be listed as articles? All I've seen covering this matter has been on discussion topics, and this particular comic has fit the requirements listed there. In absence of such a requirement, I believe that a quality argument would be the only legitimate argument against such an article. In regards to Manga-Gaga though, it has already been admitted that the article has had a lot of work done. If people don't believe that it has a neutral POV or should not include the number of visitors to the site, then the logical conclusion would be to merely alter the article, not delete it. What should also be remembered is that the article has existed for almost three full months and has been updated by eleven different people (not including Hahnchen's suggestion for deletion). As many other worthy topics, my own DePauw University being one such example, have received about the same or less attention over a similar time period, I don't believe that one could legitimately claim that this article hasn't been receiving an adequate amount of traffic as well.

.... oh, and I believe that ESkog's and Marcus22's statements for the deletion should be ignored due to a lack of reasoning (which is required on a discussion for the deletion of an article), as should Dottore So's (as it seems heavily biased in favor of Hahnchen, suggesting that they're either close friends or even the same person!). Last time I checked, an "unimpeachable argument" wasn't based on mere arbitrary personal views on what belongs on a site that are contradicted by a discussion that he himself posted. And sorry.... I just realized that I forgot to put the time and date at the end of my previous statements. Sorry about that. RPH 22:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should start your own tyranny somewhere? Where I come from a person has the right to vote or express an opinion without having to explain him/herself. However, this once, and just for you, I shall make an exception and expand on my previous 'nn'. NN means not (or non) notable. Thus, in my view, the object of the article is not notable and hence not encylcopedic. What more can I say? It is my view. My opinion. OK now? In any case Delete Marcus22 20:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - The fact the visiters of the web site were unwilling and/or unable to install the Alexa toolbar (or just never heard of it), is not a reason to deem the web site non-notable. Alexa is not Neilson. It's a partial count, not a representive sample. Alexa is occasionally useful at confirming/rebutting claims of huge popularity of web sites (like those claiming milliions of visitors). It's useless in a case like this. The comic seems to have a regular following and the content of the article is worthwhile. Also, this will be a good place to re-direct future fictional character articles, without bothering with the AFD. --rob 22:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable webcomic. --Carnildo 22:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - While it's true that Manga-Gaga hardly has a huge fan base like many other web comics, have a look at the list of pages set up there for web comics: Category:Webcomics

Now no one can surely tell me that all of those have been ground-breaking internet cultrial markers like..say Penny Arcade, Chugsworth, Dinosaur Comics etc have been. I also doubt at least a few of these have been running as long as Manga-Gaga. Also, that's not the first hit counter the sites had, I've changed it over the years at least 3 times, and I really don't see why it's so important or such a problem.

I mean, look at this comic's entry for example: IndieTits

"IndieTits is a webcomic by Jeph Jacques. It was first published on April 1, 2005."

I don't quite see why it should be taken down, myself. I doubt it's really taking too much bandwidth up, or something.

Oh, and there's also the fact that issue 100 got sprend about the internet quite a bit. I saw it pop up at such places as 4chan, loads of flash portal/blog sites where they linked to the newgrounds file etc. So people may be wanting to know what it's about. 217.42.9.137 08:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Reply - It's your first post, yes. But let me comment on the Category:Webcomics. Right now, there is a lot of superfluous fluff on there. And I am trying to clean it up, this is going to take a long time to work through them. But I am going to have to start somewhere, hence there are still non notable webcomics on Wikipedia besides this one, does not mean we should keep it. AFD takes time. - Hahnchen 14:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply - Someone may of already mencioned this, but in the "Remarks on notability" section of "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents", it clearly states that "Webcomics are notable if they have had frequent (weekly or better) updates for over a year" which it has been doing for at least that long, if not longer. On that matter, your statement on webcomic "superfluous fluff" here does not count for much. 81.152.235.72 17:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hahnchen is trying to reverse the precedent of keeping any webcomic that has been updating for X amount of time, regardless of a claim of actual notability. This is not an influential comic in the webcomic community, and this isn't notable in a newsworthy sense or a historical sense. It's just a generic webcomic of little importance, and, while I'm glad the author is proud of it and the fans are happy with it, Comixpedia is the place to write these sorts of articles about minor webcomics, not Wikipedia. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:54, 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 delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FactBites

Previous AfD. Still non notable, or advertising, or not encyclopedic, or whatever we're calling it this week. Delete.
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Not making a vote yet, but the Alexa rank of 30,000 isn't too shabby. - Hahnchen 01:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Alexa uses a biased sampling method and extrapolates. If a lot of people both use the Alexa toolbar and visit a site, it's a good indicator it's a notable site. This would be Alexa ranks of under 5K with confidence, under 10K with some trepidation. If almost no one has the tool bar and visits the site, it's a good indicator that the site is not notable. This would be Alexa ranking of anything from 500K to 2M. Anything between that really means very little. An actual example:[5]
    brenneman^(t)(c) 02:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. For such a core part of the Internet as a search engine, an Alexa rank of 30,000 is absolutely abysmal. --Carnildo 04:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, previous afd ruling was odd, one "crush", one "delete", and one unsigned "leave"... If I had been Tony I would probably have relisted instead for more feedback but nevermind... Usrnme h8er 08:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I really think that this has potential. First, the site is still in testing mode so Alexa rankings will be utterly useless (which they are anyway, a totally biased indicator of the internet). Second, a google search for "factbites.com" gave me 'about 1,770,000' results, with a lot of new stuff from news and tech sites, meaning that the search engine is picking up speed. I'm not sure when the site went online exactly, but it may also be too new to feature on the Alexa rankings.
  alf 10:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom: viz, non notable, badvertising, and unencyclopedic. Dottore So 11:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per last time. Proto t c 15:03, 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. Gyrofrog (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Onfile skinheads

Does not assert notability, wholly fails WP:MUSIC, has only 49 Google hits, and has no Allmusic article. --Blackcap | talk 01:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - 600+ hits for "on file" OR onfile skinheads and several (admittedly small) European tours earns them the benefit of the doubt. Jaysus Chris 04:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The 600+ hits mentioned above become severely distorted by the tenth page, at least. A lot of the entries there mention "skinheads" and "not on file". -Nameneko 07:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, Nameneko. Dottore So 11:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless shown to meet WP:MUSIC. I see nothing about European tours in the article, is it true? Friday (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] End Times (webcomic)

A webcomic which can be found here. The article did not even have the web link on until I editted it. Their original domain name either expired or the webmaster just didn' bother paying up. Nothing to assert notability, doesn't even meet the extremely lax criteria at WP:COMIC. - Hahnchen 02:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Nameneko 05:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dottore So 11:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, although I'm starting to suspect Afd'ing a webcomic has as much chance of success as Afding a school. Friday (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Content-free article on a non-notable webcomic. --Carnildo 22:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable webcomic. --MidnightWolf 18:15, 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, the target page has more detailed information, there was some indication that this term was in use (though not commonly). Rx StrangeLove 19:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prague connection

• Delete - non-notable in itself; this is part of the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline, but the phrase "Prague connection" is not commonly used outside of a very small context. The topic is dealt with better on the Saddam/Al Qaeda page than it is here; it's not clear that we need such a page. csloat 02:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with above. Dottore So 11:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• note as the creator of this site I will not vote, I just want to say that this is the key event used to justify the invasion and the "meeting" is still controversial - there are still appearing new information (or new points of view [6]) ....so it could have it´s own site - to enter more points of view -the main page Hussein-Al-Qaeda is yet too long to enter details about it. The term "prague connection" is not used very often, but it is the only used name of this meeting [7]

Thanks for the links - I had not seen the one about the Spanish trial. But I read it and I am not sure what it has to do with the Prague meeting information, other than that the author uses the Prague information as some kind of analogy. Anyway, the google search delivers 720 hits - to me that is not enough to say this is a notable phrase, especially since many of the hits land on copies of this page. A search of the Nexis database of "Major papers" for "all available dates" gives me 26 hits on this phrase, only fourteen of which actually deal with Atta. I think you're right that the alleged meeting belongs on wikipedia, but it is already here on the timeline on Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. I don't think the phrase "Prague connection" is that notable. By the way, I think you can vote, even though you created the page. --csloat 04:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I agree with you. Just the main page is very very long (that´s not good). I remember that time ago the term "prague connection" was used very often in NewsTV (so I used it), bud it´s right that Google should give more results for it...

• Keep important part of the Saddam/Al Qaeda story. Klonimus 04:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Freehold Circle

Here is another nn traffic circle. Roadcruft. Delete --JAranda | yeah 02:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Nameneko 05:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it's time to go for this article alf 10:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Roadcruft. --Carnildo 22:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep; what the fuck kind of reason is "Here is another nn traffic circle. Roadcruft."? --SPUI (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • How about "waste of electrons"? Is that sufficient? --Calton | Talk 02:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Being from New Jersey I would argue that traffic circles are easily as notable as state highways. Moreso for infamous ones like the Somerville Circle. Al 13:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • A traffic circle that went away 25 years ago is notable? This is insane! Pilatus 18:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I'll give you that. I guess it's been 25 years since I was in Freehold. I've changed my vote. Delete. Al 19:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The intersection is still known by locals as Freehold Circle. It is still there, just not in the form of a circle. --SPUI (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ouch. An entry for a traffic circle that no longer exists. Pilatus 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish or even assert notability. --Stormie 02:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• A decades-gone TRAFFIC CIRCLE? Delete before it metastasizes. --Calton | Talk 02:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important part of the history of transport in Freehold Borough, New Jersey. Kappa 03:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence given that it's important at all, actually. CDC (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with the nominator. Zach (Sound Off) 05:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - our mission is to compile knowledge, not just any facts. --Pjacobi 09:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Freehold Township, New Jersey or Freehold Borough, New Jersey - important and useful information, why get rid of perfectly good information? Alphax ^τεχ 09:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, there has to be a limit somewhere. Lou I 10:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Traffic circles are usually not notable, existent or non existent. My bus goes through three traffic circles in less than a kilometre and none of those look significant or are significant. Alright, maybe this was a somewhat larger traffic circle, but it is still less notable than a school. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• EXTREME FREEHOLD DELETE. We've had more than enough of this. -R. fiend 19:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Nothing notable about this at all. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --redstucco 09:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence that this thing had any impact on the world. Friday (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep passes the impacts thousands of people test. Klonimus 04:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of male personal names that end in A

I've got nothing against lists when they're useful, but this one isn't. Non-encyclopaedic trivia. Ziggurat 03:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Completely worthless. --Sean Jelly Baby? 03:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. ♠DanMS 03:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is based on my belief that only Romance languages reserve the ending -a for female names and feminine nouns or adjectives. At present, this article contains hardly any Latinate names, and what few it does are not sufficiently numerous to justify the existence of the article. If I am wrong, and there are other language groups that tend to reserve the ending -a for female names, I will change my vote. NatusRoma 04:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not conversant with the naming systems of all languages, but Japanese, Maori, and Indian languages all contain male names ending in A. Ziggurat 04:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Finnish does too. I used to get a lot of confusion when dealing with Anglo-Saxons over the Internet because of my first name. As said by NatusRoma, the article is based on an overgeneralisation of naming customs. — JIP | Talk 05:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A non-useful list. If all cultures had -a as a feminine ending (which of course is not so), that would actually probably be the number one topic of discussion in anthropology.--Pharos 04:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per NatusRoma. --Idont Havaname 04:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Presently WP has no article Masculine name or Feminine name. The articles Given name and Personal name do not discuss the "gender" of first names. As is obvious from the existence of this list, editors have information about masculine and feminine names. This content should have some kind of home. -Acjelen 05:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per NR and Z. Request addition of new content as suggested by Acjelen, not a merge of this unencyclopedic list. In some language groups this (naming conventions by gender, not -a in particular) is a minor topic that people such as the list's author assume to be standards. The general topic just barely has enough cultural significance to be in WP rather than a Wiktionary article; the list doesn't. Barno 05:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete totally useless. I also don't think that wikipedia really needs a comprehensive list of first names (this would be difficult to maintain, and pretty much useless). alf 08:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dangerous precedent, imagine two sets of twentysix of these (including female names ending with 'X' ofcourse... Usrnme h8er 08:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Mmmm, Beatrix the Dominatrix. Barno 14:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I honestly can't see anyone really needing anything like this...minutiae.--Jt 14:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not only is this listcruft, it's completely unmanageable and worthless in terms of actual use. No one is going to miss this utterly pointless not-worth-calling-an-article. --Blackcap | talk 15:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hopeless listcruft. MCB 17:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• weak rename This has potential, but the name is a little ethnocentric...Roodog2k (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see the point. Unmaintainable. Anyone could make up a name out of thin air, made up of random letters except for an A at the end and put it here. "Dangerous" precident if kept. 23skidoo 03:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No point in having this kind of list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Actually I have a need for such a list, masculine given names on "a-" (not the other twentyfive). However, I am not at all sure as to its reliability, completeness, or where it should be placed. Brya 07:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless listcruft, unreliable, nearly unverifiable, and utterly ethnocentric (as masculine names ending in A are only rare in Western society, says Akira). Proto t c 15:07, 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. — JIP | Talk 05:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suthesan

He's famous for the motorzone.com.my website, which is up for deletion -- Kjkolb 03:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• See, I'm not so sure he is famous. Delete. Lord Bob 04:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, waste of space alf 08:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 11:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn/vanity Pete.Hurd 04:21, 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 Transwiki. Rx StrangeLove 20:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clog (plumbing)

This page is an instruction manual entry Bob Palin 04:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki, if it's just a definition to wiktionary, if it's a manual to wikibooks. gren グレン 03:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC) Hmm, I actually think I might like Britannica's method. Redirect to sanitary hazards or some such article. Too bad that's not created. gren グレン 04:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki or delete with no redirect, as it is an unlikely search term. -- Kjkolb 06:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks or keep if someone can write something decent about it in an encyclopedic manner, which I think is possible.--Pharos 00:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite into an article about drain clogs, which is an encyclopedic topic. Klonimus 04:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Garfield

Not quite sure but looks like just another blogger.-- Sasquatcht|c 04:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Spinboy 05:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Those that make history should be allowed to write it. Steve_Garfield
• Delete. Blogs are like garage bands or cats, everybody has one. Friday (talk) 14:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn, vanity (but I don't have a cat) CLW 16:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete autobiography of non-notable person. Steve, please read WP:AUTO. — mendel ☎ 16:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As a non-history maker I am allowed to write delete. Marcus22 20:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete The only real question is whether the article is accurate. And that is a test that every item must pass. The community will improve it's accuracy, if it's important. And Garfield's relative "celebrity" is not really relevant. If one day Steve achieves some sort of national prominence then this piece will be a valuable record. If not, then no one will be looking at it anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.34.217.150 (talk • contribs) 10:40, September 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, the real question is whether or not it is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If one day Steve achieves some sort of national prominence then he can have a Wikipedia entry. — mendel ☎ 16:36, 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. — JIP | Talk 05:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Simonetti

I recommend reading this, the original version of the page. I severely cut it down removing everything I thought was highly POV and you might not agree, so if your vote is on lack of content make sure you look at it in its full glory. gren グレン 04:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The original sounds like a vanity page. The lack of references, especially for a "well-respected" journalist, doesn't help this article one bit. -Nameneko 05:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not-notable per WP:BIO. Thanks for the pre-cleanup link, as that was a swell example of a luser page in article space through the magic of vanity. Barno 06:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like a user page that got lost. If someone can expand it and include references I'd be happy to change vote. alf 10:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone comes up with good references for the "several newspapers, magazines and other periodicals" he's been published in. MCB 17:51, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Daniel Engels

Not a very notable researcher. Article leads like a resume. Delete. — JIP | Talk 05:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Spinboy 05:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Uh...are you sure about this? He's got plenty of Google, and his work in the RFID field alone has taken him afar as New Zealand. Not overly notable to the lay person, but certainly very respected in his field. --inks 09:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Did a google scholar search for his work, found two articles on the first page (which I think is an indication in itself), the first one being cited 17 times and the other 9. Lets hope google scholar did its job and found the most significant articles he's published, if this is true, then his research is nothing but standard, and not desrving enough (IMHO) of an entry in an encyclpaedia. Going as far as New Zealand is no big deal, know quite a few researchers here in Brisbane who frequent Canada and the UK for their universities (conferences and such). However, if someone can prove me wrong (or if i've just mucked up with the google scholar search somehow) and he is notable (i.e. the article is expanded to reflect this) then I'll change my vote to keep, but for now it's delete
  alf 10:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget the textbook chapters he co-authored (somehow Google Scholar found them too), and those have been cited 40+ times each (never thought I'd see a textbook cited in a published paper, but there you go). By your standards, how many publications and/or citations would be required to establish notability? Also, by other measures (eg. Plain old Google), he seems to be a well sought after speaker at computer and RFID-like conferences.--inks 20:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per alf. Dottore So 11:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable researcher.--Nicodemus75 18:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• No vote, but if he is so impotant to RFID work, why is he not mentioned in the RFID article? Either a) he is not particularly notable in the field, or b), the RFID article is incomplete. Proto t c 15:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per alf. Pilatus 17:43, 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 MERGE to Melbourne tram route 75. Gyrofrog (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knox Transit Link

Non-notable -Nameneko 05:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• A temporary bus shuttle until a highway in Australia gets completed. No potential to be expanded into a real article. Barno 06:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete :| totally useless article alf 11:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Melbourne tram route 75 (of which this is a temporary extension). Ambi 08:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Ambi. Not sure where the "highway" came from. JPD 10:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. All this deserves is a one sentence addition to the tram route article. IMHO, bus routes are not article material, especially temporary ones. And it's not a highway awaiting completion, it's a tramway extension. TPK 07:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. In fact the bus is mentioned twice in the tram article at present. I might go and tidy it up. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I captured everything but the external links from this article in my recent copyedit of Melbourne tram route 75 --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into the tram route. --SPUI (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two-armed hug

Unencyclopedic and unrescuable. Not even a transwikiable dicdef. MCB 05:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --Apyule 07:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete :| alf 11:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteGator1 18:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as above Pete.Hurd 04:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Gyrofrog (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] fp code

plus: talk:fp code, fail, outcome, now and fail, now and fail statement, NOW AND FAIL statement, do statement and DO statement. (I think that is all.)

A formal logic system created by pyenos in September 2005. Total nonsense / original research. I tagged this for speedy but the author removed the tag. -- RHaworth 06:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: It is not important but does it have to be important? Pyenos 07:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Hey Pyenos. It is obvious that you have put a LOT of work into that article, however Wikipedia has a policiy on not listing original research (as it is an encyclopaedia, so it has to go with commonly accepted facts). However, if you are able to show real-world/practical applications of Fp code and its advantages/disadvantages to other programming languages, I would be happy to change my vote. It is, however, important that articles in Wikipedia are on notable things so that it does become a research source. I hope you don't get discouraged by all of this, as I'm sure you would be able to contribute to a lot of other articles out there.cheers, alf 11:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. OR. Dottore So 11:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete: it's only original research because the author has yet to publish it elsewhere, but it is original. Also slapped wrist to RHaworth for tagging it nonsense: it is not patent nonsense. - mholland 12:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Definitely get rid of the associated cruft articles, though. - mholland 12:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete as nonsense and OR. (Comment to mholland: all OR is OR "because the author has yet to publish it elsewhere", by definition.) And I have studied logic, but the article is incomprehensible to me. MCB 17:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. --Carnildo 23:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I purposely didn't use jargons and to me, although it is not important, it is consistent and complete. I could elaborate further, especially its application in computation but I thought this is for general audience. MCB, it is incomprehensible to you, probably because I didn't explain it using conventional logic, which was my intention. Why is it a nonsense if it works? It can work with a very simple program and it will automatically reduce to an outcome. Sorry if I made a mistake in writing this article. It seems you guys prefer me being a machine than being a human. I have a tendancy to think like a machine but I thought that was not appropriate. Do what you like with articles, but I could fill twenty or more full articles with the foundation of what I have wrote in Fp code, which I chose not to. My understanding was that this is for general audience and I had an interesting idea so I wanted to share it. I could do much more without being technical, such as to write a decoder program like in Geek Code. That may well happen if I do decide to develop this concept further. Please do understand that it was not my intention to post a garbage article. Bye. Pyenos 23:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No original research, also, User:Pyenos is basically describing Automata Theory and Compiler theory Project2501a 00:34, 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. — JIP | Talk 05:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrozeen

Does not assert notability, and by failing to do so, fails WP:MUSIC. --Blackcap | talk 06:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. POV for such a short (and hopefully short-lived) article. -Nameneko 07:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of significance. Friday (talk) 15:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I thought about a redirect to Hydrazine but I don't think it's a likely misspelling. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not meeting wp:music. Flowerparty■ 00:20, 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!) 08:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] San Francisco Giants: All-Time Team

Wikipedia is not a place for original research or personal opinions, and this article can never be anything but original research or personal opinion. Colin M. 06:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, for reasons stated above. Colin M. 06:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This article has no sourcing and thus appears to be a personal opinion of the author. This article could be saved if a reliable source was added showing who selected the team and their credentials. I will vote to delete unless a credible source is shown for the claim. If one is provided, I will vote to keep. Please contact me on my talk page if you have tracked down a source. Capitalistroadster 07:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• If it helps any, the players mentioned on the page up for deletion are exactly the starting roster for the 2005 Giants team. Source: [8] Colin M. 07:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, very short article with little or no context. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to being listed under false pretenses. Our San Francisco Giants article lists the current roster as well as members of the Hall of Fame and retired numbers which would be the best basis for starting to select a team. Capitalistroadster 07:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Thats the current starting lineup not a all time team too easy if Willie Mays not in there than its junky article. --JAranda | yeah 23:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The article as it is isn't what it claims to be, and even if it was fixed, I don't see any way it could be NPOV. Jcb9 21:43, 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. Rx StrangeLove 20:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Qais bin malik

Non-notable figure who gets 4 Google results, not counting Wikipedia mirrors. He's not mentioned in the battle article, so no redirect, just delete. -- Kjkolb 07:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn (if real) CLW 16:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. --Apyule 01:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a figure mentioned in the Qur'an.--Pharos 02:46, 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 Speedied as nn-bio --Doc (?) 11:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Stout

Vanity page, nn Usrnme h8er 08:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• He's a six month old baby - nn bio --Doc (?) 11:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to continue the existing deletion discussion that is currently in progress on the original discussion page. Despite the request in the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion not to rename articles without being careful to rename the discussion page in parallel, CalJW (talk • contribs) moved this article from CSLD (AfD discussion) without moving the discussion page in parallel. The existing discussion is still open. Please discuss this article there. Uncle G 16:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats

This article was either never listed on AfD or was removed out of process. It's been up since September 24, with the two unsigned comments below. Delete as non-notable. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 09:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

There seem to be plenty of articles on Oxbridge political societies that have produced alumni that have gone on to be famous - such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OUCA , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OULC and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Union - and I used these articles as the template. What are the grounds for deletion? There are quite a few MPs and Peers among the alumni, and it's a long-established society with over 100 members and 2,000 registered supporters on the 'interested' list - both exceptionally large figures for Cambridge, and making it one of the largest and best-known societies in the University. If you want to edit it to conform to a higher standard, by all means do so, and feel free to make suggestions for improvement and expansion, but I can't see this as something needing deletion.

When I find the time in the next few days I was planning to draw up some similar articles on CUCA and CULC, the Tory and Labour societies too - please don't put my efforts to waste! ;0) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.78.77.112 (talk • contribs) 02:35, September 24, 2005 (UTC).

I've now added http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_Labour_Club and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_Conservative_Association - together, the three societies with the Union make up the centre of Cambridge politics and have been the first political steps of many 'big names.' If you want to delete all four articles, go ahead, but I wouldn't recommend selectively deleting some, and they do seem important enough for historians/biographers to study in depth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.78.92.235 (talk • contribs) 16:34, September 24, 2005 (UTC).

• Obvious keep, extremely well-known student society and source of many great UK politicos. Vizjim 15:32, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ECIC

Nonsense from the people who brought you Squad7 and the Lice Research Group. Maybe even speedy delete.[maestro] 09:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn, even if true CLW 16:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• This is a proxy IP, so it could be different people. It's www.infinity-stuff.com that runs a proxy. You should block it, but the articles are probably from different people. unsigned comment by 67.159.5.159 2005-09-29 06:29:16, author of ECIC, who also deleted the nomination itself here

• Delete. It may well be a proxy but 67.159.5.159's contributions show a very consistent pattern including a strange preference for very short titles. (Strangely, following the deletion of Lice Research Group, they very tidily removed the link to it from LRG!) -- RHaworth 11:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete agree -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - All of Squad7, ECIC, LRG are by a single person. The rest are anyones guess. TheSeer 13:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as above Pete.Hurd 04:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Rich Farmbrough 21:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest Hits (Kenny Chesney album)

Greatest hits albums are inherently non-notable — see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music#Albums, bands, and songs: "Unless there's extenuating circumstances, greatest hits and compilation albums don't need an article". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, just to keep things clear. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with Mel. Barno 18:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: There are 274 articles in Category:Greatest hits albums, and another 90 in Category:Compilation albums. -- Reinyday, 21:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  I know — this is by way of testing the waters before I start going through them. Some of them will be OK, but I suspect that most of them are just the result of fans' obsessions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• I would have said "merge" to Kenny Chesney, but it's nothing but a track list and an almost-empty infobox. If we're going to be strict about this Greatest Hits guideline, we should delete both the article and the album cover which will then have no fair use rationale. Jkelly 22:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful, shows which of his song have endured. Kappa 23:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  Well, first, it only shows which of his songs were chosen to be on the album. Secondly, that could be mentioned in the article on him. That's why the Wikproject guidelines say what they do. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per Kappa. As I understand it, the Wikiproject "guidelines" are just suggestions for the project itself, not 'pedia policy/guidelines. Regardless, articles specifically for greatest hits albums seem much better for information organization than in artist articles. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' Kenny Chesney is a major artist. OmegaWikipedia 15:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  But what does that have to do with it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, albeit reluctantly. I agree, these compilations are a problem. Essentially, there is nothing to put there except an infobox and a track list. OTOH, why should we exclude that information; it seems perfectly reasonable to expect people to look it up. I've been gradually working my way through the Frank Zappa discography, which clearly has a few of these compilations, and none of them worth their own page. But one of them's already got one. I'm thinking a reasonable compromise — inspired, incidentally, by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caruso recordings (various articles) — would be to create a single page, for such artists, to include all their compilations (or at least all the ones that don't contain original material) at, say, ARTIST NAME compilation albums. Any thoughts? In Chesney's case, this Greatest Hits album seems to be his only compilation [9]. And, moreover, it looks to contain 4 previously unreleased tracks [10]. So I'd argue that this particular album deserves its own page. Flowerparty■ 03:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

  In principle the Caruso model seems OK, but there's a big difference: all Caruso albums are compilations, and they overlap with each other to a large extent. I'm not really keen on the single article (it contains massive redundancy), but it's better than twenty or thirty individual articles, each one offering nothing but a track listing. One of Wikipedia's key policies is: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Its goals go no further." As a corollary: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information." Hundreds of articles on greatest-hits compilations seem to me to go against both of those. When we consider what should be included, we shouldn't be asking "why not?" but "why?"; "why not?" leads to indiscriminate collections of information, while "why?" leads to an encyclopædia. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy-class star destroyer or republic star destroyer

A similar article about a "Legacy class" was deleted some months ago (see here. Ship is a fan created one. Article should be deleted as per the results of the related VFD. Kross 11:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Legacy Class Star Destroyer is a one sentence article even on SW Wikicities, and is under dispute even there. Republic Star Destroyer even appears to contain different information. --Syrthiss 12:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Usrnme h8er 14:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom.Gator1 18:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom.Dottore So 19:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. It only exists in unofficial mod for Star Wars: Empire at War.-LtNOWIS 03:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. I'm all for Star Wars articles, but since it appears fan created, with no source citations, it really doesn't belong here. --Wingsandsword 02:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exact e-Synergy

Based on the external link it's probably worth an article, but in it's current form it's nothing more than a advertisement. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Entry is nothing but a press release. Anybody re-writing the article, please take the time to let me know and I will reconsider my opinion. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete: This is marketing hogwash. Solarusdude 19:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete advertising Pete.Hurd 04:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Locomotive No. 1. – Rich Farmbrough 17:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Locomovtive No.1

Joke page. Looks to be a spoof-continuation of Locomotion No 1. Delete or BJAODN Syrthiss 12:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep after cleanup and rename Merge. It's not a joke: see [11]. But does it need work! :-) I've made a small start on that. -- JimR 12:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  lol fair enough. I'm still not sure it wasn't created as a joke, but as it is a real enough subject then it may grow into a real article. Changing vote to Keep and Cleanup. --Syrthiss 13:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with the correctly-spelled Locomotive No. 1, then delete the redirect. "locomovtive" seems unlikely. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the correctly-spelled article, delete the redirect from this misspelling once the AfD is closed. I'm gonna go home and play the boardgame "Stephenson's Rocket" after this inspiration. Barno 18:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Both articles were by the same person by the looks of it! Rich Farmbrough 17:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ekrōnja

Appears to be a hoax. Ekrōnja doesn't get any Google hits, without the diacratic mark, there's one unrelated hit. Article isn't informative and doesn't help in verifying. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per submitter. Unverifiable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - hoaxy. But I do like the way the article begins with the words "The Beginning". CLW 16:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no google hits.--Alhutch 16:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete we know quite a bit about pre-celctic Britain through archaeology, but what we don't know much if anything about is social structures, whether there were kingdoms, etc. The article doesn't even state in which period of pre-Celtic Britain this kindom is from (paleolithic? meseolithic? neolithic? Bronze age?). Whether the Celts were invaders who massacred all the pre-existing population or whether Celtic culture just relpaced earlier ones (or one of several other theories) is a major debate amoung experts. Even if there was some actual information in the article I doubt that it would be verifiably true. Thryduulf 23:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Egon

There is a song called Egon by Björn Rosenström according to [12] but the lyrics don't relate to the content of this article. The article claims that the Egon stories detailed "are completely true". Hmm. Delete as hoax. CLW 12:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems like you have misunderstood the article. The character Egon is only originally BASED on Egon from that particular song, but has lateron evolved into a completely different person than a 4-year old! The article is all about this person, NOT the Egon in the song!

The two stories told so far are completely true. Again, they happened to the Egon the article is about, and not the boy in the song. Please do not remove this article. (Unsigned comments by 213.89.202.156)

• And how is "the Egon the article is about" in any way notable? Delete. / Alarm 17:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn Dottore So 19:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darth Cyclonus

Fanfic character who shares a creator with the article. DS 12:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete by common sense. Article ays it's about "a fictional character who does not exist in the Official Star Wars universe but is my creation". There will certainly be no serious discussion of keeping this. Friday (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn (and no assertion of notability) CLW 16:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Friday, admitted fanfic characters don't need discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 19:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice.--Kross 22:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WTF? Fanfic character? This guy thinks anyone would take something like that seriously? Three clones of Vader, one survived? Get this garbage off of Wikipedia! The Wookieepedian 14:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Fanfic? This is a gimme.--Sean Jelly Baby? 00:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fagbusters

Non-notable forum user and Dustin Diamond fetishist. (Can someone amalgamate these into one entry?) DS 13:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn. Far too much work went into this one! CLW 16:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There's even an illustration (which will have to be deleted as well). DS 17:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete obviously. — brighterorange (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - impressively useless article. Dottore So 19:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete Documentation of the harassment of Dustin Diamond. Probably long winded, but the essential information is valid. Ysolace 18:05, 9/29/05 all of Ysolace's 5 previous edits are to add further idiocy to this article and to Dustin Diamond. DS 23:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete It is junk. Dudtz Image:Kardos.jpg 9/29/05 7:01 PM EST

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dustin's Rim Goblin

Non-notable forum user and Dustin Diamond fetishist. (Can someone amalgamate these into one entry?) DS 13:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete this may be a new low. — brighterorange (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 16:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and apply the same vote to the other listings. Dottore So 19:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Steinberg

Non-notable forum user and Dustin Diamond fetishist. (Can someone amalgamate these into one entry?) DS 13:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn CLW 16:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Do not Delete Why are you deleting this article? Kurt Steinberg does have a substantial following among Saved By The Bell fans. If you delete this, you might as well delete all the crap I see on this website about video games. While you're at it, why don't you trim down Cindy Sheehan's article - why is she deserving such a voluminous article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.222.125.115 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 29 September 2005.
• Do not delete A central figure in the Dustin Diamond "fetishist" subculture. It's obviously been shown by many major publication that this is a facet of Dustin Diamond's celebrity, and this character is a central part of that. User:Ysolace 1800, 9/29/05. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.169.50.97 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 29 September 2005.
• Delete like all the others listed. --Apyule 01:51, 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. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remember When

Non-notable forum user (described as "the Remember When guy") and Dustin Diamond fetishist. (Can someone amalgamate these into one entry?) DS 13:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn CLW 16:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete Valid, though disturbing, form of storytelling relating to a specific subculture. Ysolace 18:00 9/29/05 {unsigned|69.169.50.97|00:57, 29 September 2005}}
• Delete like the other ones. --Apyule 01:48, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rocco

Non-notable forum user and Dustin Diamond fetishist. (Can someone amalgamate these into one entry?) DS 13:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn CLW 16:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete along with the other Dustin Diamond stuff listed. --Apyule 01:43, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dustin Diamond Love

Non-notable forum full of Dustin Diamond fetishists. I'll grant that this might deserve a mention in the Dustin Diamond article, though. DS 13:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not convinced it's even worth referencing under Dustin Diamond. - nn CLW 16:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: a forum with 9 registered members. Flowerparty■ 00:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete. This and its subcategories are valid documentaions of the harassment and extreme subculture spawned by the Saved By The Bell character. Ysolace 18:00, 29/9/05—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.169.50.97 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 29 September 2005.
• Delete like the others. --Apyule 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Petasoft

This is apparently a copy of earlier article Tiger OS which was earlier voted to redirect without merge (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tiger OS). The same problems as with that article - obscure company that doesn't want to tell too many details until some vague future date - though this time there's nothing to redirect to, really. Wwwwolf 13:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete on grounds of nonnotability (so far) and having just plain bad article. --Wwwwolf 13:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as pure speculation. --Apyule 01:43, 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. Rx StrangeLove 20:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hypervideo

Appears to be a neologism or attempt to create a term. The word 'hypervideo' brings up a wide variety of matches on google, including many commercial products with the name, yet none of the first page results appear to match the definition given. Possible original research. CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think this page should remain, it seems that any video incorporating hyperlinks and embedded interactivity can be called hypervideo, and there are many sources on the web using this terminology. Of course I think the article should be expanded, but definitely not deleted. What other terms can be used to describe this development?

See http://www.fxpal.com/publications/FXPAL-PR-03-221.pdf and http://www.csdl.tamu.edu/~l0f0954/academic/cpsc610/p-2.htm --69.113.47.203 14:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

To be an advocate of the devil, does this mean that all linkable content be preceeded with hyper? A clickable image becomes a hyperimage, a clickable filename becomes a hyperdownload, and so on? With respect, perhaps the most telling reason for why this article should be deleted comes from your own post which asks "What other terms can be used to describe this?", a question that seems to cement the suspicion that this is original research. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Originally, a "link" was a "hyperlink", and the "hyper" prefix was abandoned as the short form gained momentum and went mainstream. So I imagine "hypervideo" might end up being "video" if the technology becomes adopted en masse. With respect to the original reserarch and neologism argument, there are dozens of seperate entries that came up in a dogpile search, some academic and some commercial, dating back to 1998. While the definition is not yet standardized, it appears to be a term that is in use, and Wikipedia should offer information to those who seek to learn more about it. "Hotspotting" is also a term used in several articles in the media, though this term is too ambiguous and generic to describe the specific characteristics of this technology. --Maestro44 16:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• User's first edit.

Comment what we really need in order to keep it is some evidence that it is a term commonly in use. You refer to Dogpiled articles that demonstrate the use of the term - link to them in the article and verify that the term is not 'original research' or a 'neologism', and you'll have a very good case for the article being kept. I should warn you that when it comes to new terminology Wikipedia usually keeps terms that are very common, and the case you make should reflect this. Ziggurat 22:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence that this is not a commercially self-promoting neologism. Dottore So 19:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've inserted links to commercial publications, academic papers, several producers of hypervideo software and solutions... I could do this all day, what is the threshold needed to justify the term has been around for many years? Just because you may not have heard of it doesn't mean it's new. It might just mean that you're ignorant. That's why I'm spending the time writing this article, to inform people about something that is becoming very important. Take this deletion notice down.--Maestro44 17:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The deletion notice is there so that people can discuss whether to keep the article or not, and this page is here to debate that. Thank you for adding links, and hopefully this is sufficient to sway people to vote for a keep, but the notice is generally not removed until people have finished discussing it! Ziggurat 23:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep there is evidence that this is a term in use (e.g. [13], [14] ), but also that it is sometimes used as a copyrighted term (e.g. [15]). The article should reflect that it is also used by some companies, but there is sufficient evidence that this is a piece of genuine terminology. Ziggurat 23:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point, I clarified that there is a difference between "hypervideo" and "HyperVideo" or "Hyper Video". I also put in some links to the academic papers. --Maestro44 13:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• The author advised me of his rewrite and I feel the content now is quite good. My concern above, however, remains: this is an attempt to encyclopedify a commercial neologism, thereby granting it an apparently independent and objective substantiation. As an encyclopedic project, WP needs to be vigilant about reflecting, not helping to define, such concepts and while I note Ziggurat's point that there is evidence that this concept has been used, I think that this is a reflexion of commercial placement. I therefore maintain my vote above to delete, although I think the author should add whatever material s/he feels is relevant to the Hypermedia article, which is currently a stub. When the moderator comes to close this, I might suggest it be relisted for further discussion, seeing as this has attracted less attention (3 votes + author) than it deserves and raises some interesting points. Dottore So 07:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem adding some of this to the Hypermedia stub, even though I think it deserves an entry in its own right. Regarding the "neo" I think 1996 is quite a long time ago. Also, regarding commercial intent, why does Wikipedia have pages such as Windows vista? I see a double standard, since articles such as the one just mentioned are clearly new products, but this term is used by many in academia as well as various commercial entities (not just one as in the MS example). --Maestro44 23:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fourier wave device

Band vanity. No label, no AMG, no evidence of notability. — brighterorange (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC criteria. Friday (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 16:12, 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Memetic Envisioneering

already transwiki'd to wk, and the article is hardly readable. so, take your pick: nn dicdef, advertising, unintelligible? — brighterorange (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• comment although the talk page says that it has been transwiki'd, there is no actual entry at wk (wikt:Memetic Envisioneering), which I think is because it was deleted there. — brighterorange (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-widespread commercial fluff, already transwiki'ed and deleted from there. No indication that it's even meaningful to anyone except a BSer trying to make money through seminars and books. Barno 18:16, 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James seal

Hoax, created by an anon who has had every single other change or page creation reverted/speedied. Originally nominated as a CSD, but as User:Doc glasgow helpfully (and politely; cheers!) pointed out, there is indeed an assertion of notability, incorrect though it is. Google turns up no mentions of this fellow when searching with his name and beatbox/rnb/singing-related search terms. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unfortunatelly it seems to be enough to say "He is a notable person who wins lots of stuff" to get your five days... Usrnme h8er 14:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. Friday (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 16:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's a hoax, clearly written by a person who has just read the criteria for speedy deletion. It is a pity that it can't just be speedied. --Apyule 02:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Just stupid.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morally corrupt

webcomic vanity. no alexa rank, a "new site" according to the home page. — brighterorange (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn CLW 16:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete entirely nn. Dottore So 19:31, 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 redirect to photographic film. I am trying to guess the intention of the proposer here; I left a message at User talk:Grika to allow feedback. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Imation (3m)

This page is titled and stubed as a corporate page, but a page for Imation Corporation already exists. Furthermore, this article concerns how to identify 35mm film's OEM by its bar code; I have now merged this information into Photographic film. Grika Ⓣ 14:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Deletion is not the final step in an article merger. Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is along the hallway, three doors down. Uncle G 18:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mayor Gridlock

To my knowledge this is not an actual term. This appears to be a politically motivated POV page by the vandals who hit the Greg Nickels page DiceDiceBaby 15:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete its a term created by a particular political group in Seattle about Greg Nickels, turns up 29 google results [16]. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:51, 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 REDIRECT. Gyrofrog (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strawberry Hill Players

NN It's bad enough that we seem to be headed towards having a Wikipedia article for every high school. Having an article for every student group is unacceptable unless some claim to notoriety beyond that school can be shown. No such claim has been made here. Caerwine 15:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn CLW 16:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Since its already been merged I say Redirect --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The group's not significant enough to warrant leaving a redirect in place. Caerwine 22:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • What's the harm in a redirect? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. It's cheap and easy. --Apyule 02:13, 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 KEEP. Gyrofrog (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Logan Local School District

Thoroughly unremarkable school district with little context created by an IP that also vandalized pages --Nlu 15:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep Please don't nominate schools or school districts as it is the most controversial thing you can do on this page and they are almost never deleted. CalJW 16:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

However, please note the context that this request was added; the article was created by a vandal. --Nlu 16:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

May I just say, I don't think this is a reason to nominate at all. First, do you know if the IP is a static IP assigned to a private computer? If its not, this may not be the vandal who created the page. Second, even if we could be sure that the person who created the page was a vandal, why would we want to delete their legitimate contribution? I would think exactly the opposite should be true, we should be more inclined to keep a contribution from a former vandal because we would like to encourage them to change their ways. We can verify it exists [17] and that the information is correct. Who cares who made it?--best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• keep please we never erase school districts or universities so why not just fix the article instead next time that would make more sense Yuckfoo 17:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It beats having separate entries on every schoolhouse in the area. Pilatus 18:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep despite questionable author.Gator1 19:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good Lord! An entire School District nominated!! What's next, an AfD nomination for Education?--Nicodemus75 21:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The consensus is unanimous that all articles on post-secondary schools and school districts should be kept. Silensor 22:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. School districts are the places used to build school articles. Vegaswikian 05:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. School districts are more notable than the schools at least. Personally, I think the school stubs should be merged into the school district articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment why not start an article that doesn't need fixing in the first place? Universities aren't nominated for deletion because they are full-fledged articles or perfect stubs. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the district. There are just three schools, in this "district" (one per level) so I prefer to think of it is a single K-12 school, with 3 buildings. It should probably have categories, just like it was a school, and stubs for the individual schools shouldn't be needed. Re-directs for each of the 3 can be added, plus Benjamin Logan School. I don't generally beleive in rolling schools into the district article, but this is one case, where that seems pretty reasonable. --rob 15:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete useless trivia. Dunc|☺ 09:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I wrote this article, and I am not a vandal! I once added a section on fairies to the Everworld article, but forgot to save. I haven't had time to write much, being a freshman from this school. Now that I know it might be axed, I'll work harder. -anon posting by 19:50, 30 September 2005 User:156.63.101.133
  • What do you call what you did to Great Depression, if not vandalism? --Nlu 21:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Excuse me, but I believe the vandalism to the Great Depression was by user:202.6.138.33 as described in the talk page by User:172. Also, none of these may be static IP's.
    • Unlikely. The vandalism happened around the same time that this page was created -- and note that this same user is back claiming not to be vandalizing. If this is not a static IP, there wouldn't be anyone coming back to disclaim credit. --Nlu 01:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete think how much space would be wasted if we listed every school and district in the world, next we should list the names of all school admin.,teachers,bus drivers, and even students. Dudtz 9/30/05 7:40 PM EST
  • Instead of removing content, it is preferred to have abundance and redundancy of content.1 Joaquin Murietta 20:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Yawn. keep. --Centauri 02:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep for all the reasons above,
  • • I would also like to welcome User:156.63.101.133 and to Nlu please, assume good faith and to the rest of us play nice. Joaquin Murietta 20:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • See my comment to him above. --Nlu 21:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • But he's a kid. Bring him back from the dark side of the force.;-) Joaquin Murietta 22:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)PS Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments
        • This point is conceded, but not the point above. --Nlu 01:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV information of a school district. Reasoning at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Unfocused 03:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• I have not even been to the Great Depression site, and I'll have you know my IQ is 128. Also my name is John Hartley, and I don't have an IP because I've never had the time. User:156.63.101.133
  • I know exactly how you feel. Good Luck fixing up the article. I think it will come out fine. If you have a digital camera, you can upload photos of the school. Joaquin Murietta 13:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • John Hartley, I made additional comments at Talk:Benjamin Logan Local School District Joaquin Murietta 13:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I appreciate your contributions, and God knows, I want this school to be kept, but what on earth does your IQ have to do with anything?--Nicodemus75 00:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this school district. -- DS1953 14:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and merge whatever school in that district that has there own article into that page --JAranda | yeah 03:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Arrrgghhh!! This computer refuses to save my comments! Sorry about the IQ, ego attack. ;-) User:156.63.101.133
  • If so many people want to keep it, why is this deletion article still here? User:156.63.101.133
    • After an appropriate amount of time has passed an administrator will come by and close the debate. She will remove the tag from the article and put a note on this page showing that the debate is closed. I'm glad to see you're taking interest in wikipedia, have you thought about getting an account? It lets you participate in more votes and also means you'll be taken seriously by more users. (It also helps to avoid accusations too :) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 14:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Nevermind, I found it...

Jdude384

• Keep finally a school article worth keeping. Provides sufficient context for a good article. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Junkbait Music

Ad for a non-notable not-yet-up-and-running label. --fvw* 15:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn CLW 16:16, 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!) 07:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Wolters

Bassist for an nn band. Not sure if that counts as A7, putting it here for the heck of it. --fvw* 15:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn CLW 16:16, 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!) 08:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Khan

Vocalist for a non-notable band. --fvw* 15:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn. Entry may have been created to drive traffic to linked sites. CLW 16:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Well, Google thinks the band does exist, just. If we had an article on it, I would say Delete and Merge. But no - so instead it's Delete outright per nominator.--inks 20:13, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Harley Band

Non-notable band. --fvw* 15:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn CLW 16:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• No indication of meeting WP:MUSIC. Delete, and his little dog record label, too. Friday (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Send To Cleanup, the article is crap, but as the anonymous comment points out, these guys have been getting a little bit of press. Could turn into a decent, if smallish article. Lankiveil 11:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC).

Strangely enough I was just browsing wikipedia at an idle moment and saw this for deletion ... non-notable band ... interesting ... this year alone they have featured on channel 4, played nokia boardmasters with james blunt, supported the mondays at kfest ... and are currently set top break the world record for the highest gig in the world at base camp everest

I take it your guys arent into the UK blues scene or into surfing ....

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

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

The result of the debate was very close, so some weighing of arguments here is needed. As far as vote count is concerned, I see seven votes to delete, and three or four votes to keep, depending on whether the anon should be counted or not (I am usually willing to count anon votes if I don't suspect sockpuppetry, and in this case I don't suspect it). In addition we have a comment leaning towards keep but declaring that it is not voting.

The argument for deletion has been that the text is original research, in violation of WP:NOR. A rebuttal to this has been made by pointing to a JROTC link. However, it has also been pointed out, by Barno, that this is only one of several such typologies which exist and that there is nothing special about the typology presented in this article which distinguishes it from the others.

In sum I cannot see a consensus that an article on the subject leadership styles is invalid and should never have an article, but even some of the "keep" voters here have expressed concern with this particular article. Because of that I will close this debate with a delete decision. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leadership styles

Looks like original research: the four 'archetypes' don't yield any (non-wiki) Google results. No sources. The lists of alternative names are more commonly used, but those are merely mentioned. JoanneB 15:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This article has valid information, and has a point. They do yield resources, though only when the terms "Director, Thinker, Relater, Socializer" and "Ruler, Analyst, Relater, Entertainer" are given as search parameters. If this article survives this AfD, which I hope it does, a cleaning will be much appreciated --SoothingR 16:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and de-orphan. Though, to be honest, I'd not be able to distinguish this particular 4-point leadership styles typology from any of the many 4-point personality typologies on the market... The Land 17:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, one of hundreds of non-notable original research typologies from an unending stream of seminar-sellers. I agree with The Land's last sentence. Not recognized as a leading (excuse me) paradigm in its field. Barno 18:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Barno Pilatus 18:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Barno. Couldn't put it better.Gator1 19:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I dunno. When I google on "builder relater planner adventurer" I get quite a few JROTC-related hits. http://www-rotc.monroe.army.mil/jrotc/documents/Curriculum/Unit_3/u3c1l2.pdf helpfully identifies colors associated with teach style, and gives the very useful tip "Think when it is time to think (Planner green), decide when it time to decide (Builder brown), feel when it is time to feel (Relater blue), and act when it is time to act (Adventurer red)." Sarasota Military Academy [18] concurs and adds animal totems. To the question "What are the four Winning Colors and what strengths in terms of behavior, communications and attributes are associated with each?" it answers: "Green is Fox/Planner and is a creative thinker. Red is Tiger/Adventurer and is action oriented. Brown is Bull & Bear/Builder and is leadership oriented. Blue is Dolphin/Relater and is a team builder." I'm inclined to think this stuff must be recognized JROTC lore, in which case it should be cleaned up and kept. Not ready to vote yet. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Barno. Dottore So 19:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Barno Sliggy 19:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep needs revisions, though --grubbmeister 07:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Barno. -- Kjkolb 08:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Keep the category, subdirectory the current contents. What's here is simply one of many theories on leadership. Where are all the others? (unsigned post by 24.2.75.241 19:42, October 7, 2005) -- Sliggy 23:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. But I will correct the spelling and wikify to provide links.. – Rich Farmbrough 20:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moree PlainsShire

A stub already exists at Moree Plains. No point in a redirect as I don't think this would be a common misspelling. Al 15:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Moree Plains or Delete as an unusual misspelling. --Apyule 02:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC), updated 13:03, September 29, 2005 (UTC).
• Delete with no redirect as per Al. -- Kjkolb 04:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. To further muddy the waters, there also appears to be a stub at Moree, New South Wales for the same place. Al 12:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I think that Moree Plains is the name of the local region and the shire, with Moree being the major town in the area. Perhaps a merge/redirect might be appropriate? I don't know which way to go though. --Apyule 12:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and keep. This article is about Moree Plains Shire Council - evidently one of the largest rural municipalities in New South Wales - not the town of Moree. --Centauri 02:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. (Final vote was 8 delete, 2 keep. Votes from anonymous contributors and from accounts created after the AFD was initiated were discounted.) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seduction Community

Delete. Firstly, there is less than 1000 hits on Google for this phrase. The page also has links to questionable sites and that could be construed as promotion. The Seduction article is being visited by the same contributors [19] embedding the same links [20]. PhilipO 16:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy explicity states that:-

Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable --PhilipO 22:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment The page now also includes what could be construed as original research, in violation of policy. --PhilipO 05:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment Agreed. Whoever added these ideas did it amateurishly. Are the current improvements acceptable? DutchSeduction 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment The core ideas have been time-tested by thousands of people. They are neither original nor nascent. Unsigned comment by User:70.225.167.229

• Delete, promotional piece, non-notable. --fvw* 16:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, I think that this is definately a notable topic for wikipedia. For example, look at the number of mainstream media articles about one seduction community guru in the media: http://www.mysterymethod.com/InTheMedia.aspx . This area truely has an extreme danger for promotion however. Essentially, even though for example this mystery person has had a lot of articles about them, the majority of the techniques and lingo of these style organized pickup artists evolved from a ton of community interaction primarily on websites, making the particular notability of any one of them more suspicious. Therefore I propose we merge this and all current and future articles on particular individuals of this community into one article. The only articles I know of in wikipedia on individual members are on David Deangelo, mystery, and Ross Jefferies. Any new articles which crop of for other "gurus" should be merged into the one article. The question is what this one article would be called. As the first person noted, there is not a widely used name for this phenomenon as yet, either by outsiders or by those in the particular groups. I propose that we stick with this article name for now and rename it to whatever seems more apropriate as time goes by. As a final argument, wikipedia voted to keep the seven styles of lightsabre fighting article, which essentially voids all delitions for notability as being hypocritical :). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.176.41 (talk • contribs).same IP block as the main contributor to this article. Also, the last redlink makes for a funny complaint, even if it's just using "sabre" instead of "saber" :) — Lomn
• Delete per fvw — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• KeepThis is an underground trend that should be discussed in a balanced way. The few Internet sites mentioned are the most independent ones available and probably most representative of the community being described. Let's discuss how to make the article more informative, as the subject matter is of interest. I agree with the previous comment that the subject matter has a danger for promotion. Individual members such as Deangelo, Mystery, Badboy and Jeffries are commercial interests, and may not merit having their own page. These people are four among the most well known of the commercial seduction coaches. The term "seduction community" is probably the best and most common description used. This is how the community currently describes itself. See the term's use in a recent popular book on the subject (this week THE GAME is number 15 on the NYTimes Bestseller list). This book is being widely reviewed. An alternative title for the page such as "Seduction Strategies for Men" only sounds more promotional. <-- Unsigned comment by DutchSeduction 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC), c. 03:30 UTC - this user has edited this article and Seduction and inserted as well as deleted affiliated links.
• Delete. A poor attempt at viral marketing that unabashedly abuses Wikipedia's openness. -- Hadal 04:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep PhillipO has articles on Wikipedia about Roches department store, a video game and a fantasy role playing game, which are not considered promotion??! <-- Unsigned comment by 213.148.229.118 (talk • contribs), c. 04:30 UTC - this user has edited this article and Seduction as well, to insert affiliated links.

• Comment :-) Yes, articles about one the largest department stores in Ireland and one of the most famous arcade games in history. Fantasy role playing game? Perhaps :-) --PhilipO 05:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikispam delenda est. --FOo 06:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hadal, upon what do you base this "viral marketing" charge? If you prefer to remove these links in favor of other, more neutral ones, please suggest them. The subject itself is worthy of an article, although it is true that there are link spammers active in this area. The current version does not contain these links. DutchSeduction 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC), c. 04:30 UTC - this user has edited this article and Seduction and inserted as well as deleted affiliated links.

• Comment I'm going to quote User: Fubar here: "Wikipedia needs to be able to reflect all verifiable human knowledge." I fail to see how a page describing a big Irish department store or a popular video game called "Ghosts and Goblins" has more interest and value than an article about the seduction community. Suggest criticism be given to help REVISE and avoid deleting information. Everything written on this page is not intended to be promotional, but purely descriptive. Please verify information provided. Here is an excerpt from an article in the NYTimes that provides more background. Please provide suggestions to help revise and improve this article.

• Comment A fair question - please see my response here. --PhilipO 07:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment IMHO, links such as http://www.fastseduction.com and http://dutchseduction.blogspot.com/2005/01/lair-list_11.html would need to go before this article approaches acceptablity. In the interests of full disclosure of course, I don't believe this 'trend' warrants inclusion as of yet. To me this is just a page with promotional links. --PhilipO 07:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Those links have been removed at your suggestion. The one site, http://www.fastseduction.com, is the moderated version of the original Usenet group. The other site is created by a nonprofit foundation, and endeavors to be neutral. Both links have been deleted. Please make some suggestions as to what pointers are acceptable. The point is not to keep removing items you personally find objectionable. Please suggest alternatives. DutchSeduction 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Compare with David_DeAngelo, an article that is entirely self-promotional. I've tried to improve it, rather than simply deleting it, but most of the external links on that article are pure spam. Shouldn't there be some consistent policy on Wikipedia?

• Delete - Not noteworthy. not encyclopedic, at least not yet. And all these unsigned comments aren't helping. -- Malo 09:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom. --Vsion 09:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment What makes subject noteworthy and enclopedic? Compared to various other subjects on Wikipedia? The original author of the page referred to Seven_Forms_of_Lightsaber_Combat as an example, but there are many others. Please provide more guidance on how to keep improving the article for Wikipedia.

• Delete - Biased and off-kiltered representation. i.e. a bunch of KJ BS Unsigned vote by User:128.104.55.214

• Keep as separate article. This article is notable and the things these guys practice definitely have an effect on behavior at clubs and in relationships. I dislike the practice immensely, but it's notable nonetheless. However, some parts of it could be cleaned up a little. I don't think this article is self-promotional; it's a trend. --Quintin3265 21:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - inaccurate from the first sentence. Does not warrant a seperate article. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment RN, every sentence is verifiable and accurate. If not, please give us an example of what you mean so that we can improve the information.

• Keep Nothing about this article appears to be non-encyclopedic. I strongly suspect that it has only been set as 'considered for deletion' because certain people don't like the subject matter. Unsigned comment by User:24.97.252.34

[edit] Improve This Article

• PLEASE NOTE Unsigned comments and revisions are not likely to be taken seriously.
• Create an account, and sign all comments and changes.
• Vote to Keep the article on Wikipedia here OR if you see problems in the article, make suggestions or recommendations.
• Nominate the article for improvement: this page's entry

• Comment Votes from anonymous users and accounts that were created after this vote began will probably not be taken seriously either. See Wikipeida policy --PhilipO 02:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment You really seem to have it in for this article, Phil! The link you cited states, "Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers..." DutchSeduction 10:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Since the article has been nominated for deletion:

1. Substantial revisions have been done, taking all criticisms into account.

2. All external links have been removed except for links to mainstream books and periodicals and one Usnet Newsgroup.

3. Additional edits have been done to improve NPOV. Any other specific issues that have been clearly noted have been carefully addressed.

4. An extensive reference list has been added.

5. All wording that might be construed as promotional has been removed. The article provides both pros and cons.

In short, Phil, we don't understand what your beef is with the article at this point. Please clarify what needs to be done to improve this piece. DutchSeduction 10:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Subject matter is somewhat controversial. The article needs to be improved and made more balanced. DutchSeduction 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC) This user had less then 50 edits, on all this topic or closely related articles

• Comment the page was extensively re-written after going up for AfD to remove the spammy elements. Then it was extensively re-written again after discussion on IRC, to make it more like a proper wikipedia article — it's even got an excellent reference section now!. I don't have a stake in it either way (well, I'd prefer it were deleted, just to remove the phrase "seduction community" from my user contribs ;-)) but if you're going to delete it, please delete it on the merits of the article as it stands and the notability of the community, not because it originally looked like spam. --fuddlemark

(fuddle me!) 16:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• CommentI have seen reference to this thing in the David DeAngelo article which is also voted for deletion. Any relationship between votes ?Hektor 01:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment DeAngelo is arguably among the most successful of the commercial dating coaches in this community. That article seems promotional is nature, and contains a number of factual errors. Perhaps it also should be marked for improvement/revision.

• Keep it does talk about commercial products, but does not appear to be hyping them and it does give some criticism of the products. MosheZadka 18:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This topic is the main subject of a book on the New York Times bestseller list, "The Game," by Neil Strauss. If that isn't an indicator of worthiness, I don't know what is. Contributors can filter out blatantly commericial links, but the subject should be in. Unsigned comment by User:70.225.167.229

• Keep I think this article is very intresting but it could be checked for accuaracy. Unsigned comment by User:157.62.105.5

• Keep It's an interesting subject that I think people will find fascinating to read one way or other. The page should be kept and improved. Puga 08:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC) User:Puga has only two entries, from an account created today, all on this article

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Kemal Montano. – Rich Farmbrough 11:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sarajevo Love of Mine

Just lyrics, in Bosnian and English JoanneB 16:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's a copyvio since it's copied from other web sites (so I tagged it). But, if the song is public-domain, then legally we can use it, but we should still delete it, as it's no basis for an article. --rob 21:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• I've redirected and asked a Bosnian admin and translator of the song (probably) User:Asim Led for more info. Rich Farmbrough 11:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 02:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schismatic Catholic Church

• del. Unverifiable. Google minus wikipedia gives almsot no hits. mikka (t) 16:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This schismatic body exists. Google is not the arbiter of verifiability. --Nicodemus75 17:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Google is an arbiter. Provide another one plz.mikka (t) 17:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. If this were true, it would certainly be reported in the media - and thus show up on Google (it doen't bacause it's not). Plus, I doubt any church would call themselves 'schismatic' - that's a pejorative lable. Nicodemus, you have five days to verify this - and if you can, I'll be the fist to apologise. --Doc (?) 17:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This seems to be yet another story that exists only wikipedia and it's mirrors. --rob 20:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sounds unlikely. The fife or so google-hits do not help (wikipedia-related with the difference that they add this malta-story). In de:Malta 400.000 people are living, 98% roman-catholic. 17.000 "schismatic catholics" will be nearly 5% of the population. Most probably a hoax. -- Andy.we 23:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparently an article about the "pope" of this church, Raymond Dimech, was the subject of another VfD and was deleted. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Raymond Dimech. I can't verify that this church exists or is led by this "pope". --Metropolitan90 00:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I get the impression this isn't the first or last case like this. Antipope lists a number of modern nobodies who claim to be pope, with red and blue links. Apparently, anybody can say their the pope, get mentioned somewhere (or nowhere in this case), and get an article in wikipedia, which is not a good thing. --rob 01:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Unless it is verified. Dudtz 9/29/05 5:37 PM EST Keep. This Church is the only TRUE CHURCH. Huhedda Falzon, Secretary to HH Pope Leo XIV

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Los Bastardos

Band vanity JoanneB 16:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn CLW 17:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Spinboy 01:08, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ravihansa Wetakepotha

Article claims notability as a percussionist. Google gives 1 hit - as, yes, a percussionist. DS 16:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn CLW 17:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Geogre --Doc (?) 22:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You're a looza, if you don't know what a palooza is...

Personally, I don't see the harm in keeping the article. With the inevitable release of this film from the box office, many people will wonder what the word actually means. Maybe after someone actually informs the author of the definition of Palooza then it could possibly be deleted but I still feel that it would be a tremendous loss to the wikipedia site as, that's what it's here for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.110.217.226 (talk • contribs) September 28, 2005.

• Delete. Part of a pattern of vandalism by Skooky (talk • contribs). Al 17:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Would have thought Speedy Delete. Nonsense page. The Land 17:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Ack, there's no reason to drag this through Afd. It's clearly not an article. I'd redirected it to Palooza, so that it would be eligible for speedy once that was deleted. Friday (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic nonsense. MCB 18:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with deletion by Geogre. Barno 18:27, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dragonfire (www.dfire.org)

Advertising. Website founded July 2005 DJ Clayworth 17:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete clearly advert., NN --Quasipalm 17:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Doesn't read too much like an advert but it's non-notable. Solarusdude 19:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:54, 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 REDIRECT to creation-evolution controversy. Robert 19:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution controversy

This is a POV rewrite/fork of creation-evolution controversy by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) (who ought to know better) intended to reflect his own religious views because the current article at creation-evolution controversy doesn't. Dunc|☺ 18:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Author should focus on current page.Gator1 19:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'd vote Redirect to creation-evolution controversy if someone hadn't already done it. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know that your private term POV rewrite means.

• Are you saying that the article is biased? If so, please show in what way it is biased.
• Are you saying that no points of view should be described in the article. If so, that is a challenge to the NPOV policy, which says that all points of view should be described fairly.

Without a clear re-statement of your objection, this is not a valid AFD request. It's just an opinion poll, and its tally should be disregarded. Uncle Ed 22:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC) A great big thank you to all who have pitched in to explain your objections. I understand now. Uncle Ed 14:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect this fork back to whence it came. Thryduulf 23:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect fork back to main page. Re-writes should either be in user subpage, or on subpage of main article. Guettarda 23:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to creation-evolution controversy. I did revert a previous redirect of this page, but only because I think it should be left as is until a consensus is achieved on the Afd. I see no good reason to fork off and create a new PoV article just because you can't agree on the neutrality of the original. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Thryduulf .--Apyule 02:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Any problems with creation-evolution controversy should be solved at that page, not via a fork. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to creation-evolution controversy. I, too, am surprised that the article's creator would fork an article in this manner. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. As clumsy as the term is, "POV fork" precisely defines what's being attempted here, and it's unacceptable behavior. --FOo 04:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to creation-evolution controversy, forking articles is not the way to deal with NPOV disputes. --Stormie 05:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect - while theoretically a controversy could arise around evolution, aside from the evolution-creationism thing, this article is currently useless, obvious POV, obvious fork, and as such simply confusing the issue. -- Ec5618 06:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. --Carnildo 06:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as clear fork, redundant article. DreamGuy 06:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Everyking 09:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect the fork. Joshuaschroeder 13:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• I think there's been enough votes to see where this is going - SPEEDY redirect by the way - could a nice admin close this, please. Muchas gracias. Proto t c 15:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  The AfD process can't be cut short before the minimum time is up (there might be a shipload of people about to vote "keep"...). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  It does happen - an admin can be bold to reduce clog. The closing can always be undone by any admin if there is any protest (which almost never happens, as admins usually make sensible decisions about when to close early) Proto t c 11:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete & redirect as per everyone else — a clear PoV fork. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and/or redirect Vsmith 15:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Ed, if you want to publish your essays, get your own website for them. --Calton | Talk 03:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. BlankVerse ∅ 11:13, 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. Robert 16:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smoo

This was incorrectly tagged as a speedy. I suppose it might well be a hoax, so I decided to bring it here. Smoo gives a hell of alot of google hits, and I can't be bothered to look through them all to find out if anything confirms whether this is an actual creature from legit fiction, or just something someone made up. Smoo Cave seems to exist at least, but that doesn't necessarily mean a creature called "Smoo" had anything to do with it. No vote at present. R. fiend 18:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Hoax. Jwissick^(t)(c) 18:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete then after deleting redirect to Shmoo as possible misspelling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like a mispelling of shmoo, but I wouldn't consider it as a mispelling redirect. ☢ Kieff | Talk 06:42, 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!) 11:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wasteofspace

Non notable Jwissick^(t)(c) 18:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. How true. Al 18:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity.Gator1 19:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. *drew 09:43, 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. – Rich Farmbrough 21:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ziggurat With Revolving Door

Private or at least non-notable cutesy nickname for an obscure building at the Cleveland Clinic Fire Star 18:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --Fire Star 18:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence online that this is a nickname in use. And I love Ziggurats! Ziggurat 22:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jewhoo

I'm sure it was once a lovely website, but it has been down for quite a while now and this stubby article seems nothing more than a webguide link to a nonexistent site Fire Star 19:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --Fire Star 19:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Ample time has been given, and nothing has happened of substance to improve the article. Now that the sites down, there's no potential for it. --rob 20:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sadly, I must agree. I contributed content to Jewhoo, and it was once a notable and popular site, but my email to the owner about its status went unanswered. If/when it makes a comeback, I'd be happy to write a good article about it. MCB 17:14, 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 DELETE. Robert 02:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] America (theory)

Delete. Original essay. android79 20:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete original nonsense. CDC (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencylopedic OR/POV essay. MCB 17:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete its junk. Dudtz Image:Kardos.jpg 9/30/05 5:51 PM EST

• Delete I have never had so much fun packed into a Wikipedia article. Elapsed 16:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 19:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GreatestWiki

Non-notable wiki website; no encyclopedic content. At the moment, it seems to be a vanity page for somebody who doesn't like Bush very much. We may have a WikiBias, but surely there exist non-notable wikis! --Quuxplusone 20:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. (nominator's vote) --Quuxplusone 20:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As much as I hate to delete a website with such deep political debate :), an alexa rank over 1,100,000 doesn't give much hope for notability. [21] --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)--best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It links to a cheap rip-off site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dudtz (talk • contribs) 19:18, 29 September 2005.

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert 02:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resident Evil 4 (2007 film)

Tagged as speedy by an anon without giving a reason. I'd guess they were going for the crystal ball argument. But since most of this is verifiable information, I'd be inclined to keep. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep its been announced and the claims of the article are verifiable. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why didn't you just remove ths speedy notice?--Kross 22:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to be on the safe side. I wanted to be sure I acted with the support of the community. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keepthe film has been long announced and is clearly going to be made User:Empty2005
• Keep. Announced films don't qualify for the crystal ball argument. 23skidoo 03:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• speedy keep this please the speedy notice should have just been removed we do not need to discuss this any more really Yuckfoo 04:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I thought speedy tags can be removed if it doesn't meet the criteria, as long as it isn't the article's creator. -- Kjkolb 08:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious Delete. This is a pure, 100%, uncut and unadulterated crystal-ball article. "Paul W. S. Anderson will write the script?" This is movie vaporware. --Calton | Talk 04:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge - I think it's a bit premature to include an article on the fourth Resident Evil film, when they haven't even started filming the third one yet. The only source that has even stated that a fourth film is in the works is the Hollywood Reporter and even if their info is correct, it's still speculative. I suggest to merge the info with Resident Evil: Apocalypse. Jonny2x4 06:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but cut. I think it is imperative that interested readers are notified about the fact that a possible 4th movie is at least in consideration. If all links and connections to this article is removed, this knowledge is lost. And knowledge, chrystal ball-ish or not, should never be lost at Wikipedia.--Pacroon 21:50, 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 No votes, therefore no consensus. I've moved it to (more) correct spelling though.. – Rich Farmbrough 16:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jme

Orphan, not notable open-source Java gaming API. [766 google hits http://www.google.com/search?q=%22jMonkey+Engine%22], makes no attempts to establish notability bogdan | ^Talk 20:37, 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 DELETE. Robert 16:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'The Shining Wit of Brian Noble in Glorious 3D Technicolour'

Google search for page title gives zero hits. Google search for "Brian Noble" "Boots 'n All" gives 27 hits. Punkmorten 20:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderline speedy. Flowerparty■ 00:49, 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 merge with Max Brooks. The article is a stub, so I think a merge should be pretty easy, although one sentence needs a bit rewording to make it appear more encyclopedic... I'll try. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zombie Survival Guide: Complete Protection from the Living Dead

Non-notable, and possibly spam advertising, as it has previously been spammed regularly on the zombie article. Now it has its own page it raises some suspicion. Even if its not, there is nothing important to say about this randomly picked humour book that can't be said on the author Max Brooks's page. Niz 20:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Niz 20:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything salvagable into Max Brooks and redirect - Mgm|^(talk) 20:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I don't think this is spam at all - it's just an entry about a book. There are probably thousands of others in Wikipedia. While it's not the most important article out there, there are certainly thousands of much less relevant ones. Could be expanded, though. Removing an article just because you don't care, personally, about the subject matter, is, IMO, wrong. Dehumanizer 18:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (Max Brooks) Zzzzz 18:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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 by R. fiend as 'rambling unencyclopedic nonsense, probable copyvio' --Doc (?) 22:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hummingbird card

Faultily tagged as a speedy. This is not entirely incoherent as claimed, but a how-to advertisement for a magic trick. Probably worth an article, but this isn't it, there's nothing salvagable here. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - fair enough - it isn't Speedy like I tagged it. Close to unsalvageable IMHO. Magic tricks should have spoilers too. --PhilipO 20:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you mean spoiler tags. I prefer no spoilers at all, but I guess it can't always be avoided if it's verifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 16:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Insulin therapy

Overly general article title (insulin as a medication is already covered in insulin) - seems to be about some experimental treatment but fails to explain what kind, just says it isn't insulin potentiation therapy; copies text of a newspaper article which provides no details. ←Hob 20:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. ←Hob 20:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this phrase shows up a lot on PubMed (4192 on my search). This is a bit confusing, because the article talks about insulin coma therapy, which is used on mentally ill patients (see [22] or Shock therapy). Or maybe this is the same thing as Intensive insulinotherapy. I'm confused. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it's not intensive insulinotherapy - that's just a more frequently dosed version of standard insulin therapy for diabetes. This article is apparently referring to a single experimental cancer treatment that a single company was using in Mexico, until the FTC shut them down[23], in which they induced insulin coma for unclear reasons. I don't think this is any more notable than any of the thousands of other quack cures out there, and it certainly shouldn't be described with the broad title "insulin therapy". If we keep the title, it should just be a redirect to insulin - or we could use it to split out the "insulin as a medication" section of that article. But the current content is totally misleading. (It's as if we had a radiation therapy article that only discussed "controversial" uses of radiation such as clipping toenails, tuning pianos, and bestowing superpowers.) ←Hob 21:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Gotcha. I'd say to merge with BioPulse if we had an article on them. But it seems a little POV to start the article with this. I guess delete --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to insulin. I would suggest a speedy on that by an admin since it appears that the bulk of the text may be more then fair use and hence a copyvio. Vegaswikian 05:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete confused beyond repair. Whatever could be salvaged would belong under insulin, IMHO. Pete.Hurd 05:30, 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. Robert 02:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Pugh

Vanity, I'm pretty sure. Found during RC patrol. Another user has denied the OBE (only claim to notability) and it seems unlikely if user is only 16 15 years old by own admission. I have not placed any questions on originating IP's talk page due to the mess already there - looks like a shared IP. ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 21:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity/hoax. He received an out-of-body experience for his mad programming skillz? wow! CDC (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. LOL. This is a hoax.csloat 23:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A 15-year-old kid who dreams of receiving the OBE? Surely this must be a speedy. ♠DanMS 03:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I did think of speedying it but there is after all a claim to notability :-) ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 07:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with all due haste. AlistairMcMillan 01:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. – Rich Farmbrough 15:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LOTJ

Page is about a Star Wars MUD that seems to be non-notable. CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is lame. totally non-notable and the sooner we forget about it the better.csloat 23:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nothing wrong with the article. It's been around a while. Pengo 14:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No, votes, no-one cares, no consensus.. – Rich Farmbrough 15:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Railo

"Railo is a Cold Fusion Compiler for translating and executing of Cold Fusion based websites." Searching for Railo Cold Fusion Compiler on Google only gets 43 original results. It doesn't seem notable enough for an article. -- Kjkolb 22:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: the more correctly formatted Railo ColdFusion Compiler nets 44 distinct results. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I had already done both searches and the results are pretty much the same web pages, just in a different order. -- Kjkolb 03:17, 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!) 08:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aluminum zircomium

This is a copy/paste job from an article in an FDA magazine (if it wasn't a government publication, I'd have copyvio'd this). Most problematic is that it is not an encyclopedia entry, it's a summary of the results of a specific study, and appears to be irrecoverable. The coup de grace is that the name is misspelled. CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete, not an encylopedia article, and alumium zirconium doesn't seem to be a topic even if spelled correctly. Kappa 23:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus (except to keep content, perhaps).. – Rich Farmbrough 15:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Young Ecologists

Youth organization of a fringe party which is barely notable itself (see election results at Ecological Democratic Party). Martg76 22:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• The party has existed since the 80s and was founded by Members of the Green Party, which makes the Ecological Democratic Party certainly notable. Any party that is allowed to take part in national and international elections deserves an article. That said, this is really part of a bigger picture. Merge and redirect to Ecological Democratic Party. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, this organization existed as a national youth organization. it was a organizationally separate entity from ÖDP. This organization was mainly active pre-www era, which can explain low number of google hits. --Soman 12:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 15:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lirika

Band vanity. No AMG, no WP:MUSIC, self produced, etc. — brighterorange (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• It's a copyvio! And they don't seem to meet wp:music, so delete. Flowerparty■ 01:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for not meeting WP:MUSIC and safe the people at WP:CP a lot of time. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:40, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] University of Plymouth Student Law and Criminal Justice Society

nn student organization. — brighterorange (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Marskell 22:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable --TimPope 21:00, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] President Carter's Family

This is genaeology (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information #6: Genealogical entries), with no inbound links. It has received precisely 2 edits, both minor, since it was created in July - the first to disambiguate Georgia to Georgia (U.S. state), and the second to fix a typo and remove a leading blank line. There is no information here that isn't already in the Jimmy Carter article so there is nothing to merge. Thryduulf 22:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per above.csloat 23:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Wikipedia is not the place for geneaological information. -- Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete Pete.Hurd 05:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 19:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sex beast hunt

unimportant slang. Unlike Jumping the shark (which it is compared to), all of the hits in the first several google pages [24] are porn sites or wikipedia mirrors. — brighterorange (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Delete this nonsense.-csloat 23:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Delete amusing, but not encyclopedic. Johntex\^talk 00:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete unimportant, rarely used, slang Pete.Hurd 05:18, 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.

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 as A7 --Doc (?) 00:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Rollins

• Delete vanity page Melanchthon 23:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is garbage; should have been speedy deletion?csloat 23:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Your wish is my command --Doc (?) 00:34, 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. Robert 19:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiconstitution

Obviously not an encylopedia article, and not approriate for a project trying to write one. However, it is not a speedy, which is why I undeleted it and listed it here. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unencyclopedic. This might be an interestign project for soem wiki, but not wikipedia, and particularly not in the article space. DES ^(talk) 23:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• It's an attempt to use the wiki process to create a constitution for a country. This is canonical Wikipedia is not a free wiki host territory. The author is encouraged to read our Wiki Science wikibook on how to set up and run xyr own wiki. Delete. Uncle G 01:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and mention at WikiMedia:Press clippings. Gazpacho 02:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  No vote change, but some of the diffs might be BJAODNable. Gazpacho 21:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Gazpacho. — JIP | Talk 04:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is a project not an encyclopedia article Glaurung 08:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Undelete It might be possible to view this article as a primary source on the concept of a wikiconstitution -- which, having been referenced in The Onion, may enter the lexicon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.59.134 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 1 October 2005.
  • But this article doesn't describe what such a constitution is, it tries to be an example of it. And wikipedia is not supposed to be the place for Primary sources -- it is supposed to be a tertiary source, referencing primary and secondary sources. DES ^(talk) 13:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • True.
• Undelete People seem to be getting a lot of joy out of this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.59.134 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 3 October 2005.
• Delete. Ambi 07:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to AVN Awards. – Rich Farmbrough 15:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AVN vixen of the year

The only link leading here is Audrey Hollander, which itself is being considered for deletion at the same time. Adult Video News Awards does not have a page either, but if it did, another option would be to merge this into that page. Interiot 23:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Move to Adult Video News Awards Johntex\^talk 00:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move as above, though more detail needs to be added than just one award. 23skidoo 03:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to AVN Awards. Vegaswikian 05:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, move to AVN Awards as per Vegaswikian. I've made Adult Video News Awards a redirect. Proto t c 15:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Adult Video News Awards, there's probably a designated spot for it within the article. Bobo192 06:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AirCop Virus

This is an entry about a computer virus with very limited distribution in the wild. Pilatus 23:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Don't add an article until it becomes notable. Bart133 (t) 23:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete <50 infections. not widespread enough to be notable, and apparently not dangerous enough to be so either. Nateji77 05:03, 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Synergy/DE

plus Synergy/de, Synergy/DBL and SYNERGEX. (<-line added by RHaworth)

Ad for nn software. Note that the original author keeps removing the {{advertisement}} tag; he'll probably do the same with the AfD notice. This was also previously tagged as a copyvio, but an anonymous editor claiming to represent the company declared (on the talk page) that the company authorised this use. Whether a copyvio or not, this ad doesn't belong on WP. Delete. Owen× ☎ 23:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination --NeilN 23:57, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Large number of edits of dubious value from author's IP, and elsewhere again states that the company is the source of these edits. --Interiot 00:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC) (later) It's generally against the spam guildlines to post information about your own company or product.
• Delete as ad. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: This has been an interesting article to deal with. When I first saw the article, it was an obvious sales pitch copied from the Synergy website. I copyvio'ed it but a week later the anonymous user who wrote the article insisted that she was a representative of the company and asked to have the copyvio removed on the condition that the article will be written in NPOV. So I gave them a week or two and when nothing got done, I put up an advertisement warning to remind them that this article still needs work. Obviously, they still haven't done anything so I say it's time to ax it. Besides, who wants to read an article about a company written by the company's marketing rep anyway? Solarusdude 19:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I'm the "anonymous user" referenced before. I apologize for not following protocol -I am just learning how to use this site. I have since created a log in. Solarusdude, I actually did completely revise the article after the comments that it was too marketing-oriented. In fact, I had an independent user of the language write an unbiased description of it. (Perhaps this is the "Large number of edits of dubious value from author's IP" described by Interiot.) This is not intended as an advertisement. I am simply trying to create an accurate description of the product for people who look it up, and because it is linked to from another article. If it still appears too "markety," I would be happy to revise it. sde 15:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep:It seems a simple description of the product - a tool for the development community that has been in place for 20 years. It's an appropriate entry and pales by comparison to the numerous entries one finds under Microsoft Visual Studio and other related tools.--JDukr 16:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  (The above, and a self-deleted copy on the Talk page, are this voter's only edits to date. Owen× ☎ 16:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

• delete it's an ad. Pete.Hurd 05:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough 16:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Dreit

band vanity. DS 23:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Why band vanity? 1- I am not a band member, but just a fan 2- This article has not been approved, nor endorsed, by any of the band members 3- Information will be added as soon as possible

--Adriano 11:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• checking the Music Guidelines, I can affirm that:

1- they are THE heavy metal band of Livigno and surrounding areas, meeting criterium n. 6 2- they have been featured on several local and a national newspaper (il giorno [25]) Their website is not finished yet, but they will soon be quite famous... Not like Duran Duran or Aerosmith, but anyway..

• Hm. Are they better known by another name? DS 16:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Not really... I suppose this does not help...

--Adriano 16:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Well, can you provide links to articles or anything like that? DS 13:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn Pete.Hurd 05:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, couldn't find any link to articles on the internet... This does not bode well, I'm afraid... --Adriano 12:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied as nn-bio/A7, I have warned the user not to recreate it. --Doc (?) 00:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Ferguson

Already userfied (User:Mattferg675), but the user re-created it in article space. -- Curps 23:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. --NeilN 23:53, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Psychoanalysis. Robert 21:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History_of_psychoanalysis

Subsume under article Psychoanalysis 206.124.131.80 23:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge anything useful and redirect. Doesn't need AFD discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newt's Mother's Reticule

Vanity or libel, I can't decide which Johntex\^talk 00:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Whether it is vanity or libel, there is no notability claimed in the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Good point, guys - either way, it exhudes non notability. Shauri 12:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete First Irene, then Wikipedia... Pete.Hurd 05:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 16:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Kehr

Non-notable bio NeilN 00:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, the websites aren't notable, let alone the creator. -- Kjkolb 05:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn Pete.Hurd 05:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 16:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Surviving Bears

While I'm sympathetic to the goal of helping people survive a bear attack, Wikipedia is not an instruction manual Johntex\^talk 00:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Hmmm. This thing gets weirder as it goes on. WP:NOT an instruction manual, but this has very little "instruction" at all. Perhaps it's creator needs a "Surviving Wikipedia" article- or would it get eaten by a bear? :)--Sean Jelly Baby? 00:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research on the running-past-someone-else-and-geting-the-lazy-bear-to-eat-them-instead method. Has this been tested by reputable researchers? How do I know if I can trust this information when the time comes?--Pharos 00:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is clearly a joke. Eric119 03:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Save OMG, please don't delete this quite yet. I need it on Thursday (9/29/05) for a quick school project. After that I guess its alright to delete. I didn't think anyone would mind if it was up for a day or two. My directions were to use this site specifically. Sorry for offending you...--creator 23:29, 28 September 2005 (PST)
  • It'll be listed here for five days anyhow, so you're fine, but that raises another question: What was the school project, from what school? We like to keep track of schools using Wikipedia (see WP:SUP), both for general interest and to make sure schools' and Wikipedia's goals converge. — mendel ☎ 16:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikibooks. I have a book that has information by reputable researchers on how to survive bear attacks, so a how-to guide can be written. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. But this particular presentation clearly doesn't have reputable information, so I don't see why you would support a transwiki.--Pharos 18:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Another well known bear survival method is to escape in your rocket and land on the moon. Send to WP:BJAODN. --Meiers Twins 10:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it is still needed for school it's archived at Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Surviving Bears --Optichan 18:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and encyclopedic -WindFish 05:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 16:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark H Goldberg

non-notable, googling for mark goldberg gershwin turned up nothing on first few pages NeilN 00:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non notable. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn. Pete.Hurd 05:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Peachman

Vanity page on non-notable individual Johntex\^talk 01:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC) No it's not -- he was the inspiration for a movie.

• Delete, even if true, he is not notable enough. -- Kjkolb 05:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is one of those annoying cases where there is, technically, an assertion of notability, even though it is patently a joke/hoax. --MCB 17:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn. (to the extent that this approaches notability due to connection to movie, then it ought to go into movie entry) Pete.Hurd 05:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Box wine. Robert 02:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Box Wine

dicdef Johntex\^talk 02:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: created off a red link on wine, if this will never be an article, the link should be removed. -- Kjkolb 05:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong and Speedy Keep. No longer a dicdef. There is still a lot of room for expansion. Having only one link is not in itself a reason to delete any article. Vegaswikian 06:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC) Redirect to Box wine. Vegaswikian 06:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Box wine -- Kjkolb 08:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Box wine and merge anything not already there. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 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. – Rich Farmbrough 22:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin_Wetmore

THIS GUY IS JUST A PAWN FOR INTERNATIONAL JEWRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• Note that 22.56.221.16 removed the AfD notice. Grobertson 06:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Note also that he deleted three delete votes. See this diff.

They were:

*Delete per nomination. - 68.49.148.17 04:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
*Delete, he is only very slightly notable now and no one will be looking for him in 10 years. -- Kjkolb 05:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
*Delete not really notable. not sure how taping a speech by tipper gore turns into fame, but that and having been sued seem to be the main claims (being a university activist is just too common IMO). Nateji77 05:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Therefore the consenses is delete, not n/c as I formerly thought. I have blocked said user for 24 hours, for vandalism. Ironically his efforts nearly saved an article about someone he seems to hate...

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