Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 13

< November 12	November 14 >

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 24601

Orphan page that has no potential and is of a number that is not noteable Descendall 05:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

COMMENT I actually nominated this a few days ago, but in putting it on this page, I accidently erased all the other nominations. Someone saw what I did and reverted, assuming that I was a vandal. Consequentially, this has not been listed for over a few minutes. I am putting it back up. Descendall 08:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- ’Twas I who did the revert with the comment about vandalism. My apologies for the remark, but it did look like vandalism. When you post anything to a page, please use the preview button before posting, or at least read your post after saving. ♠DanMS 18:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not every number can be notable simply because it's been used somewhere. Les Miserables#Cultural references covers the extent of its use in this context adequately. Bobet 13:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Bobet. Minor points in books and plays need to be covered in their context. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete — Inconsequential factoid. — RJH 17:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand why everyone's voting delete, because no one has suggested why a merge to Les Miserables would be unsatisfactory. Jacqui ^{★ 00:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
Delete The info is already included in the page for Les Miserables so there's no need to keep this page around. --Bachrach44 01:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Prisoner 24601 might be a good redirect, but not this. By naming conventions, I guess this should be a year, and that year certainly does not warrant an article. Likewise the number or the zip code (just out of idle curisoity, anyone know what town's zip code that is?). -R. fiend 04:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per R. fiend. (By the way, 24601 is Amonate, VA per Google Maps.) MCB 06:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. -R. fiend 14:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is an extraordinary use of an encyclopedia page. encephalon 09:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - possibly the biggest waste of server space ever :) Akamad 09:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I've added the 24601 reference to the Plot of Les Misérables page. --Frekja 10:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
It's a marginally interesting number in that it's been given references in a number of other works (System Shock, for example). But that's "marginal" with a lower-case "m", and the appropriate place for references like this is in the pages for individual works, so I don't think we gain anything by having this article here. Delete. — Haeleth Talk 18:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Les Mis. -- SCZenz 04:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2Bucks Short

Individual songs don't deserve a wikipedia page. (See WP:Music for more info. Also note that the band which made the song is also up for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posse_of_Two. (Both the band, the song, and other pages relating to the band were all made by one person). --Bachrach44 14:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Bachrach44 14:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per garage band. - Kookykman|(t)(c) 14:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. One CD out on a label that has released only one other record. - Dalbury (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2KORPSE

Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. 110 Google hits. Punkmorten 23:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. TheMadBaron 06:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Band fantasy. Geogre 12:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. And "Industrial Rap-core" has been around since at least 1999, and I see no mention of these two in connection with it. - Dalbury (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete bandcrift. Klonimus 23:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. *drew 00:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 4th album : TBA

WP:NOT a crystal ball. And this album doesn't even have a name yet. Punkmorten 23:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. If it was useful it would go under band article, not article "4th Album". Um lots of bands have had 4th albums, y'know? Herostratus 01:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per above. TheMadBaron 06:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Unusable title. Note that, despite its not going on sale yet, the author has already created and linked to What's On Your Radio?. I don't think we're done, yet. Geogre 12:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, until the thing actually has a confirmed name. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. per nom. -- WB 22:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
No one is going to search using this term, and it certainly doesn't need its own page. But I think WP:NOT a crystal ball is for large, crufty, totally speculative articles. A couple of lines like this should be okay in The Living End, so long as they can be sourced. So merge unless unverifiable, otherwise delete. Jacqui ^{★ 00:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
Delete, as per all above reasoning. Certainly gets points for trying. - Liontamer 14:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I noticed there's a deletion history, if it's a repost, could someone speedy delete it? Indium 06:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. *drew 01:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 80s Preservation Society

Somewhat unverifiable. A search for the name of the alleged founder and 'society' gets no relevent results [1]. The only thing actually calling itself '80s Preservation Society' is a Geocities webpage [2] which may or not be related, but certainly doesn't seem notable. The few other mentions I can find are jokes (in satire articles about the 1980s, joking that such a society would exist). --W.marsh 15:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom -- Squiddy 15:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination, although I have a feeling we'll be reinserting this in six years along with a valley girl revival entry. Durova 18:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment ∾ Years ago there was a series of commercials here in USAia touting (IIRC) compilation CDs of '80s music. They had the same indefinable air of quality that permeates infomercials and commercials for Ginsu knives. In the commercials, a man sitting at a desk, surrounded by '80s paraphrenalia (Rubik's Cubes and the like), announced that he was the President of the '80s Preservation Society, and that he was offering the CDs as part of his efforts to "preserve" the '80s. I seem to recall that, somewhat later, there were very similar commercials touting the '70s Preservation Society. I've always presumed that these "societies" were completely fictional, but I can't say for certain that they're not. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 19:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn and advert per Extreme Unction. I remember those annoying infomercials, and the "organization" was a fake entity formed in some ad exec's head to sell cds. Youngamerican 16:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American Peoples Congress

Seems to be an advert for new (created October 2005) political campaign/pressure group. No mention of any major achievements/large membership or anything else to make it notable. Hitchhiker89 21:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity. Gazpacho 03:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity. One month is not really long enough ot find out if it's even going to be famous. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 08:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity --Rogerd 05:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Angry Aryans

Non-notable band, fails WP:NMG. Verily, Allmusic knoweth them not, and Amazon refuseth to speak their name - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 22:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Weak Delete well after the nomination I wanted to say something funny here but alas this will be much more dry... the lack of a presence on AMG/Amazon is possibly explained by their underground status and extreme views. Many music venders/venues/etc. want little to do with you when your songs are called "Race Mixing Is Treason" or "Fro-Bro (Nature’s Woe)". There is actually a relatively large ammount about them on Google [3]. I don't doubt they have played a bunch of shows and have a small following. There is slight media coverage of them, not really about their music though [4] (which establishes they live in 94% white suburb Center Line, not Detroit, as claimed in the article). But I can't really find evidence they have

more than one release (Racially Motivated Violence) on Resistance Records so they fail WP:NMG. If they had more media coverage, or web coverage that wasn't mostly auto-generated links and mirrors, that might change it. --W.marsh 23:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete - just unexpandable. Though it could be merged with something like "white power bands." Renata3 05:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
comment: AfD tag removed by user. Reverted. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 14:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Rogerd 04:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The group had appeared on a Vh1 special about hate music--talking in variuos interviews about their views and underground music. They are one of the most controversial bands that has been popular within the white power music genre. They grew up in Detroit as the article states. When old enough, they made a rational decision to move out of the ghettos into safer northern suburbs.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asif aftab

-- Propaganda. Seems copyvio, bbut perhaps it's too fresh for google to catch on, so I couldn't find a source. Delete-- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 21:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It is, indeed, propaganda, and it's not even about "Asif aftab", it's by Asif Aftab. TheMadBaron 22:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Pure POV and probably copyvio. Appears to be an opinion piece from the BBC, as given in the headline of the article. ♠DanMS 23:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- May not be copyvio. Note the contributor’s username is Asifaftab. ♠DanMS 23:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, don't userfy. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete propaganda --Rogerd 05:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Basic German

I confess to being mildly torn on this one. Can there be an encyclopedic article about the "basics" of a language? My initial instinct is "Yes." But how is "basic" defined? How is that definition verified with outside sources? Can the article ever be more than an attempt at a language instructional course, and should language instructional courses be something Wikipedia should include? In any case, the specific article in question is poorly formatted and possesses minimal information about the subject, so even if the answers to the above questions are positive, the current article doesn't qualify. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 13:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Before anyone suggests the obvious, take a look at b:German. —Cryptic (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Mo value. Herostratus 13:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to German (language). Possible someone could be trying to look up ~~German (language)~~ German language by searching for "Basic German." —Cleared as filed. 14:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- German (language) is a redirect itself. Redirecting to German language is better.
Delete, nothing worth merging or redirecting anywhere, vastly inferior to b:German. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to German language. Quite possible as search term. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Confusing - looks encyclopaedic-ish, except that its got "Headline Text" instead of headings, but then the bit at the end with his e-mail address suggests this is merely vanity, so Delete 203.122.218.47 16:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I checked into this to see whether it could be called the equivalent of basic English. It isn't. My somewhat rusty German used to be fluent. This article is just a random, hasty, and incomplete rehashing of concepts from an introductory German language course. There's nothing here to salvage. Durova 17:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Useless.--Sean|Bla ck 07:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Soft redirect to the WikiBook. Far more helpful to readers than a deleted page, and saves us having to maintain an article on our a borderline topic. Pcb21| Pete 18:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, this looks like a thinly disguised attempt at spam, as it is really nothing more than a cursory inclusion of filler text around someone's e-mail address. — JIP | Talk 19:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, OR, advertising. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I would say delete as advertisement because of that email address at the end, but I can't see how a redirect to the WikiBook could hurt. It may even help, against recreation. Jacqui ^{★ 00:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
- A redirect would be inappropriate. At best, a Transwiki. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom, Durova, etc.... Dottore So 14:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Batipi

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete the page is a cut and pasted ad for the non-notable domain linked from the article and the word as such isn't notable either. Bobet 13:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn Renata3 14:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn advert/spam PTSE 17:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Do not Delete I am the founder of the website, so I assumed it would be ok to cut and paste, if this still needs to be sited then I will make the change. I was trying not to sound like an advertisement, this is why I've only included the defn of the word Batipi, which I created myself. I figured the best chance in havinig this new word included in a dictionary would be the wikipedia. As for the link, I thought this would be useful to the reader, we plan on adding much more content to our website, on the topics of knowledge sharing and "ba", ect. 5:23, 18 November 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was keep and move to Behr's syndrome. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Behr syndrome

dicdef Savant1984 22:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep - It's just a stub now, but medical conditions deserve articles. It needs serious expanding, not deleting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move to Behr's syndrome or Behr's disease (synonyms). I've expanded the article a bit too. Sliggy 00:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep and follow Sliggy's suggestion. He did such a darn fast and good job of making it a legit stub that I regret putting it up for deletion here now. :) Savant1984 04:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep Renata3 05:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was userfied by me to User:Andrew O. Shadoura, note left on author's page explaining. Consensus is clearly delete, but userfication does no harm and may even (cross fingers) avoid hard feelings. Friday 16:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BelAmp

Delete Vanity page about non-notable software [5] PhilipO 19:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Renata3 05:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete --CraigF 12:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Joel7687 02:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator. --Merovingian 05:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete bogdan 16:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete and additional Comment ∾ The AfD banner was removed from the article under consideration, and the AfD page was moved after having all the votes blanked. These acts seem to have been conducted by the author of the program in question. Pretty bad mojo all the way around, I'd say. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 16:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Without the vandalism I might never have noticed this nomination! Demi ^T/_C 16:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd probably have just userfied this and avoided the Afd. Actually, since everyone says delete, I guess I'll do that now. Friday 16:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benedict de Boithor

nn Polish nobleman, only one account supposedly, the source of which is not included. Zero Google hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete some sort of hoax Renata3 14:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Just because there's only one account of his existence doesn't mean it's not true. I would expect that noblemen from 1458 have a very bad Google presence. People like this are better verified using books and paper archives.- Mgm|^(talk) 15:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. How can we verify this is no source is cited. - Dalbury (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Searching on Google Print reveals the source for this article: it's a paraphrase of a section of Raymond McNally's In Search of Dracula. McNally does not appear to cite a specific source for this anecdote, and I really don't think a single unsourced anecdote from a book on a tangential subject is adequate for an article on a supposedly historical figure. Therefore this may be considered unverifiable, and should be deleted. — Haeleth Talk 18:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. This article is taken from [[6]] and may be a copy vio of [7]. FWIW Amazon.com returned 29 cites in response to a search on Benedict de Boithor.--FRS 19:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete if this person was a genuine Polish nobleman, and not just an apocryphal figure in a legend about Dracula, there would be more evidence for his existence. PatGallacher 01:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bopsoc

Non-notable school group established in 2000 ERcheck 15:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable school group. Creator has started articles as well. Apparent entry. ERcheck 15:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete pn. Strangely one current member was born in 1623! PTSE 17:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Save It is very important that as a free Encyclopedia, information is given and available about everything. Even if this is some small school event, them having some information about it on the internet is very important and certainly Worth while. If something more significant called "Bopsoc" comes along then certainly change it. Bringmemybow 16:37 14 November 2005 (UTC)

*Comment: Please see "Wikipedia is not". In particular, it is not a free host for school events. ERcheck 03:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Save To me this does not seem to be a School event advertiser. It is an information page which some lad has obviously set up. Why delete this if there is nothing else by the name of bopsoc to rival its place on wikipedia. Rsduhamel 07:15 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No claim to notability. --A D Monroe III 20:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bråhögsbadet

A bathhouse with no claim of notability - delete CLW 12:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, once the unsubstantiated claim of popularity has been removed, you're left with less than a substub. Wikipedia articles aren't placeholders. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Some European spas have historic significance. England's city of Bath was featured in two Jane Austen novels. This site returned only two references in English on Google, neither of which claimed notability. If anyone who reads Swedish can demonstrate notability I'm willing to be persuaded. Durova 16:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk) 02:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily userfied to User:Bowatson. FCYTravis 10:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Watson

This is a vanity page. All of the edits are by User:BOwatson himself, assuming the anonymous edits are him as well. His only other edits have been on the Michigan Technological University page and were serving the same purpose as a vanity page. Recnilgiarc 08:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cameron Young

Seems like a NN-Bio but wasn't completely sure. Only comes up with 2 pages of hits when you search his username on the IMDB site, doesn't seem like a lot. Fallsend 21:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Per Nom. Fallsend 21:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - just a vanity by IMDB user. Renata3 05:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep --JAranda | watz sup 22:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher J. Cohan

A little known person. Should ber merged, but we can't have a list of all the people that have graduated from Arizona State. 66.177.61.78 02:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless the 'well known for philanthropy' angle is expanded on.Blarg! Missed the NBA team part. Keep - CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Um, I believe being the owner of an NBA team makes him easily qualified for inclusion! wikipediatrix 02:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep owners of major sports franchises are notable. --W.marsh 04:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Legitimately notable. Durova 04:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep CEO of a corp and owner of a pro sports team is notable. --Bachrach44 05:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per the above. Edwardian 06:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep per above. —Cleared as filed. 15:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clan McWho

All signs point to original research. --Tabor 17:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination, and figuring out what the article is about is a real strain. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete OR --Rogerd 05:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
delete looks like hoxery. I notice the original creator is active in less hoax-like topics to do with Scottish geneology, among other things. I note also that his page on RecLOH was tagged as unreferenced by Tabor. "RecLOH" generated a measly two google hits (on a geneology mailing list archive, none from genetics sources), the string "recombinational loss of heterogeneity" generates no google hits. Smells funky. Pete.Hurd 19:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cock and ball torture

Delete Non encyclopedic, sounds rubbish.Gary Kirk 14:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep perhaps sounds rubbish, but is real...personally disgusts me, but it is a valid BDSM (the whole BDSM thing disgusts me...) article. R. Genung
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep - sounds sick, but WP is not censored the last time I checked. Renata3 14:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. A lot of similar BDSM acts are also documented on Wikipedia, and this certainly has expansion potential. That said, I think a lot of the BDSM-cruft on WP could stand to be merged and consolidated; I just have no idea how. (Incidentally, it sounds like a lot worse than what most people who practice this actually practice.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep per User:A Man In Black, this is a real term/practice even if it sounds stupid to me. Seems like something that could be merged though, but I dunno where either. --W.marsh 15:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, genuine S&M practice. But I'd go for a merge if someone suggested a good place to merge it to. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Although unplesant merits keeping as per User:A Man In Black Astaroth5 15:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, not my cup of tea, but still a valid article topic. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep but - and this may because as a Briton I have an automatic prude reaction to things like this - can't it be re-directed to a less graphic title? doktorb 16:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is what it's generally known as. There's no other name I'm aware of. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As noted above, however, if a better term can be found, redirect to that. 23skidoo 16:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Verifiable sex act and the article has a reference. Not my cup of tea but useful to some. As far as I am aware, this is its most common name. Capitalistroadster 16:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Sadism and masochism. Durova 17:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep — Valid topic; WP already maintains adult-orented material. — RJH 17:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, possibly merge into a page about various BDSM practices. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 19:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, valid BDSM topic. — JIP | Talk 19:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep valid topic talk
Keep as per JIP. As scary as it may be, this is a legit (um ...) fetish. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I went to Catholic school for 13 years and by year 11 I knew what it was. Keep in mind, I was very sheltered. If I heard about it in that period of my life... it sure must be important! I would agree with some of the others that perhaps some of these BDSM practices could be merged, but I don't have any idea to which page, either. Jacqui ^{★ 00:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
Keep. Real - doesn't float my boat, but the garden of the Prophet contains every type of flower. Grutness...wha? 05:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep as a very widespread sexual practice that is known by an abbreviation, CBT, a good indicator of knowledge within the community. Jtmichcock 12:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, for the following reasons, first, this is a real practice, and second, the article is written factologically and is not obscene; Consider revising by pointing out that this sexual practice would be considered a fetish or sexual perversion by most people ---

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Geogre as illegal MLM scheme. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conversational Recruiting

Blatant advertising. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 03:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

total crap. Don't wait, just delete it now. I'd do it myself but I'm not sure how. wikipediatrix 03:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete couldn't agree more with MC MC and wikipediatrix.--Bachrach44 05:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Utterly unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a "how to". Smells like copyvio. TheMadBaron 06:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per the above. Edwardian 06:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
SPEEDY delete. Per above. I'm not even sure what this is... which I think throws it under the category of both unexpandable and nonsense. Janet13 08:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as per nomination. --Frekja 11:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
In many states in the US, multi-level marketing ("MLM") is illegal. This article taught people how to do MLM and solicited them. I performed the speedy delete on the grounds of containing illegal content. (I should also point out that a number of European nations also outlaw MLM.) Geogre 13:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cory You

Biovanity, with no claim to notability beyond being a member of the non-notable band above... oh, and "working on a screenplay for an independant feature film he'll be co-directing in 2006." FCYTravis 00:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 06:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable just yet. -- malo (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom, has no other contributors either. splintax ^(talk) 09:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Hitchhiker89 19:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. per nom. -- WB 22:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable vanity.--Dakota ^t ^e 23:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, appears to be vanity. Gamaliel 18:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. *drew 15:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crossworm

No real assertions of meeting WP:MUSIC. His former band 2KORPSE is also up for deletion. Crossworm gets some google hits, but many lead to crossword and other irrelevant things. Not on AllMusic. Punkmorten 23:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. TheMadBaron 06:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Some dude's pseudonym. Even if his "band" were encyclopedic, he would not be, unless, under that name he were to have achieved some independent notoriety. Well, the band isn't encyclopedic, and he's taking up our not-paper. Geogre 12:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No meaningful context. *drew 00:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus between whether to merge or keep. R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberbegging

Neologism supported by a 2003 CNN article. Something Million Dollar Homepage would be two years from now. No incoming wikilinks. -- Perfecto 05:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. At most, merge this to Save Karyn, MDH's equivalent. -- Perfecto 05:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Google search turns up 16 thousand hits with the term. — ceejayoz ^talk 05:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: 384 unique pages in those 16 thousand. Karol 11:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep (and it should be expanded). Considering that we have articles on examples of Cyberbegging (savekaryn for example), and the number of hits, I feel that this is a word that will continue to exist. It's a social phenomena, much like the freeipod.com crazes, and as such, should likely have an encyclopedic analysis. The phenomenon predates Save Karyn, and thus should not be integrated into her page... her page should likely be integrated into Cyberbegging? Just a thought. Janet13 08:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I rewrote this the other day and it could still use some work, but there is no reason to delete it as far as I can see. splintax ^(talk) 09:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Begging#Begging_on_the_Internet. Karol 11:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect, per above. I agree that the term is gaining currency, but that, by itself, would only lead to a Wiktionary entry. Since we already have some discussion, in Begging, we should keep the material together. Geogre 13:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Concur with Janet13, it's weak, but could become a worthwhile article Astaroth5 15:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep encyclopedic. --Mateusc 15:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Begging#Begging_on_the_Internet, as per Karol above. Laszlo Panaflex 19:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-popular internet slang. Coolgamer 21:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. per mateusc. -- WB 22:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per Karol. Ejrrjs | What? 23:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Save Karyn is the only example we have on Cyberbegging; and the three sites in the article are AfD candidates: "link:" Google searches on them produce zero results. -- Perfecto 01:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge per Karol. Can always be broken out later. D e nni ☯ 04:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. I'm pretty tough on neologisms, but this one seems to have raised its head out of the murk and into recognizable and verifiable popular culture. Article needs a lot of work. MCB 06:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as above. Neologistic now, but when it comes into widespread use, we can easily break the article out and recreate it as something more than a dictdef and list of links. Saberwyn 04:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (Non notable, vanity) Fir e Fo x ^-CVU- 11:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Bissette

The assertion of notability is that he's the Raleigh, North Carolina expert on eBay. This is below my bar, but perhaps not that of the community. Joyous (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There's so much trivial, meaningless and ridiculous information in his bio that this has to be a prank. wikipediatrix 03:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Vanity, now tagged for Speedy Delete. TheMadBaron 06:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete non-notable. although this one did make me chuckle.--Alhutch 07:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] D.C. Scorpio

Unformatted, unwikified, cleanup tagged for eleven months, and I suspect it's a vanity page to start with - SoM 15:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Renata3 17:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - NN gibberish. --Bachrach44 18:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I went to go wikify it just as a courtesy, and found that I couldn't. There was no way to reformat it to say "D. C. Scorpio is...". It's more about I Hear Ya! Records than anything else, but it doesn't establish notability. Frankly, it's so hard to read the way it is that I don't think anything could be salvaged even if it were notable. Delete. Jacqui ^{★ 00:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Sea Fucking Scrolls

Appears to be not-notable band. If kept, needs to be rewritten in a professional style. -David Woolley 20:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete band vanity. I'm sure they're proud of the name, but I think it's stupid. CDC (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not sufficiently noteworthy to satisfy article space rules WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR. encephalon 00:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 05:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Debbie wong

vanity page WriterFromAfar755 20:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Move to Debbie Wong. Appears somewhat notable. Needs a bit of a clean up. TheMadBaron 22:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately at least some portions are copyvio, though maybe not all of it is.[8] However, I agree that the subject is notable. Jacqui ^{★ 01:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
Move to Debbie Wong. I second that, as for copyvio cleaned it up please check again. Mkmk
Keep, the article has already been moved. Yamaguchi先生 07:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
OMFG. A lot of attention was placed on Debbie (contestant #12) during the pageant finals, as she supposedly twisted her ankle. It turned out she had just stepped on something sharp. Thank the LIVING GOD that we have, at last, a repository for this kind of information. OK I guess she's notable enough to keep for future centuries to gawk at. But needs to be cleaned up with an industrial solvent. Herostratus 07:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Diablozone

Very non notable web forum with less than 20 active participants. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 06:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete forumcruft. feydey 11:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: A forum would have to be unbelievably massive to pass the threshold. This one doesn't. The zeal of the forum participants to speak of themselves means only that the threshold needs to be increased. Geogre 13:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, forumcruft. This AfD debate was vandalised by 68.112.131.87 (talk · contribs), who has no other contributions. — JIP | Talk 19:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
While Diablozone appears to be a small, nonimportant forum at this point, it is, infact, a site with a large amount of historical significance relating to USEast Hardcore. It is also responsible for the creation of a game, within Diablo II, named ironman. This game became popular throughout the entire Battle.Net system. 03:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 02:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dogbomb

Trivia about a web forum. As with Something Awful, forums should record the fine points of their subculture on their own site, not on Wikipedia. Alexa rank is 445,831.

Delete. Gazpacho 06:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Dogbomb is somewhat notable, but this article is apparently an attack on the site, proclaiming it to be dead, but including a link which demonstrates that it isn't.... very strange. Failing an extensive rewrite, Delete. TheMadBaron 07:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per TheMadBaron. Karol 11:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: It may be notable in a very narrow context, but I don't see its notoriety or notabilty spreading outside of its own participants and adversaries. The article, however, is just a rant, so we're off the hook there. Geogre 13:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Anti-tank dog. Sliggy 17:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No, don't redirect. Really, the site has enjoyed widespread media coverage, largely on account of the "people more annoying than Mick Hucknall" thing. As opposed as I am to forumcruft, I think that Dogbomb is a site that probably should be represented on Wikipedia.... just not like this. TheMadBaron 19:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Vinod Shanker Dubey

(Fixing AfD nomination.) Autobiographical page; creator should make into a user page if he wants to keep the text. Delete from mainspace. Metropolitan90 18:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Vanity page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmdrjameson (talk • contribs)
Delete agree with the nomination - clearly a vanity page more fit for a user page. --Bachrach44 18:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Definitely non-notable vanity page. Fails the average professor test. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Resume in the first person. Nonencyclopedic. Incidentally he is a postdoc, not a professor. Regards encephalon 00:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Userfy I believe the usual practice for such articles is to userfy them - that is, make this a subpage of the user page. --Gurubrahma 06:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. User has no other contributions apart from this article, so it's unlikely they will return and be in need of a userpage. Don't keep self-promotion around unless a user deserves it by working on the project. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I would love to have my own wikipedia article, but that does not make it less ridiculous. It is autobiographical, and therefore POV enough for me, and it is badly written. Nazgjunk - - Signing is ^{for Whimps} 19:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dwayne Rudd

~~Not notable, hasn't played this season. Kookykman|(t)(c) 14:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)~~

Keep, 7 seasons playing in the NFL is pretty notable. I'll expand the page a bit. Bobet 14:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Bobet. Just because he hasn't played this season doesn't mean he is not notable. Mickey Mantle (other game) hasn't played any games this season either last time I checked. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I don't even follow football and I know the name. 23skidoo 16:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above, being in the NFL for 7 seasons is notable. Nice work Bobet. --W.marsh 16:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. After Bobet's expansion, I'm changing my vote. - Kookykman|(t)(c)
Keep. Meets WP:BIO as a professional sportsman playing seven seasons in the NFL. Capitalistroadster 17:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Carina22 21:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep per nom's reversal. -- Grev -- Talk 04:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eley Williams

Vanity. Fredrik | talk 01:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. If someone can verify that she is indeed soon to be a published author with Harper-Collins, that's good enough for me. The page is a mess, though, and needs fixing. wikipediatrix 03:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. But not for WP:BIO - "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". If book sales reach 5,000, she can have an article. - Dalbury (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - That's why I specified "Harper-Collins". Due to the nature of the book industry, it is a given that 5,000 copies of ANY book from such a major publishing house will be sold to stores that pick it up (even though the majority of them may end up returned for credit and/or remaindered). If this was a self-published chapbook, local imprint, or vanity press, then of course, no way. However, there's no mention of her on the Harper-Collins website, so it would appear that whoever posted the article is misinformed at best. wikipediatrix 01:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete No verifiable evidence that she is a noted poetry writer. 46 Google results for Eley Williams with the first page being genealogy pages. [9].

No Google news hits either. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The only verifiable claim is that she won the "Christoper Tower Poetry Prize in 2005 (winning the £1,500 first prize)" - unfortunately, the first prize is £3,000, and there isn't a £1,500 prize, so the only verifiable claim is wrong. TheMadBaron 06:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, due to lack of verifiable evidence for notability. Superm401 | Talk 10:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Vandalism (knowingly false statements) in the graffitist's agenda. Geogre 13:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. (unsigned vote by Herostratus)
Delete per nom, NN. - Dalbury (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. per dalbury. -- WB 22:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Ejrrjs | What? 23:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Much as I was interested in the information, delete per policy at WP:BIO. Be sure to come back and make it again, when the person qualifies! Jacqui ^{★ 00:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
Delete but recreate when/if more notable. Turnstep 03:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasDelete.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 00:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis and Slick Monty

Refer to this old revision. There's a claim of permission on the talk page, but I don't think this is material that we want to keep in any case (it's a sitcom airing only on what is apparently the University of North Texas' tv channel), so checking here first before I request confirmation of permission. —Cryptic (talk) 14:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete - a show on the university's cable access channel Renata3 17:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Dalbury (talk) 20:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Engineering Ivies

I just added this for delete because there essentially no hits for the term. [10] —BenFrantzDale 17:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I say Keep. It may be very recent, so Google wouldn't find it yet. Give a chance for the bots to crawl through the blogs. Xuanwu 22:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you comment on this page relating to the rule of avoiding neologisms? —BenFrantzDale 05:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I did my own Google search and it came back with this: Economic Times article and ASEE Prism article. Apparently the phrase "Engineering Ivy League" (which leads to "Engineering Ivies") is legitimate. As for whether this article accurately portrays what it is another matter that can be settled through content updates. But it does not seem to qualify as a neologism. Xuanwu 08:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Uhhh how does even "Engineering Ivy League" not qualify? 54 results on Google. Used in 2 articles. Not really defined anywhere that I can find, let alone in a dictionary of phrases or something similar. Seems like a neologism to me (and to Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms for whatever that's worth).. --W.marsh 15:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The references Xuanwu cites are mostly to "Engineering Ivy Leagues" in India, Japan, China, not in the U. S. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Too much a neologism, and too hard to keep NPOV. Anville 11:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. per my proposal at Wikipedia:Ivies. Comments follow. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Total nonsense and all but unverifiable. "Engineering Ivy League" gets a very few Google hits referring to groups of universities in Japan (apparently University of Tokyo, Kyoto University, Kyushu University, and Hokkaido University?), and India (apparently to "the six Indian Institutes of Technology and other top tech campuses,"). China is hoping to develop an "engineering Ivy League" [11]. In connection with Japan and China, there's little Google evidence that is is anything more than a personal coinage of Lucille Craft of ASEE, who wrote both articles. If there were enough good, well-sourced, verifiable information on the Indian, Chinese and Japanese "engineering Ivy Leagues" to write a stub, I'd do so, and recommend that this article become a redirect to that, but I don't think there is.

As to the U.S., the phrase is not used, except as a nonspecific adjective for "very good school." This article is just academic boosterism, a pretext for listing what someone thinks are the best engineering schools.

The phrase "Engineering Ivies" could just as well refer to Cornell and Princeton, two Ivy League schools noted for exceptional engineering schools. (Harvard almost deliberately encouraged people not to think of it as an engineering school by refusing to use the word "Engineering" in connection with their excellent Division of Applied Science until very recently, but methinks I recall some rather stellar work done there in the development of computers...)

I hate using U. S. News as an authority, but will nevertheless point out that schools listed don't even bear a good relationship to the U. S. News rankings of engineering schools, in which the real ivies Cornell, Princeton, and Harvard, all outrank both Virginia Tech and RPI, while Stanford and Berkeley outrank Georgia Tech. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

- Delete. They also left off Columbia University's School of Engineering and Applied Science, whose students play alongside Columbia College athletes on intermural teams. Non-notable neologism, inaccurate and confusing. Durova 18:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Either I'm guilty of WP:BEANS or someone was independently executing on a bad idea at the same time I was explaining here why it is bad. Look. We should not have an article about "Engineering Ivies" in the U. S. unless someone can find a good, verifiable source that defines that the phrase means and gives a reasonably objective list of what schools qualify. Maybe someone can find something that says being a member of the Ivy League disqualifies a school from being an Engineering Ivy, but I'd really like to see a source for that. As for Japan and China, one columnist in ASEE is not a sufficient indication that the term is in widespread use. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Unavoidably POV. Superm401 | Talk 19:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WP:POINT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. 140.247.99.205 17:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Requested by its only author to be deleted, which falls under a speedy cat. R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 22:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Environment Shift in Episodes of Avatar: the Last Airbender

Article consists mainly of POV/fan opinion, what remains could probably/might already be integrated in other Avatar articles Virogtheconq 05:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge any worthwhile content with Avatar: The Last Airbender, and delete. TheMadBaron 07:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. A complete merge requires a redirect. Merge and delete are not compatible. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm for complete deletion, and no redirecting, since the article title really doesn't apply to the main Avatar articles. I've seen all the aired episodes of Avatar thus far, so I could probably go through the article, integrate anything I think is noteworthy into other Avatar articles - after that, the article could be deleted. However, since I don't follow it too much outside of its episodes, I might not be the best source for this, but I can do it if no one else volunteers.Virogtheconq 17:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I see 'environmental shift', I expect geograhical information, not a theory in the change of director's vision or whatever it is. After a quick read, I doubt that there anything much worth merging into another article, so call for delete. Any cut-and-paste of snippets to a more relevant article will be acceptable in my view. Saberwyn 04:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I went and reread the article, and the only information that seems applicable would be the bit regarding the show time. However, this is minor at best, and if it's really that noticeable it probably would have been written into the main Avatar page already, so it's probably doesn't need to be moved. Otherwise, this page is ready for deletion.Virogtheconq 06:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Message from creator: Go ahead and delete. I will be moving this to my own server. marikun46

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 00:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Klapton

Makes no assertion of notability; yet another non-notable band. (Note: Page on their album Really Wonderful Tonight, can be speedied once this one is deleted.) Deltabeignet 23:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nn band, no mention in AMG, and it's too bad, since they're going to need the money when they get sued by Eric Clapton. MCB 06:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as failing WP:NMG. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 08:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 04:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evorgreen

Non-notable band. The high point of their musical career seems to be high school talent shows. Zero relevant Google hits. Rampart 12:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and Down at the Country Store is a song by said band. Should be deleted as well. Rampart 13:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN high school band and its song Renata3 14:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Scientists estimate sppedy deletion NN bands would save enough energy annually to power Belarus. Deltabeignet 19:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Deltabeignet took the words right out of my mouth! Pete.Hurd 20:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] exacube

Neologism, vanity... Alai 20:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Totally pointless. Splintercellguy 00:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - no relevant Google hits. Hoax? Renata3 05:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax --Rogerd 05:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE ♠P M C♠ 05:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exindfabrics

NN Company, seems more like an advertisement. Fallsend 09:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. - Fallsend 09:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Relisting. Physchim62 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -R. fiend 04:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as single, incomplete sentence

Unsigned closure by Lucky 6.9. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extramarital sex

definition. wiktionary appropriate maybe, but not here.

Delete per nom --Bachrach44 06:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deleting as incomplete, no content sentence/experiment. - Lucky 6.9 06:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flack Attack

Dictionary definition? Neologism? Redirect to propaganda? Keep and expand? You decide, I couldn't - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 22:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Move to wiktionary if they are willing to accept :) Renata3 05:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete does not belong in wiktionary, either. --Rogerd 04:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
delete neologism Pete.Hurd 19:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as per nomination's justification - doesn't matter whether permission is given for content. - Mailer Diablo 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gingernaps

Refer to this old revision. Again, there's a claim of permission on the talk page, but I can't find any evidence that this company meets WP:CORP. —Cryptic (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete - family business started in 2005. Renata3 17:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Dalbury (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 20:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. the subject of the page is not sufficiently noteworthy to satisfy the encyclopedia's article policies WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:RS. To write a good encyclopedia article without contravening WP:NOR, multiple, independent reputable publications focusing on the subject must be available. When they are not WP:V and WP:RS cannot not be satisfied, and thus an encyclopedic article cannot be written. encephalon 12:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 15:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glenview, Saint Clair County, Illinois

According to the Census Bureau, the Saint Clair County, Illinois article, and the Sheriff's website, Glenview is not a city or village in the county. I corrected this statement in the Wiki article. Rand McNally's website shows Glenview in Cook County when one types in Glenview, IL for an online map. Glenview in Saint Clair County appears to be a small area in Saint Clair County when one examines it at Mapquest. The US Postal Service also shows that Glenview in Cook County is the only place in Illinois that uses "Glenview" as the city name with respect to postal addresses. Also, Mapquest sometimes shows names for unincorporated neighborhoods that are not used and not heard of by local residents. If the article is deleted, then links must also be removed from two disambig pages. Slo-mo 04:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete: A neighborhood. We have established some precedent with the deletion of suburband subdivision articles in the past. This is slightly above a housing subdivision but far below a village. Geogre 13:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete neighborhood. D e nni ☯ 04:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep - shows up on USGS topo maps so is more than a subdivision. Zooming in shows an old railroad grade, so it was likely a settlement built around a railroad station. --SPUI (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as per nomination's justification - doesn't matter whether permission is given for content. - Mailer Diablo 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Golden City

Please see this version. This article is a copy from another website and is currently tagged as copyvio. However, someone claims permission on the talk page. Rather than soliciting permission only for it to later be deleted, we are now posting questionable pages here before soliciting permission. (See our discussion.) This article in its current state appears to be a brief description of an non-notable non-profit. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 00:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Edwardian 06:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: The article's title has nothing to do with its content. The content never addresses a "Golden City" in any form. Rather it boosts and gives promo materials from a non-profit that is not called "Golden City." Rather, it seems to be about the "Oneness Project." I'm not sure why we'd even want to consider the merits of the Oneness Project, as it's not the subject under consideration, but, if we did, we'd be left with a non-profit that has not achieved very much significant effect at this point and would probably be a deleted topic. Geogre 12:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Geogre. *drew 02:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination and Geogre. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GOTL Theology

Combination original research and attempt to start a discussion board on the talk page. --Tabor 05:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Edwardian 06:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
"The theology is not yet defined." Right, then. The article is not yet warranted. Delete. TheMadBaron 06:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: We are not the Wittenberg Cathedral. Nail one's theses elsewhere. Geogre 13:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete This person hasn't even worked out the 95 theses yet. Durova 15:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host. — Haeleth Talk 17:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. MCB 06:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a chat board. Rossami [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 01:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. They don't even say what GOTL stands for. --StoatBringer 14:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Duke of Edinburgh

See Below for amended view following work on article from others~~Not been changed or updated since June, and no attempt to explain if this is a notable entry. Mention of this ship could be made on another article rather than a separate stub entry.~~ doktorb 11:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep Obviously I see this nomination has got the best out of Wiki - great to see the amendments and additions to the article. I have no hesitation in asking for the original delete nomination to be withdrawn; or for those who need to know to be assured I see no reason now why this article cannot be kept. Thank you to all the great people helping out. doktorb 21:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete, as this currently has no content whatsoever. That said, my gut says that warships are notable (although I'm not sure I could articulate why), but this article has no content besides the name and the stub tag. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Warships are notable because they fulfil the same primary notability criterion that we use for people, companies, web sites, and other things: Multiple separate people, independent of the subject, have written and published works of their own about them, demonstrating that they find the subject notable enough that they have gone to the effort of creating and publishing works of their own about it. People write books, produce television documentaries, and set up web sites about warships. Uncle G 16:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Sounds good to me. Given that it's no longer a microstub that does nothing but restate the title, my vote is now keep. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, warships are indeed notable, but this article restates something which is evident from the title, which is a speedy criterion. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep the rewrite no longer makes it speedy material. Please keep in mind the difference between a stub and a substub. The first is useful, the second is not. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep we learned about this one in history. Just make a stub until someone puts in some more info. 203.122.218.47 15:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
As per the article and the notability criterion outlined above, keep. Uncle G 16:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep — Most valid military warships of cruiser class or larger are highly notable. If this was a patrol boat, for example, you might have a good argument. But this is not even remotely close to meeting deletion criteria, particularly following the expansion. — RJH 17:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep there are a great many articles about various classes of warships on Wikipedia.--Nicodemus75 18:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand, but rename to HMS Duke of Edinburgh (UK ship). User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps HMS Duke of Edinburgh (cruiser) might be more appropriate? I am unsure what the existing conventions on articles on ships are, but in some cases ships of different classes carried the same names at different points in history.--Nicodemus75 23:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships). The name, were there another ship article by this name and disambiguation were needed, would be HMS Duke of Edinburgh (1904). Uncle G 00:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- This rename would be akin to "President of the United States George W. Bush (US President)"; it's clumsy and unneeded, since a vessel noted HMS is inherently a "UK ship"... However, some reading suggests it was later used as the proposed name for a cancelled carrier, so I'll move and disambiguate the page to (1904) per convention when this AFD closes. (Keep, by the way) Shimgray | talk | 16:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Ejrrjs | What? 23:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep I've tidied the article up a bit, we may need further discussion about which warships are inherently notable, but I've seen a lot of articles on warships. In the light of this, I suggest that, at the very least, all cruisers and larger in the world's major navies which saw active service in 1 of the 2 world wars are inherently notable. PatGallacher 01:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think that there's a need to formulate a specific criterion. The multiple published works from independent sources criterion is a relatively general criterion that works for ships as well as it does for people, bands, companies, products, software packages, and web sites. The criterion that you describe is a simple and direct consequence of its application. "All cruisers and larger in the world's major navies which saw active service in 1 of the 2 world wars" are notable because plenty of people independent of the subjects have published works of their own (written books, produced documentaries, created web sites, and so forth) that cover that very set of ships. (See the very sources cited by this article, for example.) The set of what is notable is already established by the world at large, and the multiple published works from independent sources notability criterion simply reflects that.
  What is needed is for the editors who are creating these ship articles to cite sources. None of the ones that I looked at cited any sources whatsoever. In practice, it is very rare for articles that have citations of multiple published works from independent sources to even come to AFD in the first place, let alone be deleted. Indeed, the simple act of citing such sources has on several occasions changed people's opinions from "delete" to "keep". I strongly urge the editors of these ship articles, and indeed all editors with pet projects, to cite sources in all of their articles. Uncle G 14:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Well said. There are a number of editors who use "notable" to mean "sufficiently important/interesting/signficiant to have multiple independent references," and having those references right there in the article makes all the difference. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep the expanded version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, definately notable! Thelb⁴ 19:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep mere mention of deletion has generated article extension and get that move done so the navbox works.GraemeLeggett 21:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep verified --redstucco 09:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I Have A Dream (song)

Wikipedia is not a cystal ball. Lots of speculation and "not known". Let's wait till the song is released, if it ever is. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep, being that it was recorded already. Or recording started. --Vizcarra 23:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- If it's been recorded, then why is it that "full credits have not been confirmed yet"? User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep even if it dos not get released. Renata3 05:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Single by ABBA, off the "Voulez-Vous" album. Reached no. 2 in the UK charts over Christmas 1979. What Michael Jackson's got to do with it, though, I've no idea, so all that stuff probably needs removing. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. It's a upcoming single by Michael Jackson and other recording artists (most of which have been confirmed). It's been written, recorded and will be released very soon. November 21, 2005 is the scheduled release date for this single. There's no reason to delete an article about an upcoming single. There are plently of article on upcoming or currect singles.

p.s. This song is not the ABBA song, although they did record and release a song with the same name. Street walker 06:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I realise that - perhaps I should have added a smiley. The point is, though, since the Voulez-Vous page has a link to this one, perhaps a disambiguation page is needed. Grutness...wha? 10:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Was there every an article for the ABBA song? If so, I don't think it was called I Have A Dream (song). If it was, then when I redirected From the Bottom of My Heart (the previous title of the MJ song) to I Have A Dream (song), it would've said there is allready a page with that title. But it didn't. Is there an article for the ABBA song with the same name? Street walker 11:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

No there wasn't, although there was about to be - I discovered this AFD when I put a link on the Voulez-Vous page to an article which I was about to write, and was surprised when the link was blue rather than red. A disambiguation is certainly needed. Grutness...wha? 00:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep . CalJW 12:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Note that I have edited the above vote to remove a personal attack. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Move to I Have A Dream (Michael Jackson), and find somebody who will write I Have A Dream (ABBA). --Aleph4 12:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I created an article called I Have a Dream (ABBA). I also put a link to the article on I Have A Dream (song) and changed the link on the Voulez-Vous (album) page. If you know anymore information about the single, go to the article and expand it, because it's pretty brief at the moment. I only used information I could find on Wiki articles. Street walker 13:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Decent amount of information. Will be useful for when more information becomes available. --Thorpe 20:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
After removing all unverified information from this article, Merge it to Michael Jackson. Then Move incorrectly-named I Have a Dream (ABBA) to this article. Jkelly 19:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 23:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Idiyappam

A recipe: belongs in wikibooks, not here. -- Francs 2000 21:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep Very popular dish. Tintin 03:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep In its current form, it may look like a case for weak keep, but an article about the dish with a history of 1000+ years wd definitely get improved. --Gurubrahma 06:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a cookbook --Rogerd 05:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NOT, as above. It's already at wikibooks, curiously it had an AfD notice there which pointed here. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Evangelization

It looks like someone's private notes for the purpose of spreading religion; original research, also Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 14:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. per above. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 13:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As above. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Dalbury (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Tintin 03:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Possible copyvio. This is a direct dump of the text at http://www.ourchurch.com/member/m/MARANATHAGOSPEL/ --StoatBringer 14:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Industrial Rap-core

Genre invented by Crossworm, who is up for deletion. Very few google hits (be sure to search with quotation marks). Punkmorten 23:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete imaginary music genres —Wahoofive (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. TheMadBaron 06:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per now. splintax ^(talk) 09:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Slo-emo-nu-rap-hop-psych-trip.... A private fantasy. Geogre 12:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not because it is imaginary, just NN. Industrial Rap-core has existed since at least 1999, 113 Google hits under that spelling and 713 as industrial rapcore, but I sure don't see Crossworm connected to it. - Dalbury (talk) 14:51, 13 November

2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination doktorb 15:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. *drew 01:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 15:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401

This is roadcruft at its worst. Just list a bunch of interceptions. WP:NOT a road atlas Delete --JAranda | watz sup 23:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges on Quebec Autoroute 20

Delete as per road atlas. Tom 23:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep; no valid reason given for deletion. Think of it this way: if we have an article on a band, we list albums. If we have an article on a railroad, we list stations. If we have an article on a TV show, we list episodes. And if we have an article on a freeway, we list interchanges. This was too long for Highway 401, so it was split out. --SPUI (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep --HappyCamper 00:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised, shocked, and dismayed at the community's reception to this article's content. Has anyone in the community actually tried to contact authorities in Ontario to see whether they would use this information? I actually raked up a large long distance bill doing so to find out that people in the transportation sector, law enforcement, truck drivers, government agencies, postal offices, delivery services, long term care facilities all use this information - on a regular basis, and for their livelihoods. Sometimes we need to go a bit further than our own intuition to determine whether something is encyclopedic or not - and certainly, this is material that is of utility for a large sector of people - many of which can conceivably find it here on Wikipedia. Simply put, if this is deleted, this is one AfD where I feel the community failed in doing its full due diligence in evaluating content worthiness. --HappyCamper 17:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Isn't that why people in the Canadian transport sector have maps and GPS navigation? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. And are any of those people in Ontario dependent on Wikipedia for this information? - Dalbury (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment Is anybody anywhere dependent solely on Wikipedia for their information? If so, we've broken WP:NOR Jkelly 02:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment The idea of authorities or companies relying on an amateur encyclopaedia for their travel information is utterly laughable. But perhaps you can expense Jimbo for your phone bill. --Last Malthusian 18:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep --FCYTravis 00:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Why? for both of you --JAranda | watz sup 00:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - As per SPUI. I am against cruft, but a list of exits on a freeway is a useful, verifiable, encyclopedic and notable information tool. FCYTravis 01:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    - This type of information has been culled from a map and is best presented in form of a map. Pilatus 17:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per SPUI. JAranda's claim that this is just a list of intersections is false, as it also has references and information on possible extensions of the highway. Also, while I agree that Wikipedia is not a road atlas, that doesn't mean we can't have articles about roads. Wikipedia is not a math textbook, either, but we have plenty of useful articles about mathematical theorems. Given that there have been no other arguments for deletion, and keeping it will retain useful and verifiable information, it seems clear to me that this article should be kept. Factitious 01:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- JAranda is right: this IS just a list, and pasting on a few references and sentences doesn't make it any less so. --Calton | Talk 02:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a road atlas in prose. The information would be more easily communicated on a map rather than in this format. --Metropolitan90 01:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Are you volunteering to provide such a map? Factitious 02:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Mapquest provides such maps on its web site. --Metropolitan90 03:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    - I don't think including those images would be acceptable under our license. Also, they're not well-suited to simply showing the interchanges on one highway. It might be nice to have a stylized representation of the road, with the interchanges clearly indicated in order. Providing other geographic information around it would just be distracting. Factitious 05:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. Andreww 01:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, nor is it an informational garbage dump. As Gamaliel said in a different discussion (and note particularly the last sentence and clause:
  - Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not the Library of Babel, nor is it an endless and tedious compendium of every bit of trivia and gossip and useless, insignificant "facts". It is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground. That means we have a duty not to mindlessly compile facts but to present them in a concise and usable manner, making judgments about which facts are important and which are not.
    - I don't think the article in question is useless or insignificant. I also don't think it was created mindlessly. Factitious 02:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    - Wikipedia is not paper covers more than just the amount of information we can include. It looks like this article exists as extra information for the Ontario provincial highway 401 article. I'm not arguing that in a paper encyclopedia there would not be enough space for the info (trees will keep growing) but that it would be almost impossible to organize it sensibly. By braking the extra information out onto a seperate page - in a different dimention not avalable to users of paper - the editors of Ontario provincial highway 401 have found a good way to arrage things while trying to limit the length of there main article which helps readability. Wer should be considering the future of this page in the context of Ontario provincial highway 401 and not as some isolated list. Do you really want to make Ontario provincial highway 401 worse or not have that article? Then delete this page. Do you think we need an article for Ontario provincial highway 401? Then I think this page needs to stay too. Andreww 09:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Extreme roadcruft. Wikipedia is not an atlas, and any geographical information should be, at best a summary or illustrative. I keep thinking of the Borges about some mythical mapmakers:

In that Empire, the craft of Cartography attained such Perfection that the Map of a Single province covered the space of an entire City, and the Map of the Empire itself an entire Province. In the course of Time, these Extensive maps were found somehow wanting, and so the College of Cartographers evolved a Map of the Empire that was of the same Scale as the Empire and that coincided with it point for point. Less attentive to the Study of Cartography, succeeding Generations came to judge a map of such Magnitude cumbersome, and, not without Irreverence, they abandoned it to the Rigours of sun and Rain. In the western Deserts, tattered Fragments of the Map are still to be found, Sheltering an occasional Beast or beggar; in the whole Nation, no other relic is left of the Discipline of Geography. --Calton | Talk 02:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

- Somewhat of a tangent: it occurs to me that with Wikipedia, we can provide geographical information of whatever precision users desire, and still have the whole thing be no larger than a laptop (from the user's point of view). This way, we approach Perfection without having the flaw of Magnitude. Factitious 02:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic. NatusRoma 03:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
It looks like this already appears in the article on the highway, so Merge/Redirect to Ontario provincial highway 401. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- That's because I just performed the merge. If this comes out other than delete, I'll undo the merge. --SPUI (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - The information is useful enough that I agree it should be merged if this article gets deleted, but it's pretty unwieldy in the main highway article. Why not remove it for the time being, to avoid unbalancing things? That way, it'll still be in the history in case it needs to be recovered for a merge. Factitious 05:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to merged article. "Highway exits should be listed in an article on a highway, not on a separate article" per precedent. Keep after reviewing Wikipedia:Article size. The section is about 13k in size. --W.marsh 03:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete not that useful. SYSS Mouse 04:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Gamaliel 04:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Why? Factitious 05:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, insufficient cause for deletion. Posiduck 05:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are possibly one or two notable interchanges in the world. If we keep these interchanges, do we allow all of the rest to be listed, too? Edwardian 06:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- None of the interchanges in this article have their own articles. This information is in Wikipedia presumably because the people editing Ontario provincial highway 401 felt it was important (and I agree with them). If it's included in that article, it would make up more than half of it, which seems pretty clearly unbalanced. Therefore, the best solution is to split it off into its own article. That's the only solution that both retains the information and keeps Ontario provincial highway 401 easily readable. Merging and deleting both fail at one of those two goals. Factitious 07:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete for being unencyclopedic. Tuf-Kat 07:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, indiscriminate and WP is not a travel guide. Gazpacho 08:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep ~~there are no valid reasons for the deletion of this article.~~ Keep all articles about interchanges of particular highways, especially this one.--Nicodemus75 08:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you honestly expect an admin to close this AfD early, Nic? Gazpacho

Do you honestly care what I expect or think, Gaz? Nicodemus75 09:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep It is of a major highway therefore not indiscriminate. Useful for those studying transportation, which many of us took for granted, but nonetheless encyclopedic. --Vsion 10:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete: It is not the article on the highway. It is an article on all the interchanges, which makes it an article about a feature of a thing that is already covered. This puts it in the same category as an article about R2D2's claw or C3PO's faceplate, or "The Wing Nuts of The Millenium Falcon." I again remind people to vote the article under consideration, and not some virtual article that you wish were under consideration. This is not about highways. It is not about schools. It is not about anything except the interchanges of a particular highway. Geogre 12:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Very well, vote amended, see above.--Nicodemus75 13:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia may well have no limits on how much information can be dumped into it, but I fail to see how this is encyclopedic, or what purpose it serves in "a well-rounded education". - Dalbury (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merge' back into main road article or keep merged. Failing that, delete per Geogre. To SPUI: Albums, stations, and episodes are all things that can be expanded upon and can contain information on their own. Interchanges are just links between roads and can only contain information on which roads they connect. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Changed my vote to merge. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge, or keep merged as this action has already been performed. This is somewhat useful information, but the Highway 401 article is not so long that it needs to be spun out into a subpage. - SimonP 14:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Geogre. Nandesuka 16:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is not a grab-bag of data. Pilatus 17:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. If this article is deleted, then we also need to deal with Interchanges on Quebec Autoroute 20, which is simply a continuation of this article. - Dalbury (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Normally I'd prefer to keep highway articles, but so far as I can tell, this information just comes right out of the external links without really adding anything. Recommend just putting the external links back on the main article for this highway, and maybe an extra external link pointing directly to the interchange info. —Cleared as filed. 17:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unencyclopedic. Eugene van der Pijll 17:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
keep, being "cruft" doesn't exclude it from Wikipedia. Conceivably, merge, if the full information can be conserved, but its length seems sufficient to warrant its own article. dab (ᛏ) 17:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This isn't even an article. This just seems to be a list of factoids; I'm having trouble what figuring out what the encyclopedic value (instead of value as duplication of source material) this has. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is exactly what an encyclopedia is not. Just because it's information doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. It's been mentioned that this is already available as source material. Let's keep it that way. Carbonite | Talk 19:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per MGM and Geogre. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 19:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Geogre. BTW I don't understand SPUI's remark that "This was too long for Highway 401." SPUI has merged it back and I don't see any obvious issue with the length of the merged article. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete mainly because I really cannot see why anybody would come to an encyclopaedia for this kind of information. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 22:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, roadcruft to the extreme. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable roads Klonimus 23:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
While I think this information is useful, I agree that it may not be displayed in the best way, here. Perhaps create a map with the information and store it as an image? However, even that's problematic, because to include it on an article, it will be too small to see the information. Then the user will have to click on the graphic and wait a possible eternity for it to load. Also, text is easier for people with visual impairments than a tiny squished map is, so we wouldn't be helping them out any. Unfortunately, I can't find a way to include this information in Wikipedia in a way that works. No vote, just pointing out the current limitations of our encyclopedia. Jacqui ^{★ 00:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
- Text is also the only way to link to intersecting roads and municipalities. --SPUI (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Highway 401. D e nni ☯ 02:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
A list of freeway interchanges is not something that merits its own article. Roads just are not that inherently interesting (and I'm speaking as a self-admitted map junkie here). An interchange list is reasonable enough in the highway's article, but it never deserves its own distinct article. It simply isn't an encyclopedic topic in its own right. Merge. Bearcat 04:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete for a multitude of the reasons stated above. -R. fiend 04:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Useful information on what is Canada's most important highway. Better kept with the article (I see it's already there) so it's easier to find. Luigizanasi 04:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak Merge. My first reaction is why do we need this? But that quickly leads to the position that if this table were in the article about the road I would not have any objection. So merging seems like a reasonable action. Vegaswikian 06:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Stormie 12:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete or fail that Merge to main 401 entry. Dottore So 14:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Good God. This certainly ranks as one of the least interesting and least useful (we invented the map for a reason) "encyclopaedia" articles I've ever seen. --Last Malthusian 19:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WP:NOT a road map. --Carnildo 19:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Writing a map in prose is like writing a novel as a map. Useless, and not what Wikipedia needs. Cor blimey, that didn't make any sense, but Wikipedia is not an atlas and that's the cool bit here. Lord Bob 20:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete not a useful way of presenting this information --TimPope 21:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge into the highway article. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the highway.--Sean|Bla ck 08:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Highway 401 article. *drew 15:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom, or any of the other votes above. -- SCZenz 03:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Roadcruft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.151.95.94 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 15:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interchanges on Quebec Autoroute 20

This is roadcruft on an astonishing, Borgesian scale. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, where facts are put into context and graded according to importance, WP:NOT a dumping ground for data, where every thing under the sun is left to rot. Pilatus 17:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401, of which this is the continuation. ~~82.26.169.95~~ Pilatus 18:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a road atlas in prose. This information would be better served by a map than an article in this format. --Metropolitan90 17:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- RAMEN! Pilatus 17:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Huh? --Metropolitan90 05:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    - It's what adherents of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism say instead of "Amen". Pilatus 03:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Simply not an encyclopedia entry. Superm401 | Talk 18:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep these useful articles about interchanges on major highways.--Nicodemus75 18:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This isn't even prose. Wikipedia is not a road atlas, per nom. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per the insightful comments from MGM and Geogre in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 19:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Exit lists are as encyclopedic as lists of people who served in a war. FCYTravis 21:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Lists of people who served in a war are not encyclopedic either. Unless a combatant is notable for something other than being a combatant, s/he won't get an article or appear on a list. D[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|'''''e''''']][[User:Denni|nni]][[User_talk:Denni|☯]] 02:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- You can write a biography on people who served in war. There's nothing more that can be said about an interchange apart from the fact it connects 2 roads. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, WP is not a travel guide. Gazpacho 22:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401. --SPUI (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I think there are some useful facts worth keeping. -- WB 22:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, roadcruft. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Dalbury (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Extreme Roadcruft --JAranda | watz sup 23:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. As I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401, I think this is useful information, but I can't think of a way to present said information in a way that makes sense for Wikipedia, unfortunately, so I don't know how to vote on this one. Jacqui ^{★ 00:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
Keep/merge per earlier AfD. - SimonP 01:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Quebec Autoroute 20. D e nni ☯ 02:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
A list of freeway interchanges is not something that merits its own article. Roads just are not that inherently interesting (and I'm speaking as a self-admitted map junkie here). An interchange list is reasonable enough in the highway's article, but it never deserves its own distinct article. It simply isn't an encyclopedic topic in its own right. Merge. Bearcat 04:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Useful information best kept in the main article so it's easier to find. We are talking about Canada's most important highway here (along with the 401 in Ontario). Luigizanasi 04:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete This is why maps were invented. D e nni ☯ 05:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per my comment(s) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401 Andreww 06:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Lord, this is cruftier (is that a word?) than the Ontario highway list. --Calton | Talk 08:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge per my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401 or failing that delete. Interchanges are just stretches of road connecting other roads with each other. Nothing more can be said about them and thus they don't deserve their own article in contrast with people on who you can actually write biographies. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Stormie 12:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete mere roadcruft. Dottore So 14:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete looks quite indiscriminate --TimPope 21:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge into the highgway article --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge, but it looks like that's done already... Radagast 00:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete no sources --redstucco 09:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not an atlas. --Carnildo 19:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International Stock Imagery Association

Some nn organization which created a yahoo group in October. Renata3 19:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Renata3 19:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising spam. The article is a copyvio and has already been speedily deleted from about five other titles where it had been posted. -- RHaworth 19:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE and REDIRECT to Animated cartoon. — JIP | Talk 08:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internet cartoon

This article attempts to describe the phenomenon of animated shorts and series (chiefly Macromedia Flash animation) distributed primarily on the web. While Flash animation subculture is certainly a worthy topic, there's virtually nothing salvagable in this article. I would only see it as a cleanup candidate were it not crowned with the arbitrary and erroneous title of Internet cartoon. (Neither Internet nor cartoon is appropriate here, and the term Internet cartoon does not enjoy wide use.)

Since any objective cleanup attempt would necessitate both a page move and and a near-total rewrite, I see no reason to harbor a misinformative article in the interim. – Ringbang 21:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to Animated cartoon. "Internet cartoon" is just a medium, not a genre. (Consider There she is!! and The Demented Cartoon Movie) --Billpg 21:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd say a better redirect would be webcomic, but I'm flexible. CDC (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- So am I. I only suggested Animated cartoon as this article and the "What links here" are about animated stuff. --Billpg 00:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Animated cartoon. They're definitely akin to webcomics, but as an art form these animations function as a type of animated cartoon, while meeting very few of the necessary and sufficient conditions for comics (regardless of visual style or context). –Ringbang 12:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete the article, salvage the list and a few notes, and put it on the Cartoon page, if there's a list of how many types of cartoons there are.
Keep and cleanup. Valid topic, no reason given for deletion. Grue 18:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Edwards (EastEnders)

This is an article about a fictional character that may appear for 4 weeks on East Enders in 2006. This is NN and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Agnte 18:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. ERcheck 18:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Bachrach44 18:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. --W.marsh 19:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete for crystal ballery. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" is a deletionist slur, and as usual it is being used misleadingly here. CalJW 12:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN is enough --Rogerd 05:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep verifiable fictional character; merge to list of characters if necessary. --TimPope 21:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep character is coming up, and it would be out of place to delete one EastEnders cast article and not delete all of the others Also "this character may appear" is not true, it has been confirmed that the character WILL appear. He will be involved in a stroyline and his daughter is joining the show in 7 days. Wikipedia may not be a crystal ball, but it does repot facts, and it is a fact that Jack Edwards WILL be a new character.Trampikey

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. User:Edward NZ is a sock puppet, but even ignoring his vote, the consensus is clearly keep. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Atkinson (software developer)

phpBB is notable, but is the founder of the project notable? Talrias (t | e | c) 22:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, just about. Keep. TheMadBaron 22:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, phpBB is very widely used forum software, so whoever thought it up is certainly notable. Keep. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above; phpBB is a large Internet project and the founder is notable Dbchip 14:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
delete I wouldn't call him notable, will this ever expand beyond a stub without being vanity? Pete.Hurd 19:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep I say keep. Without him, there would be no notable, decent GPL forum projects Ed 5:23, 20-11-2005 GMT
Keep He founded phpBB, and since phpBB is very much a widly known forum software, so is his founder. NeoThermic 04:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nn bio

Unsigned closure by Lucky 6.9. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Lee Hamilton

political vanity page AJSingh 07:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

This article was speedily deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven with the summary "empty". This AFD is hereby closed. encephalon 00:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jaren Ashton

Non-notable 16-year old with zero google hits. No claim to notability except being a basketball player. Possible CSD. Delete. A D Monroe III 22:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Now tagged for speedy delete per nom. TheMadBaron 22:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
speedy delete Rd232 ^talk 23:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Likely vanity page posted by the subject of the article. Note the contributor’s user name is jjbballkid24 ("Jaren Jerrell Basketball Kid 24"). ♠DanMS 23:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jaycee Studios

This page is vanity, strongly suspect that it was written by the author of the website. Very NN, google shows no pages link to it [12] and only only 9 websites have ever referenced it [13] Agnte 12:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete and fast Renata3 14:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Dalbury (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I have to admit a great deal of skepticism about any article where the opening sentence reads "NOTICE: On the contrary of what this may seem, it is NOT nonsense. It had taken a long time to put together this article, and it is still being made better." Unless solid evidence is presented, delete as unverifiable. Rossami 02:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm a friend of the webmaster of jayceestudios.com, and I know the Wiki entry was made by one of her fans. The opening sentance to which you reffered was added when the wiki was taken down before for being 'nonsense'. -Mr Reaper, friend of Jaycee Pawman. (First edit from —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.146.101 (talk • contribs) )

I'm also a friend of the webmaster of jayceestudios.com, and I also know the Wiki entry was made by one of her fans. It DID take alot of time to put together and it is a wonder website. I don't see why you are so hot to delete it. As the article said, it is not 'nonsense'. -The Flying Yoshi, friend of Jaycee Pawman. (First edit from —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.141.62 (talk • contribs) )

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Abela

This doesn't establish notability. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Being part of a forum community and having a home business does not make you notable. Vanity article likely written by the subject. Dbchip 05:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Created a fan site for a Christian denomination and helped with free bulletin board software? Even by the aggrandized description he's not notable. --Lucent 05:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete just not really a significant enough character in either community. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 08:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable. Earlier revisions indicate that the original contributor was probably himself, so Wikipedia:Autobiography is violated. Bovineone 17:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 05:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. per Bovineone.--Dakota ^t ^e 06:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable, writes about himself, do we really need another christian web designer tooting his own and polluting WP? Tandem 20:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Autobiographies are not encyclopaedic. Mduell2 19:41, 15 November 2005 (MST)
Delete per dbchip --Tycoonjack 00:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Wellington

I can't find any outside verification of this, and the article itself reads like a joke. Joyous (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 06:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense. Gazpacho 08:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoaxes. — Haeleth Talk 17:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The article may read like a joke, but then like they say the truth is far stranger than fiction. I have been doing research on this guy for the past six months and I can verify every word. I'll be adding some of his most memorable quotations soon. Not sure who wrote the article but the guy's done his homework! (Professor Port Talbot Ma Bsc Phd Phd Fag)

It is written in a rather facetious manner, but then again Mr. Wellington is something of a figure of fun in South Wales and especially Port Talbot. I cannot verify the quotations attributed to him but as far as I know everything else on here is true. They can be verified by checking back copies of the South Wales Squirrel newspaper, the newspaper of the regional South Wales Anarchist Group (SWAG) who have hailed Wellington as a paragon of local democracy and free speech (Anarchism is still a living creed in some parts of the South Wales Valleys, although Wellington denies any political affiliation with SWAG). His performance on 'Question Time Wales' is nothing short of legendary in these parts. Max Boyce was reduced to a seething wreck by Wellington's continual jibes about his height.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kastle archives

Tagged as "vandalism" for some reason; bringing it here instead. No vote. android 79 05:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete If all the claims are true, the article establishes a vague sort of notability, but it would still need a massive POV-ectomy, wikification, etc., and this morning I'm feeling to pessimistic to expect any of that to happen. Anville 10:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: We begin with a niche photographer, and that photographer's work is being housed by a niche website, and one part of that niche website is the "archive" section, and that is what this article is about. Ummmm, a bit too trivial, really, and borrowing fame from someone not that famous to give to a site to give to a bit of the site. Geogre 13:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - POV (reads like an ad) & marginal notability Renata3 14:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete' as per Anville. Site's Alexa ranking is 92,162. MCB 06:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keynote Systems

Suspected advertising Coolgamer 20:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep - pretty clean, quite NPOV, and the company is on NASDAQ. Renata3 05:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep publicly traded company with market cap of almost a quarter billion. I have done quick rewrite to conform to NPOV. Dottore So 14:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was dealt with as copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 01:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knovi: a life-long learning forum

Advert (text comes straight from here), and currently non-notable: 55 Google hits Knovi " life-long learning", the majority on the Knovi site itself. Tearlach 19:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete I have changed it to look less like an add but now the article is basicly "an online forum" Banana04131 20:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is an ad; it does not meet our article space policies (WP:NOT, WP:V, WP:RS). It is also a copyright violation. If by some miracle it survives AFD, I will list it on the massively backlogged copyvio problems board. Regards encephalon 01:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC) NB. Just noting that it unfortunately does not qualify under A8 because it was not "identified within 48 hours of upload". Regards encephalon 01:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN, copyvio, advert --Rogerd 05:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] L virginia bridal

Blatant vanity/ad. Only about two Google hits. Superm401 | Talk 19:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delte Arguably meets db-bio criteria (plus it's a blatant ad). Jasmol 19:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
That's exactly what I said. Speedy Renata3 04:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not sure about speedy but I won't oppose it either. Rossami 02:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN and advert --Rogerd 05:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lancaster University Writers' Guild

Spam. 9cds 20:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Right, this doesn't belong in the Wikipedia, unless one of their members is rewarded a Nobel prize ;-) Robert 20:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Appears to be a legitimate university-sponsored student organization that has published two anthologies.[14] The entry could be improved, but it is hardly an advertisement (spam). Laszlo Panaflex 20:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It isn't university-sponsored - it's merely one of over 80 societies. The fact that it has published two anthologies proves there's peple in the society who knows how to use latex. Nice society, just isn't really of encyclopedic relevence. 9cds 20:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, because we delete student society vanity and self-published authors. Pilatus 21:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, vanity, nn group. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as with all other such nn groups. Dottore So 14:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 05:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 15:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] League of Micronations

Nonsense. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Edwardian 06:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep I must disagree that this page is nonsense. There is infact such an organisation, see link 1 and link 2. Also a google search of "League of Micronations" returns 3,500+ results. Whether or not this group is noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia article might be another topic of discussion, however I think it is unfair to call this nonsense. I have also taken the time to update the article some. -- malo (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Please check the last page of your Google search and you'll see that, of those 3500 hits, only 60 are unique. The rest are multiple hits on the same page. Also, 4t.com is a free server, much like geocities, some real organization of this type would certainly have its own servers and domain. User:Zoe|^(talk) 08:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Thanks for point out the flaws of my google search. You are right in stating that there aren't that many unique hits. There are plenty of organisations too cheap or unaware of the process of buying their own servers. And maybe that is an indicator of just how notable this group is. However, your nomination calls this nonsense. If that was the case, why not tag it with {{nonsense}}, and have it speedy deleted? I don't think this is a speedy canidate however I'm trying to make a point here. -- malo (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    - Your point is wrong. Nonsense and patent nonsense are two different things. Uncle G 00:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      - Regardless of the differences between nonsense and patent nonsense, this article is neither. It is not an untrue statement, and (at least in my view) is not a completely absurd idea. I realize the nearly everyone else here sees it differently, but if this article is not nonsense, then the nomination under which it falls should be void. -- malo (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I understand that there is a prophecy that this organisation will prove to be utterly useless at preserving world peace and be replaced by the United Micronations. Capitalistroadster 09:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per above. I hate micronations, so very, very much. Also, I predict that the United Micronations will also be utterly useless at preserving world peace. -- Kjkolb 11:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per above. But one day the US president will see the error of his ways. However duff they may be, he needs the United Micronations! Marcus22 12:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep valid organisation. Ridiculous to delete it. 203.122.218.47 15:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. No, this is not an international organization for the likes of Palau and Brunei. I checked it out and...oh dear this is funny! Yes it's hosted on a free server. "Join" is a main menu option. Here's an excerpt from their list of qualifications: "The League of Micronations does not accept applicants who do not have an Internet homepage, exist for purely commercial reasons, contain pornographic material, promote hacking or other illegal activities, or are racist or hate sites (League of Micronations Charter, Article 3d)." Even so it only has 35 member "states". Durova 16:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Quite clearly nonsense doktorb 16:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment - I wonder if you realise what a micronation is, with some of the comments here. I used to live down the road from someone who created his own micronation. His house, the people that lived in it, a few of his friends and neighbours were all members of a country. There were 11 residents, and he printed his own currency and did the whole thing associated with being your own country. I never found out why he did it though. I think he disagreed with Australian laws or something like that. People who do this kind of thing have various reasons for it, but yeah, its legitimate. 203.122.218.47 17:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I do realize what a micronation is. Some users might not. The Family Guy ran a hilarious episode about the premise. An association that cannot garner three dozen members or afford its own web hosting is not even notable enough to merge. Durova 18:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom FRS 18:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless Sealand decides to join 'em. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 19:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ben Aveling 19:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ejrrjs | What? 23:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Forest Archipelago I wrote that notability generally involves some impact by a micronation upon the real world. Declaring a field to be an independent nation and telling only Wikipedia about it such as the Nation of Pogo (AfD discussion), or setting up a club on a web site such as the Republic of Atlasia (AfD discussion), do not impact the real world at all. Whereas Sealand and Ladonia, in contrast, have elicited mainstream news coverage, and have involved real disputes, real territories, and real court cases. The same applies to purported organizations of micronations. Researching the League of Micronations, I can find no news coverage, no independently written articles about the League of Micronations, and indeed nothing (outside of what the League of Micronations claims about itself) except one-sentence mentions with hyperlinks. The article cites no sources at all, either. There is no evidence that the League of Micronations has impacted upon the real world in any way. Delete. Uncle G 00:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think you've made the best case thus far to have this article deleted. Basically because I think you are correct in so far that this league seems not to have had any impact upon the world. -- malo (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G. Chick Bowen 02:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Zoe and Uncle G. There are many, many, micronations. A tiny number of them are notable. The vast majority are, basically hobbyist social clubs. An association of non-notable clubs is, well, most likely a non-notable club itself. MCB 06:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of best-selling music artists 2

First afd

This article is dreadful. It features on the list of most-revised articles [15], which is pretty bad for an article which is a list of supposed facts - 2928 revisions suggests something is wrong. It is pretty much permanently erroneous - fans put bands such as Led Zeppelin at the top of the list, then someone else puts The Beatles there. There is one user who simply replaces the band name with Cher.

Most of the sales figures are pretty much worthless guesses, based on original research - a quote by some lazy music journalist saying so-and-so has sold 100,000,000 albums in 1996, so let's randomly add 100,000,000 to an arbitrary guess at how many singles they have sold.

The article is unstable, constantly changing. It is original research, and largely worthless as a reference source. The 'facts' in it change all the time. It undoubtedly excludes popular artists from areas where sales figures are poorly collated. Delete!. 87.74.12.83 11:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This article is very useful for people wanting to find out artists' total record sales. It is quick and easy. Most artists' sales on the list are accurate. Expecially Michael Jackson, The Beatles, Elvis Presley and Led Zeppilin who, if you go to the discussion page you will see, have been thoroughly researched and argued out until a very, very accurate record sale was found. Most of the top ten has been looked into and my opinion is that those artists have accurate record sales totals beside their names. You can't find an exact worldwide sales total for any artist, but you can get pretty darn close and this list, as it stands now, is pretty darn close. Street walker 12:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

If there are no worldwide sales totals, only the top ten are accurate(we hope), and we can only get pretty darn accurate, this list is doomed to be both incomplete and permanently flawed. Therefore, better to delete. Superm401 | Talk 12:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC) (Vote removed; seems nominator was summarizing poorly. Superm401 | Talk 18:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC))
Week delete - bordeline, if one can make a good argument I will change my vote. It's just a time bomb of edit wars. Maybe keep it listed by alphabet, not # of sales which is wildly inaccurate. Renata3 14:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's just a huge mess and utterly useless. Delete it. --Hollow Wilerding 15:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep As long as there is a warning to accompany the article, there is no reason for why it should be deleted. Over the past few weeks, this article has actually been greatly improved with the addition of new references as well as warnings that point out the fact that references are not being provided for certain artists. There are also a lot of interesting discussions that go on and it is good to see that the discussions are referenced as well.

Keep, well-sourced and throuroughly discussed article. Just because people repeatedly insert misinformation is not a good reason to delete it. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep . Useful as long as the information stays accurate. 23skidoo 16:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep — Nominators arguments demonstrate a need for cleanup, not for deletion. Invalid AfD criteria — RJH 17:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep – Look, I'm going to vote keep for the simple reason that this article was vfd before, and there was no concensus. There has to be a stop to this at some point. I still concur that the information is subjective and needs a definitive source (such as RIAA) to verify any and all information. [[Briguy52748 23:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)]]
Delete Bad information can be worse than no information at all. D e nni ☯ 04:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia should try to provide this information, but if some of it is wrong, it doesn't matter all that much. CalJW 16:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- I am biting my tongue very hard, trying to keep in mind WP:CIVIL. Yes, it does matter all that much. We want people to perceive us as a reliable source of correct information. If we say, "oh, some of it's wrong, but that's okay" and we can't even tell them what's wrong (or even worse, can't be bothered to tell them), where does that leave our credibility? In the toilet, that's where. We already have difficulty gaining acceptance among librarians, educators, and other user groups. Let's not make matters worse. D e nni ☯ 03:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Everyone knows the article's limitations and they are clearly explained at the start of the article. Until someone can come up with a definitive list, this will remain as an interesting and useful article.
Keep If some of the information is wrong, wouldn't it be easier to just fix it rather than delete it? There are plenty of sources which can be used and these are only estimates - no one would have actual figures as these artists have sold millions of records, and more are sold every day. Sarz 07:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)]
Keep. Now that the article features a prominent warning, and more of the figures have linked sources, it's much improved. The figures don't exist for a perfect article, but this is currently the closest thing there is to it, and hopefully it will continue to improve. Of course it attracts a lot of misinformation from fanboys, but provided that sources are checked, this isn't enough to provide cause for deletion. Hopefully we can reach a consensus on this.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. (75% delete from 30 votes, and 10 keep votes). - Mailer Diablo 01:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish bankers

non-encyclopedic listcruft with little hope of ever becoming comprehensive or maintanable → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 12:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete or speedy delete: This isn't just a case of lack of comprehensiveness. This is another one of those "let's list the Jews" things that certain people are forever engaging in. Of evil intent, evil effect, and misbegotten impetus. Geogre 13:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Should not breakdown lists by category generally Dlyons493 Talk 14:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 14:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - ill-intended Renata3 14:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete listcruft with malicious intent. --Bachrach44 14:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Illuminati Delete as conspiracycruft, possibly with malicious intent. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, listcruft. —Cleared as filed. 15:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete doktorb 15:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Sets bad precedent. Religion and profession are rarely related. Next we'll have a list of "Christian carpenters" or "Muslim plumbers". - Mgm|^(talk) 15:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- List of Jews. Includes List of Jewish publishers, List of Jews in business, and List of Jewish criminals. The "Jewish publishers" list has the same anti-zionist air about it that this list does, but it's hard to say. Maybe it's genuine cultural celebration? I dunno. My finger twitches longingly over the AfD button, however. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 15:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Yeah, my fingers also twitched. I think we should nominate them all and see what happens. Renata3 17:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    - It's already been tried: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Jews. The verdict was "keep". — Haeleth Talk 18:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The logical conclusion of this practice is List of Methodist dentists and List of Sikh plumbers. Durova 16:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I should get started on List of unemployed Discordians, then. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Better not create List of unemployed Discordians. Unemployed people are unlikely to deserve an article, and listing non-existing articles which will never be created (or cannot be created) is cause for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    - Well, thank you for that advice. In return, might I interest you in a slice of Midwestern Puppymelon? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per above arguments. Punkmorten 17:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete — Inconsequential list. — RJH 17:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep — to be consistent with the other AfDs I'm switching my vote. This series of AfDs on "list of $FAITH $PROFESSION" is beginning to seem too much like railroading. If the information is correct then it's a perfectly valid list of accomplished individuals of the Jewish faith. That seems more than suitable criteria to keep. — RJH 01:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, useful sublist of list of Jews, that should be AFD'd first if it you believe in the conspiracy theory. I notice there's a list of Sikhs, is that a conspiracy too? Kappa 17:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- The parent list has already been AfD'd and kept: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Jews. — Haeleth Talk 18:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Geogre. --Metropolitan90 17:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as obvious sterotype fun. Coolgamer 21:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per another cogent argument by Geogre. FCYTravis 21:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Geogre. Would that it were merely a totally idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless there is also a List of Muslim terrorists and a List of Christian slaveholders. This makes my skin crawl. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Durova Ejrrjs | What? 23:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. File under "who cares?" listcruft. Impossible maintain and could potentially have thousands of entries, most of whom would be relinked. I'd give careful consideration to the lists under List of Jews too, the concept of which I find vaguely offensive. (I know it survived an AFD, but I think it should be revisited). If someone really wants to pigeonhole people by their religion, there are categories for that sort of thing. 23skidoo 04:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This makes as much sense as a list of Italian mobsters, or a list of Irish drunks. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 07:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. But someone's gotta make list of Irish drunks. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. While all you politically-correct sheep are jumping off a cliff, trying to outdo one another (without actually having visited the main-page list), you failed to realize that this was but one of a series of lists of Jewish notables. It appears to be maintained by Jews and is well-organized, and the persons in the list are "bankers of notabiliy," such as founders of historic firms like Salomon, and most from the 1800's. If it were a conspiracy list, wouldn't it be targeting present-day bankers? So, you sheep can go jump off a cliff, having voted prejudicially without first investigating the case.Ryoung122 09:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- You may wish to review WP:ATTACK. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 12:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Baa. Deep down I suppose you really want to know which Sikhs were vital to the elimination of lead-based soldering in plumbing? I still don't want List of Buddhist surgeons. Durova 15:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    - Comment Obviously mine was a protest vote, because I don't think many people stop to see what the article is about, before deleting it. I can accept that you don't want a list of Buddhist surgeons, fine. It should be noted, however, that sometimes people form their own preconceived notions: was the list of "Jewish bankers" singled out BECAUSE of the stereotype, while other lists, such as List of Jewish superheroes (actually exists!!!) was NOT because it was seen as a positive portrayal? So the point was not to win the vote, but to get others to think before forming an opinion.131.96.15.39
      - Being quite serious for a moment, yes I did read the article. I'm not at all sure whether this is intended to honor or stigmatize. There are fair arguments either way. I certainly wouldn't jump to the conclusion that someone who did find this offensive hadn't read the page. Granting the poster the benefit of the doubt, I still can't justify the list. Durova 02:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      - A further response. I too "read" the article (it's just a list, of course), and my vote was based on the fact that I see no useful need for it. I would (and will) vote the same if someone posted "list of roman catholic sheep herders" or "list of buddhist soccer coaches", etc. PC doesn't enter into it. 23skidoo 16:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete not because of political correctness, but because I don't believe a list of Methodist dentists would be appropriate either. Jtmichcock
Delete, obvious listcruft. - Liontamer 14:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above 72.144.139.231 00:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Too specific. Youngamerican 16:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Why not merge into something less specific. And what less-specific list would be appropriate? Kappa 17:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  - List of Jews, perhaps. Youngamerican 18:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep but drastic overhaul I see no reason to assume any more sinister intent than I had when I have started similar lists. However, the article as it stands is dreadful. It doesn't seem to list the Rothschilds, and it's full of red links. RachelBrown 20:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- The reason to assume sinister intent is because "Jewish bankers" have long been one of the primary boogeymen of anti-zionism. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 12:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment There is the saying, "assumptions make asses of us all." We should not "assume" bias without first checking the facts. Checking the facts finds that the list was created in a context of a myriad of occupations, by a person who identifies themself by a Jewish name. No actual evidence of an "attack" is offered. Arniep,on Nov 18, nominated all the "list of Jewish.." for deletion; not surprisingly,those such as "List of Jewish superheroes" were being "kept" while "List of Jewish criminals" was being "deleted." A computer would not have known the difference. Also, by itself a "list of Jewish bankers" might be "sinister," but this list was not by itself, it was with a collection of lists. Thus, what we have here is nothing more than an exercise in political correctness; the bias is caused by the lens we choose to view the list in, not anything that the list "gives" us. 131.96.2.208 21:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per everyone above Descendall 12:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Categorize members of the list to Category:Bankers and Category:Jewish [Foobarians] according to nationality, then delete the list, so no information is actually lost. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, because I do, in fact, assume sinister intent in this case (in addition to the utter uselessness of such lists in general). Nandesuka 19:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep - see my comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_publishers - Londoneye 09:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - silly, possible bad faith, useless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep this list seems to have been created in good faith by User:LazarKr who seems to have contributed to many jewish lists including List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Technology, which I doubt someone with ill intent would bother doing. Arniep 12:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep LazarKr 12:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep I abhor the attitude that Jews aren't allowed the same self-identity as anyone else. - Poetlister 12:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Keep. I thought it had been possibly in 'bad faith' but Arniep pointed me to User:LazarKr's page who created many of the lists & it seems to be ok. Astrokey44 14:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete for the many reasons stated above Antidote 18:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm all for a List of bankers with criteria such as founders or presidents of notable banks. To have a List of Jewish bankers smells of boosting stereotypes or ethnic pride. Pilatus 00:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Moove. see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Jews --Sheynhertz _געשׁ״ך 03:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Many many red-links. As for Poetlister's comment: Wikipedia isn't a place for anyone to "self-identify"—it's an encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 04:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- - Comment
Delete. Preaky 18:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Just proving my point, someone (Arniep) nominated a whole "list of" Jewish. Not surprisingly, the "List of Jewish Criminals" is going down in flames, while most of the rest are "speedy keep." In fact, one person who voted against "List of Jewish Bankers" voted FOR some of the other lists. This merely proves my point that reactionary politically-correct bias is operating here...I'm sure a court of law would find that since these lists were created by the same user, who has shown an intent not of anti-Semitism but Jewish identity (being Jewish), taken as a whole the lists should be equal. Remember, DISCRIMINATION is picking out one thing and applying different standards.Ryoung122 09:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Jewish American academics List of Jewish American business figures List of Jewish American political figures List of Jewish American scientists List of Jewish American show business figures List of Jewish American sport figures List of Jewish American writers List of Jewish Americans List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society List of Jewish Members of the National Academy of Engineering List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Technology List of Jewish bankers List of Jewish criminals List of Jewish publishers List of Jews List of Jews in business List of Jews in law

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of theatres in Mumbai

Redlink infected Listcruft. This is like creating List of theatres in Miami Delete --JAranda | watz sup 00:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

keep, readers should be able to find articles about theatres in Mumbai, Miami or wherever. Kappa 01:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not the yellow pages and a list like this is just begging for a whole series of nn articles to be created. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Zoe, and per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: "[C]urrent consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not... [l]ists or repositories of loosely associated topics." Edwardian 06:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think otherwise. A 'list of theatres' is far from "indiscriminate pieces of information". The mentioned theatres are present, can be defined, the number is finite, and references can certainly be provided. In no certain terms this can be called as a "loosely associated topic" =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Every house and every person on my block is present, can be definied, is finite, and references can be provided. Should I write an article listing all of them? User:Zoe|^(talk) 08:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The theatres in question are certainly more notable than houses in a block. Why would a list of theatres not be notable? Some have a long history behind them and are often used as landmarks in the city. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere have I discussed deleting the articles, merely this indiscriminate list of every single theatre in Mumbai. User:Zoe|^(talk) 09:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is this list "indiscriminate"? An an indiscriminate collection of information would be a subjective list whereas this is objective. From Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists), the text mentions: "...The list usually consist of links to articles in a particular subject area, such as people or places or a timeline of events." From Wikipedia:What is a featured list: 2.1: "Useful: Covers a topic that lends itself to list format by bringing together a group of related articles that are likely to be of interest to a user researching that topic". Nowhere is it mentioned that a collection of closely related data cannot exist on wikipedia, if the data itself is notable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep – I don't see why this has to be deleted. Yellow pages deal with addresses and telephone numbers. This list does not promote any of the theatres. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not does not mention that lists of notable places is non-encyclopedic. Redlinks does not necessarily mean that it is cruft. Please have a look at the wikipedia logo, its an incomplete jigsaw puzzle. Besides, there are quite a few blue links. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Most of the blue links go to completely unrelated articles. There are four actual bluelinks, of which one is a subsubsubstub. The other three are well-written and arguably notable historic buildings. So we need a Category: Theatres in Mumbai for the notable ones. Not a list of every single theatre in the city. FCYTravis 10:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - In that case would you also list the following for AFD: New York City hotels, List of New York City gardens, List of New York City gardens, List of schools in Louisville, and numerous other such lists that are linked from city articles? I think this would be fair. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - This is ridiculous. If we need to find articles about *notable* theatres in Miami or Mumbai, that's what the Category system is for. Historic and notable theatres like Paramount Theater will get articles. The Century 10Plex down the street, won't because they don't need them. FCYTravis 10:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying some of the theatres in that list are non-notable? Theatres serve as landmarks here. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - because it's about cinemas, not theatres. Theatres are notable landmarks and could be in the list. Some major cinemas are landmarks too, but not some small corner ones. Renata3 14:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Note: In some forms of English the word theatre can also refer to cinemas. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - So the article name suggests exatly that. But it list ONLY cinemas, and I don't think there is a need of list for cinemas in various cities. And somehow I don't feel the list is complete anyways. Renata3 14:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    - A cinema and a theatre is often the same thing in Indian English. An incomplete list is not a criteria for deletion. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      - I am removing my vote with big hopes that Nichalp will finish off the rewrite. Renata3 05:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
        
        Will do when time permits. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Rename to List of movie theaters in Mumbai and keep. Films are incredibly popular in India and red links promote article creation on the topic of the cinemas which are no doubt notable when India is concerned. Redlinks cannot be categorized and including them in the cateogry would mess up it's alphabetized format. Lists and categories server different purposes. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but delink any theatres that are unlikely to ever deserve articles. - SimonP 14:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not encyclopedic. - Dalbury (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikitravel and delete. This is exactly what Wikitravel is for, and what Wikipedia is not for. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Please mention which criteria under WP:NOT does this list violate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per FCYTravis. Whatever few notable theaters there are should be in a suitable category. —Cleared as filed. 15:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep I think that we know how popular films are in India, and Mumbai is the capital of India. Considering just how many movie theatres there are, that in itself makes it worthy. In most cities, you struggle to get 3 or 4 movie theatres. I think it says a lot about the culture of Mumbai by allowing such a list. 203.122.218.47 15:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Mumbai is not the capital of India, even if it is one of the major cities. 131.111.8.102 16:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment – Theatres/Cinemas in Mumbai are not small corner establishments. Mumbai is the centre of Bollywood and theatres/cinemas have been around since the early 20th century. Theatres/Cinemas cater to mostly the Hindi, English and Marathi audience. I think there's definately a systemic bias against having such a list here where western definations are applied to determine notability. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I suppose there is precedent with List of shopping malls in Singapore, List of London venues, List of buildings in Bucharest etc and all the other things on Category:Lists of structures. - Xed 18:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per FCYTravis. While recognizing the popularity of films in India, I don't see why we need a list of cinemas in Mumbai in Wikipedia. Regarding systemic bias, I would also vote to delete a list of cinemas in New York or Los Angeles if such articles were created; most individual cinemas are not notable, so a redlinked list of them would not be particularly useful. --Metropolitan90 18:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep as per NichalP. These are important cultural centers, many of which deserve their own articles (and already have them). What's wrong with listing them together in one place? --Dvyost 19:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, useful list, plus article establishes notability (Mumbai is usually associated with films). — JIP | Talk 19:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, though possibly many do not deserve links. Still, this is about a city where cinemas (which, as I understand that are known there as theatres, and we should be using the locally appropriate form of English) are major centers (centres, I suppose) of the local culture; I suspect that many of these are effectively the defining points of neighborhoods. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep See Category:Lists_of_structures --Despentes 20:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep useful list. Mumbai is a very big city. Carina22 21:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- So is New York City, but I would vote to delete [[List of theaters in New York City]], too. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. per jmabel. -- WB 22:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep passes millions of people test. Klonimus 23:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists). Also, helps WP:CSB. Jacqui ^{★ 00:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
Keep. Ambi 02:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As has been mentioned above they serve as landmarks in the city. Tintin 03:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete So do supermarkets, bus stops, and playgrounds. If any of these theatres merit encyclopedic coverage, by all means give them an article; this is just a list of neighborhood cinemas. Denni☯ 03:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- From Landmark: In modern usage, it is anything that is easily recognisable, such as a monument, building, or other structure. In American English it is the main term used to designate places that might be of interest to tourists - the closest equivalent to visitor attraction in British English. In British English the term is less used and only refers to things that are truly visible due to their height or size. <snip> Examples of landmarks include the Taj Mahal in Agra, Eiffel Tower in Paris, Big Ben in London, Mount Fuji in Japan, Stone Mountain near Atlanta and the CN Tower in Toronto. I don't think any of your examples qualify as a landmark. Still, in a country where film is extremely popular and in the center of Bollywood it would be useful to list cinemas even if they're not landmarks. They get a lot more varied and often larger audience than schools. -- Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. This is a non-promotional, informational, notable article and in no way meets WP:DP. These are an important part of an important city, moreover the film city of India. Many of these cinemas are well known and deserve articles of their own, even if they don't have them.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 03:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notability comes from their importance in the Indian context. Ways shall be found to keep the list organised and informational. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cinemas and theatres are important part of culture. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, certainly. Charles Matthews 11:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, not the same at all as a list of Miami theaters. Two completely different cultures. Turnstep 02:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep for suspicion of systemic bias - definitely notable Sam Vimes 22:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 15:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of victims of the American Civil War

Victims? Besides that, this is an impossible list. Far too many died. And why stop here? How about List of victims of the Hundred Years War and List of victims of the Crusades? And where does it stop? Is Abraham Lincoln a "victim" of the Civil War? How about John Wilkes Booth? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. Edwardian 06:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC) My main objection is with the title. If the title is change to List of notable casualties of the American Civil War or something similar, then Keep per Mgm. -- Edwardian 22:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, indiscriminate and WP is not a memorial. Gazpacho 06:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete for being unencyclopedic. Tuf-Kat 07:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: It must be a prank. I may be a victim of the Civil War. So is Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel. Geogre 13:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. While the title may require renaming, the lead clearly states it only includes notable individuals (all of whom have wikipedia articles), the list is informative and contains references. I would drop "dying as a result of actions related to the American Civil War" and only include people directly killed in battle to keep it manageable and verifiable. It is generally hard to say if an action directly contributed to someone's death. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This would be an appropriate Category, but the sheer size of an accurate list would be daunting. If it ends up being kept, I agree that victims is an inappropriate title. Hal Jespersen 16:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Mgm: change the title and only include those with verifiable, about whom there is historic information. Note that presently everybody listed on this page already has their own WP article. --FRS 18:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete- vague, impossible to maintain. Reyk 21:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Any interested editors should take a copy of this article in case it's deleted and create a category; this seems to me to exactly the sort of task for which categories are intented. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Categorize and Delete better off to Categorize that list some how a encyclopedic list but still impossible to maintain as a list --JAranda | watz sup 22:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Impossible to finish, and I don't see how this could be useful... -- WB 23:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Rename and Keep. Per Mgm. -- WB 00:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Dpbsmith. Ejrrjs | What? 23:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Abstain There has to be a better title for it, in any case. Ejrrjs | What? 19:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ Keep per Kappa, lists and category. Klonimus 15:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, if it gets edited to what MGM is suggesting. In any case, I agree that this is a good instance to use categories. Jacqui ^{★ 00:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
Delete if its just a list of notable people with Wikipedia biographies then a category would be more appropriate. PatGallacher 01:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete and categorize. MCB 06:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Listing the means of death and the date of their demise is something a category cannot do. Categorizing would lead to loss of useful information. Also, Wikipedia is NOT a memorial refers to the writing of articles on non-notable people not a list of people who deserve an article and already have one. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, With over hald a million deaths it sounds silly. It might be renamed to List of notable victims of the American Civil War, but then the question of "what is notable" would arise. Mariano(t/c) 10:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- If "what is notable" is a problem, why do people keep trying to determine it on Afd? Kappa 11:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Notable people are people who deserve an article themselves. There's plenty of precendent to determine whether a person is notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, categorizing would lead to a loss of information. Kappa 11:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- How? I haven't checked every entry but as nearly as I can tell the information in the list merely duplicates information available in existing articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  - OK it would lead to information being hidden inside articles instead of accessible at a glance. Users should be able to select articles e.g. by rank or location of death without having to click on every link to find it. Kappa 13:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Dottore So 14:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, textbook category. A list provides no annotation worth having in context. Lord Bob 20:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. The use of "victims" is problematic but maybe fixable. The problem is that this is, in my opinion, a meaningless list. It is a list of people notable in the Civil War filtered for those who died in it. The act of dying does not make them more or less notable than the person who lived an extra year and died by falling off a horse. We already have categories of people who are relevant to the Civil War. We also have masses of statistics on deaths during the war. I don't see how this semi-random collection of datapoints adds anything to the reader's experience. Rossami (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Zoe. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. - TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, with all due respect to MgM - I can see where he's coming from, but I'd have thought that a category for casualties of the American civil war would handle that better - obviusly only those who pass WP:BIO will get a mention, which seems right. Non-notable people whose maner of death was particularly notable can be mentioned in the main article. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - a category if anything --Doc ^ask? 11:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete after 2-day extension. —Cleared as filed. 15:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Bailey and his Ukulele

Appears to be band vanity, less than 150 results on Google and most not referring to him. Splintax 09:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not meeting WP:MUSIC. - Dalbury (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The AFD tag was not added to this page. I just completed that step. Please restart the 5-day clock from this point. Rossami [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 02:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mantras and Prayers

At best, this belongs in Wikisource. —Cryptic (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a prayer book. TheMadBaron 06:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Assume copyvio and is source material. This is the work of user:141.156.144.99 who then signed up as SWDesai21 and posted various massive copyvios, includeing three copies of the Bhagavad Gita and vandalised Talk:Mahabharata. -- RHaworth 08:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Move to Wikisource, if appropriate, but unless the translations are already in the Public Domain, the translator(s) will have to release them. - Dalbury (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. With a name like this, it should have included mantras and prayers from all religions, not just one. But that aside, it's still not what an encyclopedia is for. Jacqui ^{★ 00:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
Delete There are hundreds of thousands of mantras and prayers, this is not the place for them. --StoatBringer 14:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic. *drew 03:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mario Days

Individual songs don't deserve a wikipedia page. (See WP:Music for more info. Also note that the band which made the song is also up for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posse_of_Two. (Both the band, the song, and other pages relating to the band were all made by one person). --Bachrach44 14:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Bachrach44 14:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Dalbury (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 20:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 15:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Curtis

non-notability Christofurio 19:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup. This man actually had full length books written about him. See The Mark Curtis Hoax: How the Socialist Workers Party Tried to Dupe the Labor Movement by Martin McLaughlin ISBN 0-929087-46-1, and The Frame-Up of Mark Curtis: A Packinghouse Worker's Fight for Justice ISBN 0873485459. I'd say that level of attention is notable enough for inclusion when the question turns on possible political persecution. Durova 21:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Cleanup. A man who has had two books written about him is notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup per the previous votes. (Thanks for the research, Durova.) Also, there are happily some solid links there already. That's always a good sign. Jacqui ^{★ 00:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
- Maybe if we're going to keep it, the name should be changed to the "Mark Curtis Case". It seems that two different sets of leftist activists have argued over whether he is a rapist or the victim of a frame-up. Aside from that, he seems an utterly unimportant person. So, let's let the article be about the argument, not a bio of him. --Christofurio 14:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Cryptic (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Joffre Skinner

Delete. Ridiculous attack page. 136.165.114.231 23:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as WP:CSD A7 vanity. (Article text: Matthew Joffre 'Joffle Cakes' Skinner is not a complete gimp, unlike his brother Joseph 'Deacon/Merrick' Skinner.) Sliggy 00:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I tagged it too. Sliggy 00:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Attack page. ♠DanMS 00:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Geogre. Content blanked by author. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maxsweb

Non notable website. I'm never sure where we stand on speedily deleting this cruft. -- Francs 2000 00:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. We really need a speedy deletion criterion for non notable websites. Fredrik | talk 01:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 06:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Author blanked and therefore speedy deleted. Geogre 13:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MC Bombadil

cute name, but doesn't meet WP:Music --Bachrach44 14:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Bachrach44 14:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. And The Lord of Rhymes that he belongs to needs to be nominated too, which I'm off to do. There may be a whole string of articles out there that need a closer look. - Dalbury (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
delete, fails WP:MUSIC. NB Lords of the Rhymes is the putativenly "famed" NN group (with a mere four songs) our subject is a member of. Pete.Hurd 20:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meet The Posse

band vanity. According to WP:Music, songs don't usually deserve pages in wikipedia. THe band itself is also up for delete. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posse_of_Two. Also, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The song hasn't even been released yet. --Bachrach44 14:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Bachrach44 14:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unreleased CD. - Dalbury (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Meet the Delete, as per nom. Pete.Hurd 20:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 15:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MenTaLguY

Delete, Not sure on this one, but I doubt a contributor to three open source projects is notable - the projects are notable, but he is not. Perhaps he is worthy of mention in the articles about the projects, but I don't think four lines of text about him, two of which are asserting his notability, really belongs on wikipedia -Werdna648 02:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity. His projects may be notable (Inkscape seems to be at least) but I don't really see what useful information an article about this guy could have. We redirect most CEOs to their companies, and this guy isn't a CEO or similar leader... but I guess his name is a vaguely possible search term, so maybe a redirect. He's already mentioned in the Inkscape article for what it's worth. --W.marsh 03:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Vanity, on the one hand, but it's an article about a screen name. Screen names are not people. As a fictional character, has this fiction achieved sufficiently in the real world? No. The products may work, but the character hasn't. Geogre 13:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Inkscape. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge any relevant info to Inkscape (actually, "smerge"). Jacqui ^{★ 00:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 15:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mexipop

Term made out out of thin air, apparently. 32 mentions on google with one referencing this article. Vizcarra 23:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Per above. --Vizcarra 22:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I have heard the term many times here in Europe and despite google has few entries on the subject the article should not be erased, I think. Besides it is a fact that the socalled mexipop is a huge phenomenom in many parts of the planet. And erasing the article won't stop people from using that term.

Thank you.

Bjørn Tore Nystrøm. Norway —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.4.126 (talk • contribs)

Delete. If the above would like to provide a credible source documenting the huge phenomenon, he is welcome. Don't worry, censorship is the last thing we're worrying about. (The above editor, 80.216.4.126, is the creator of the page, and has added bits on 'Mexipop' to other pages.) Deltabeignet 23:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand the point. However I have a question "and has added bits on 'Mexipop' to other pages"... was it wrong doing that? Thanks for the attention.

Not wrong, but it helps identifying you as the same person, since you have not created a username. --Vizcarra 01:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Rogerd 04:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Should not be erased... not only because I have added a couple of details :) but seems to be a topic on its own. May the divinities consider it. AugustoRomero

Delete, but I am going to be sad. Hallo. I have trasferred and edited Mexipop into Mexican pop music. Take a look and tell me what you think. AugustoRomero
Delete. Neologism. --Nintendude 03:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mocktroid

nn Newgrounds stuff. Only 65 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable flash cartoon. TheMadBaron 06:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete Flash vanity. Coolgamer 21:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete or redirect This should either be deleted or redirected to the main Metroid (video game species) article, as Mochtroid has already been an article that was redirected to information there. ~ Hibana 23:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oscarin

patent nonsense Savant1984 21:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Not entirely patent nonsense, but very close.... "his real name must be obviously Oscar".... well, obviously.... His website doesn't appear to exist, and the Google hits appear to be irrelevant, so unless someone wants to demonstrate that Oscarin is suitably famous by naming some of those TV shows, this should be deleted. TheMadBaron 22:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, imdb never heard of him, though there is an "Oscarito" (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0651798/). User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PaPa G

Article seems largely nonsensical and I can't find any verification, either at the site given or through Google. --Tabor 03:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Over 35,000 Google results for search for "PaPa G" but no early results relevant to this and none of any encyclopedic interest as they are graphic designers and sports bars. Google news search again comes up with nothing relevant. In short, not nearly as notable or verifiable as Uncle G :>). Capitalistroadster 04:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. My eyes still ache from looking at this page. Durova 04:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. as {{db-nonsense}} -- Perfecto 04:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Capitalistroadster. TheMadBaron 06:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy per Perfecto. splintax ^(talk) 09:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Posse of Two

band vanity. Doesn't meet WP:music --Bachrach44 06:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Bachrach44 06:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Alhutch 07:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Shared dream, no waking reality. Geogre 13:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PJM 23:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Save article. Artist is founder of very unique type of hip-hop and is starting to amass a following.

Comment - first of all, "starting to develop a following" does not meet WP:Music standards. When they develop a following (and please read WP:Music, the page can be recreated. Secondly, the only support thus far comes from the same anonymous IP that made the page in question, and a bunch of related pages which are also up for deletion. --Bachrach44 02:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 22:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prussian Blue (British band)

Non-notable band vanity. Not on allmusic.com, not on Amazon.com, apparently fails WP:NMG. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 22:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep for disambiguation purposes. This is not the group with the racist teenage girls; that's Prussian Blue (American duo). An article about both the British and American bands by this name passed an AfD vote last month; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (band). The article was later split up into separate articles for each of the groups by this name. Keeping this article will help people differentiate between the two bands with the same name but extremely dissimilar views. --Metropolitan90 00:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep they actually are on AMG, though it isn't obvious (this band is on Tigga Records, and the band on AMG is on Tigga Records). Apparently AMG doesn't have an article on the creepy brainwashed girl-band. This band has 3 releases on that label (4th coming soon), I can't verify much about the label though... so they're borderline... but as Metropolitan90 the earlier AfD mentioning this band was to keep. Hence my weak keep vote. Man nothing is easy tonight. --W.marsh 00:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep to avoid confusion. --Apyule 01:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- To expand on this a bit further, there is relevant discussion on these pages: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (band), Talk:Prussian Blue (band), Talk:Prussian Blue (British band) and to a lesser extent Talk:Prussian Blue (American duo). The other band with the same name has a page here. They are also a borderline case for passing WP:MUSIC under section 2 or 3, but I really don't know much about the band so I'm not sure. --Apyule 10:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Disambiguation is not a reason to have an article on a non-notable band. If necessary put a footnote in the other artcle to avoid confusion. There is no apparent dispute from the author that this band fails WP:NMG. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 08:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, a they seem to meet WP:MUSIC. I'm not moved by the disambig argument; do I get an article and a dab notice if I make a garage band named ""Metallica"? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- If your "Metallica" becomes notable as well, I'd imagine so. Keep. --badlydrawnjeff 17:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Well if they were notable then they'd get a dab notice, for example the article on Nirvana (band) gives a notice of the infinitely more obscure 60s band called Nirvana. I was mostly commenting that this band survived a recent AfD though, more or less. I agree that disambiguation alone isn't a reason to keep. --W.marsh 16:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - just because I share a name with something does not mak me WP worthy Renata3 13:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above, JzG. Dottore So 14:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete and move Return to Eden (television) here. R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 22:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Return to Eden

The article refers to a Australian soap opera and a 1996 Annie Award nominated Michel Gagné short called "Return to Eden." The name of the short is actually "Prelude to Eden."

http://www.gagneint.com/Final%20site/misc/Prelude%20to%20Eden/Prelude.htm

Because the page now only refers to one "real" thing, the disambiguation page is not needed.

141.213.184.86 04:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete This redirects to Return to Eden (television) referring to a 1983 Australian miniseries and later program. The Return to Eden (television) article mentions both the miniseries and the program and should be moved to this space after the deletion of this useless disambiguation page. Capitalistroadster 06:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 06:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete and move Return to Eden (television) to this. - uneccesary dismabig page -- Ian ≡ talk 04:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Roisterer 04:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect This was originally a redirect. I suggest it should be again. (Alternately, as per Ian's suggestion.) Ben Aveling 00:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Page should also disambiguate for Return to Eden (game) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Australian Progressive Alliance R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Deebank, Geoff Gibson, Chris Grigsby, Reese Malcolm, Tony Newman

Minor political candidates for a now-defunct minor party. Polled less than 1% of the vote, and attracted approximately zero media attention. Ambi 11:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Note I have merged all related deletions to this one entry to avoid multiple voting about the same. User:Doktorbuk made the same vote on every entry and User:Merovingian only on Grigsby. Renata3 18:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

From Chris Grigsby deletion
- Merge with whatever party he belongs to. He looks way too bright and cheery. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 11:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete seems to be one of a rash of articles for non-notable failing candidates. I have stood twice for election, and failed twice, but don't feel the need to have a Wikientry. doktorb 16:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with the party article. Renata3 18:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with particle (party article, ha ha? No? Okay, be that way, bastards). Private Butcher 18:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Australian Progressive Alliance. That party is notable despite its unimpressive showing because it was formed by Senator Meg Lees, a former leader of the Australian Democrats. Capitalistroadster 18:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 18:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge all with Australian Progressive Alliance. - Dalbury (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Australian Progressive Alliance. I always have a think about my vote, then look through the other votes, and realise Capitalistroadster has said exactly what I wanted to say. Cnwb 22:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge Ejrrjs | What? 23:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge all n/n - Ian ≡ talk 04:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I really don't think we need to list candidates gaining less than 1% of the vote. --Roisterer 04:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Australian Progressive Alliance, as the individuals certainly don't need their own pages (since they're NN). - Liontamer 14:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as vanity page

Unsigned closure by Lucky 6.9. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Warawa

This is a vanity page BillC38 06:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus, will redirect to album and maybe soft merge. R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sad Café

A song by Eagles. The band is well-known, but the song is just another song. I spent like 1 hour looking for info to expand it, but it looks like there is nothing much else to say about it. There is completely nothing special about it. Renata3 13:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep, song by notable band. Could be expanded by giving an idea of what lyrics are. Kappa 17:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- According to WP:MUSIC individual songs should not have separate articles unless there is something really special about them. Renata3 17:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete ∾ Not even on their Greatest Hits album. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 19:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC. - Dalbury (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge that last line to the appropriate album article, then redirect there. Jacqui ^{★ 00:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
Redirect to the album it's off. -R. fiend 04:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein refuses to sell out Iraq

It should be obvious to anyone familiar with Rumsfeld's speaking style and Saddam's character that this is fiction.

Delete. Gazpacho 22:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't know anything about Rumsfeld's speaking style nor Saddam's character but I do know that this article was written in easily readable English and that sources in a foreign language were used... not verifiable. Deskana 22:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - not encyclopedic as standalone article even if it's verifiable (ext links are Arabic). If verifiable, include reference/summary in appropriate articles. Rd232 ^talk 23:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - this is unverifiable and propaganda. Not to mention that a verbatim transcript from the paper would be copyviol. The mention of the article might be relevant in either the insurgency Sadaam articles but I leave that to the interested editor. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, for many of the reasons above. PJM 23:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the characterizations themselves make this deletable (mockingly?) User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no way in hell this conversation ever took place.--csloat 00:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete this hoax. Carioca 01:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete; preposterous nonsense; obvious hoax. MCB 06:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - the status of this as a hoax could be characterised as a "Known Known". Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 08:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Mention of this article, and questions of the authenticity of its information, are fine for inclusion in Wikipedia. But Wikipedia isn't for just copying (either verbatim or through translation) a text from elsewhere and pasting it in and calling it a Wikipedia article—plus, there are questions of copyright violation. I personally doubted the whole thing; but my doubts about the truth of an article aren't reason enough: the nature of what a Wikipedia article should be, and questions of copyright violation, are exactly enough. President Lethe 16:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not that I consider this article to be any good, or that I am not in support of its deletion, but the fact that a source is not written in English doesn't itself make it less reliable. A majority of the people on this planet doesn't speak English, that doesn't make them untrustworthy. That said, I'm in support of its deletion for the reason that the sources seem to be of dubious accuracy, but that does not have anything to do with the fact that I can not read the language in which it is written. Have a look here. Kdehl 20:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Security breaches

Delete; long, rambling, unencyclopedic original research and personal POV essay about matters covered in other articles on computer security. Features section headings like "Thanks California" and "Thanks USA" (author congratulating jurisdictions for legislation) and many sentences where author quotes and/or refers to himself in the third person ("The largest computer disaster of which AlMac is aware, in terms of amount of money at stake, prior to Y2K, was when the US Federal Reserve ran out of #s for issuing Bonds to finance the national debt.") Normally I would suggest or attempt cleanup but this is just a complete mess, and more importantly from an AfD point of view, is duplicated elsewhere. MCB 22:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- rambling and unreadable mess. Position paper. Haikupoet 02:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - some sort of outline and I can sense a thin smell of a conspiracy theory. Some material is good though. Renata3 05:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete unencyclopaedic rambling. The subjects of computer security and identity theft are already well covered. [[User:Just zis Guy, you know?|]] 08:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I informed User:Almac of the article's problems at the end of June and nearly 5 months later, they still haven't been addressed. No prejudice against recreation if a proper article can be written at security breech. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Rossami 02:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual perfomance failure

Low content, subject covered at great length in other articles, such as Sexual dysfunction, with a misspelled title on top of it all. Jasmol 19:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, nothing to merge, no point in a redirect. I'd have been tempted to speedy this one, were it not listed. (Anyone for a speedy-by-mass-acclamation?) Alai 20:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Wikipedia perfomance failure(sic). Durova 21:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per above. TheMadBaron 22:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see why it would hurt to have a redirect to sexual dysfunction, but it's true that there's no salvageable content to speak of here. Jacqui ^{★ 00:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
- Well, unless it's an especially common misspelling, does it really aid navigation to have it? Alai 05:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- A redirect from the correctly spelled sexual performance failure would be useful though.
Delete. Redundant. Nothing to merge. Poor redirect, IMHO. encephalon 01:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Encephalon --Rogerd 05:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as attack page. If someone wants to replace this with some content (It's a gymnasium in Lund, Sweden, apparently), feel free to call it a win or whatever on Schoolwatch. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spyken

I'm all for the inclusion of articles on schools, but only where they actually say something of use. This one doesn't - delete CLW 13:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Staffanstorps Livs

Non-notable grocery store (unless selling cheap imported soda qualifies as notability...) Delete CLW 12:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Renata3 14:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete for the same reasons as the entry on the bath house. Could someone point the user to a page that explains how to create good stubs? - Mgm|^(talk) 15:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Rossami [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 02:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy-delete. Page-blanked by the original author and only editor. I'm taking that as evidence that speedy case G7 applies. Rossami [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 01:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Staunton-Lambert

Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries, especially not when the author of a page is linked from it. I was tempted to speedy as an A7, but it's too much of a stretch. —Cryptic (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Get thee to Wikitree! The article is a simple genealogy of a Wikipedia user. Delete. Uncle G 04:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above and the fact that none of those people are claimed to be notable (but since it's a group of people, failing the current nn-bio criteria I think?). Anyway I see no reason to keep this article. --W.marsh 04:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable family tree. TheMadBaron 06:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WIkipedia is not a family tree. Already at Wikitree. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Nn Ejrrjs | What? 23:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strangers (song)

band vanity. According to WP:Music, songs don't usually deserve pages in wikipedia. THe band itself is also up for delete. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Posse_of_Two --Bachrach44 14:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Bachrach44 14:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Songs are worth keeping if they are well-known and a proper article can be written about them. However, this song apparently reached the dizzying height of #4 on the Oregon alternative hiphop charts on a website. Normally, the practice would be to merge with the album concerned as may well happen with the Eagles song above but that would not be appropriate in this case. Capitalistroadster 16:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Dalbury (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Save per nom. Srangers is A very good song and should be kept on Wikipedia.- sincerely, Sir Joseph Bently (—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.255.64.240 (talk • contribs) , user's second edit) - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 03:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (more detailed analysis on discussion page). Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 22:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC) (amended by David | Talk 10:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Surviving veterans of the First World War

A list of people notable only for being alive. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

"Strong Keep" It should be kept as a homage to those who fought so bravely. It costs nothing to keep, and means a great deal to many people.--Gibraltarian 10:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
"Strong Keep"
Strong Keep, I say keep it - these people are living links to the past, and this page maintains that list (This anonymous vote as by 82.41.36.238 (talk · contribs)) - Dalbury (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, soon enough this period of history will slip from living memory so let's keep it living as long as we can. (This anonymous vote is Interista (talk · contribs)'s first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and boot User Zoe for disrespect. Why don't you tell that to the face of a WWI vet. This isn't just about "known for being alive," it's about part of history. That's why they have to be a WWI veteran to be on the list. The number of surviving WWI veterans worldwide is less than 80, while Japan has 1,540 people aged 105+. Clearly, it's NOT the same thing.Ryoung122 07:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No personal attacks. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- comment - And what do you think a comment such as "notable only for being alive" is, when in fact they are notable for being WWI veterans (the second-worst war in history)? Clearly, that's a low blow.Ryoung122 08:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Being a veteran of WWI is not a claim to notability. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    - No, but they are notable because of still being alive more than 90 years afterwards, meaning after the beginning of World War I in 1914, hence. Bart Versieck 11:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      - Even living to the age of 110 or so isn't a claim of notability. I daresay many thousands of people have lived to the age of 100, and many of them fought in a war sometime in their life. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
        
        But this is the internet, so we can now keep up with them, man. Bart Versieck 12:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
        
        Comment. Just because we can doesn't mean we have to. - Dalbury (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
        
        Comment To the nay-sayers: we see thousands of news stories, and Dick Cheney included Emiliano Mercado del Toro in his speech. The Queen of England also thinks they're important. But since you're more important than the vice president, I guess you know better.Ryoung122 20:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
        
        That's a good one, Robert. Bart Versieck 23:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
        
        I hope you're not proposing an article List of everyone ever mentioned by Dick Cheney. -R. fiend 04:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
        
        Really, don't make fun out of it, my "fiend" :). Bart Versieck 22:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

RETURN OF A HERO Mirror.co.uk, UK - Nov 11, 2005 It was in the dark days of 1918 when 109-year-old Henry Allingham said goodbye to France. Yesterday he went back..to remember comrades he left behind. ... Smell of death 'stays with you always' BBC News Britons fall silent for war dead BBC News A rare moment to reflect together on the price of freedom Independent BBC News - ic Wales - all 87 related »

ITN Queen will lead war dead tributes Scotsman, United Kingdom - 12 hours ago ... Henry Allingham, who at 109 is the country's oldest World War One veteran, is expected to be among the former servicemen who will gather to remember the heroes ... Queen leading war dead tributes Scotland on Sunday all 120 related »

Keep. A useful link list containing more than a fair number of notable people. Sjc 07:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. They are notable for being alive despite serving in a war ninety years ago. I also do not think it is abusive to point out when someone is being disrespectful. Laszlo Panaflex 08:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. I don't get it: they are of a generation soon to dye out, so it's very important to honour them from a historical point of view at least by not deleting this very important page. Bart Versieck 09:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. Informative list, but it's going to be quite a job trying to keep it updated... Grutness...wha? 09:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. I'm extremely ambivalent about the value of this page. In my opinion, a list should contain intrinsically useful information on its own, or serve as a useful navigation resource for Wikipedia. The information inherant in this list seems to be a negligable value (it's just a group of people who found in a war and survived to this day), and indeed it is dated (and thus transient) information, which, in my view, makes it less encyclopedic.
On the other hand, there do happen to be a number of people on this list who are indeed notable for other things (and thus have WP articles), so this article does have some (albeit somewhat idiosyncratic) value as a navigation aid. If this were rewritten to be a list of people who have or need their own articles, with brief summaries of who they are, then I think I'd find myself abstaining from voting, on the grounds that this would be a useful but somewhat idiosyncratic list. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Information for a world's record or trivia book, not an encyclopedia. It would be very difficult to maintain, as they are dying rapidly. Also, it isn't Wikipedia's place to honor anyone. -- Kjkolb 11:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your comment really is disrespectful. Bart Versieck 11:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm sorry you feel that way. However, AfD is a place for brutal honesty, and I don't think anyone who voted delete is trying to be disrespectful. They're just trying to explain their reasoning, however offensive some may find it. We have to decide what is and isn't encyclopedic, regardless of whether the subject deserves recognition or honor.
    - Okay then, but I have to say we are maintaining and updating it regularly though. Bart Versieck 12:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I can't believe someone nominated this. Marcus22 12:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose someone definitely not interested in history. Bart Versieck 12:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Or because this is a list of mostly non-notable people, and that this is random unencyclopedic trivia. Please don't speculate about the motivations of others when they are present for you to simply ask them. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    - I disagree with your suggesting mostly non-notable people. Bart Versieck 12:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Surviving WW1 is not notable. Living to beyond 100 is not notable. Combining many non-notables does not make one notable. 130.159.254.2 13:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, sometimes it can. Take, for example, Jim Abbott, who (as his article admits) is primarily known for being a baseball player and being one-handed. His notability would be much reduced if he was only one of the above. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. — Matt Crypto 13:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Notability is rarely something achieved simply by being oneself. For example, World's Tallest Midget is not our game, although Dwarfism and Acromegaly are. WW1 gets ample coverage. Surviving the war and then the years that follow is always something to be rejoiced in, but it is not encyclopedic. (And my grandfather was a WW1 vet.) Geogre 13:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - there should be then millions of names in the list. It's unmaintainable. Renata3 14:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment The list is maintained. It is kept up to date. If the list was for all WW1 veterans then it would be unmaintainable. It is not. It is for those veterans who are still with us. Contrary to being unwieldy, it is a small and dwindling list. In fact it will delete itself in the not too distant future! Marcus22 14:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Oh, ok, my mistake. But then again it will delete itself. And honestly, I don't quite see a purpose of it. It's a list of some unknown names. Maybe just a number would be useful, but not the whole list of names. And how about other countries involved in WWI? Like Russia for example. So it's POV, incomplete and will delete itself. I agree it's all very sad, but... Renata3 14:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    - How is it POV? Incomplete because it lacks Turks maybe. But how so is it POV? These people are alive and they are surviving veterans. Those are NPOV facts. As to the missing info. - by all means try to find out the names of those Turks and Russians. Then add them to the list. It would be better for their inclusion. Marcus22 17:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      - Comment The article is NOT POV. If Iran or Russia have living WWI veterans and put them in the news, then we'd surely add them to the list. Clearly, the English-language Wikipedia has 800,000+ articles, some languages have less than 100,000. Is that POV because the other languages aren't adding material? It would only be POV if we "refused" to accept, for example, German WWI veterans...clearly, that is not happening. Also, when the last survivor dies, the article could be renamed "last WWI veterans," so it doesn't necessarily have to be deleted. Civil War histories of the last Civil War veteran claimants (Walter Williams, John Salling, Albert Woolson, etc) are still read, and included in newspaper and encyclopedia alike.Ryoung122 21:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Keep It is not exactly exhaustive though is it? Surely there are some surviving Iranians, Russians, Turks or Japanese? A very westernised list, the only non-westerners are an Algerian and a Serb who both happened to have fought for the French and 3 Poles, 1 of whom fought for the Germans. I vote to keep based only what David (below) says about their "notability as a class". (This anonymous vote is by 82.13.187.66 (talk · contribs)) - Dalbury (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  - It's not entirely that surprising. For a start, war rolled over European Russia and the Balkans repeatedly since WWI, whereas France had two comparatively short periods of combat and an occupation, and the UK was essentially untouched bar some bombing, after WWI. In addition to these higher mortality rates through warfare - a lot of those young enough to fight in WWI and still live today would have been called up in WWII, especially in the German or Russian militias in 1941/5, or gone into various resistance organsiations - there's the massive death rate of the early USSR to consider, or the high Japanese civilian deaths of 1944/5, the occupation of Poland... and after all that, there's the simple matters of bureaucracy (if no-one in the country knows you fought in WWI bar your family, it won't be known to the world), which is understandably worse in countries where documentation has been damaged or lost by war or political upheaval, and of medicine - medical care in the West is substantially better than in most other countries, suggesting that a higher proportion would survive to an advanced age (100-110 without good medical care is pretty unusual). I'm not saying they're all listed, but I do think that it's fair to expect some skewing... come to think of it, Japanese participation in WWI was low numerically, pretty much only the navy, so you'd not expect many veterans there, and I suspect Western Europe had higher conscription rates than most other participants generally. Shimgray | talk | 16:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm voting Keep on this one. Fighting in the Great War does not itself make one notable, nor does becoming a centenarian, but the surviving veterans of the Great War are becoming notable as a class: the 1999 French decision to confer the Légion d'Honneur on all surviving veterans who fought in France means something, and the surviving veterans are now the focus of so much media activity to try to record all their memories of the time that some of them are becoming known more generally. Without trespassing on WP:NPA territory, it isn't exactly good public relations to nominate this article for deletion on Remembrance Sunday. David | Talk 14:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yikes, that's hideously unfortunate timing. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 14:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per David. I believe that people who are still honored today for a war which they fought 90 years ago are notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. The last surviving veterans of an old war become notable as the only remaining people who can give a firsthand account of events. This makes them significant to historians and media. Early motion pictures recorded the rebel yell of surviving confederate soldiers and their reenactments of battle actions. The last four Civil War soldiers were interviewed on the early days of television. Such knowledge is not codified soon after events. As historians ask new questions these can be the best people to answer. Durova 16:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose I should add that I do have a degree in history. I am also a war veteran. I had relatives who fought on both sides of World War I. Their oral history brought immediacy to accounts of the war. To offer one example, a popular German slogan was "Gott mit uns" (God is with us). My grandfather used to grin and hold up his hands, describing how the soldiers in his company taunted: "Yeah? We got mittens too!" There are still a few people who can bring such moments to life for the rest of us. The ones who remain are a treasure. Durova 23:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. We're talking about a major period of history that is more than 90 years old. Damn right this is a case of being notable for just being alive. If a big deal can be made for the last surviving Civil War veterans 60-70 years after that conflict, we owe it to these people to do the same for WWI. 23skidoo 16:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. I agree with 23skidoo. Also, this list shows the inevitable death of personal connection to the time period of the war. Emersoni 19:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. A topic of enormous interest. This is precisely the sort of knowledge for which the Wikipedia is the best repository. I can't believe that this is being considered for deletion. yeastbeast
Obvious Keep. Veterans of the Great War who have survived to the 21st century are eminently notable and deserving of a list at Wikipedia.--Nicodemus75 18:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This information is too ephemeral for an encyclopedia. And don't accuse me of disrespecting veterans, I served my time in Vietnam. Wikipedia is not for memorials. - Dalbury (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
KEEP!!!How can you even consider removing it? It sickens me that people would want to remove something that reminds us how close the First World War really was. If we remove this. We might as well forget Remembrance altogether! And having laid a wreath today I can tel you, that is something that you just cannot do! (This unsigned vote is 172.212.127.170 (talk · contribs)'s first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep: This is a list which contains our last living links to the Great War--and, granted, some of them, such as Allingham and Flocquet are still very much 'with it'. Soon enough this list will disappear. There are omissions and gaps. However, if you consider 'supercentenarians' and their study 'ephemeral' to the human sciences, then by all means delete. (This unsigned vote is Bacre (talk · contribs)'s first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. OK, let me try THIS discourse instead. It's something called "commemoration." IF you were a history major, you'd know what that is. Some people become notable as witnesses to history (oral history). As commoners, they may not have been important individually in 1925 (instead as a group). However, by 1998 (80 years later) the French government decided that it was time to commemorate and honor the surviving veterans of WWI. And don't tell me about Vietnam. We all know about Vietnam. Do you realize that more than 10 million died in WWI, far more, but for many young people today, they know nothing of the "Great War." Even among US soldiers, the war dead (118,000 in less than 2 years) far exceeded the less intense Vietnam conflict, which saw 58,000 deaths over the course of 11 years. Hence, from a historical perspective, this becomes important as "living history." With the current number of worldwide surviving veterans less than 100, and with the major news outlets deciding that their deaths warrant inclusion in obituaries, this becomes encyclopaedic. In fact, the article helps because although not everyone in the list is important enough to get their own article, together a little can be said about each one. This also helps to balance out the media tendency to "pick one person and run with it." I'm not saying that Lloyd Brown deserves his own encyclopaedia entry, but clearly a list of 80-odd surviving veterans is not too much to ask.
Also, this is an educational tool: it teaches younger people about cohorts, generations, and demography.
As for maintenance, that is a non-issue: many people have maintained it. And for ephemerality, you're missing the point: when the person dies, their death is recorded and moved to a separate list. I note that during the 1950's, "surviving Civil War" veterans was a popular topic. Several were featured in news publications such as the NY Times. Beginning in 1949, the NY Times included dozens of obits for "surviving Civil War veterans." If you want to re-name the article, "last veterans of the First World War," then one could divide the list into those who are still living, and those who died in the last 5 years or whatever criterion is used.
Considering that everyone on the list from the US has been featured in a newspaper, I question what is wrong with keeping track, rather than blindly keeping people in the dark.Ryoung122 21:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Of very wide interest. Carina22 21:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep: Very interesting to many people which is what an encyclopedia is about. There are plenty of people who can and do edit it. Adrian (This unsigned vore is 80.2.178.115 (talk · contribs)'s first edit) - Dalbury (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia should not be a collection of random facts. Ejrrjs | What? 23:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment This is not a collection of random facts. To be listed, someone had to have served in WWI and still be living in the 21st century...a very exclusive club, currently with less than 100 members still living.Ryoung122 00:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  - I should have stressed the word random. To die in a certain year is NN by itself. It probably follows some probabilistic function. Unless you can prove there is some non-random factor about it, like some serial killer targeting some specific veterans, a plague, etc. Ejrrjs | What? 07:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    - Are you sure you're posting to the right discussion? The nomination above this one is for WWI veterans who died in 2004. This is for the ones who are still alive (and therefore the last remaining people who can remember the war firsthand for the rest of us). Durova 08:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      - Let me just add that the probability of belonging here is exaclty 1 minus the probability of being in any of all the other lists (from 1918 to 2005). Ejrrjs | What? 19:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete An article on this subject could be encylopedic. This is not that article. Perhaps if it looked at how these men, or some of them, had influenced the public perception of war or so on. If we do keep, what do we do in a few years time when the 'club' dwindles to zero? Dito for survivors of the 2nd WW, etc. Ben Aveling 01:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep: Very good educational value. Coming from the Far East, I've heard very little about WWI before I chanced upon this website. I used the individual names of the surviving veterans on Google search - which throws up a lot of media reports and historical anecdotes of their personal experiences. They are not only moving, but also inspire me to read more about the WWI in general e.g. the major battles of Ypres and of the Somme. (This unsigned vote is from 137.132.3.6 (talk · contribs)) - Dalbury (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep
- (added by 137.132.3.6 in the wrong place, moved here -R. fiend 03:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC))
Comment: won't this article effectively delete itself in a few years? -R. fiend 04:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Also, regardles of the outcome of this article, most of the individual people's articles should be deleted or redirected. People seem to confuse newsworthy with noteworthy. -R. fiend 04:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Why wouldn't you want to recognize these individuals? It may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing...in fact this is the only list I've ever found of surviving WWI vets, so why take it away? It's a good starting point for research and deserves to be kept. -User: the5thhorseman (This is this user's first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete pointless list that will, by virtue of its subject, disappear in a few years anyway. Dottore So 14:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep! Of very wide international interest (This unsigned edit from 82.221.53.156 (talk · contribs) is the user's first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Obvious Keep For its reference value alone, if for no other reason. Despite searching for several years this is the only list of surviving WWI veterans I've found, including inquiries to such sources as the US Veterans Administration and the Great War Society web page. Given the incredible significance of the conflict, it escapes me how one can say that tracking the few remaining living eyewitness is not relevant or of 'encyclopedic worth.'Frank Womble (This is this user's first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Our basic policy is that if someone is notable, we have an article on them. If a group of people of minor notability are closely related, we merge them into a list and break out to individually notable ones (Harold Lawton, say, or Henry Allingham) using links. Being splashed across national media for two or three days each and every year is pretty much a good definition of minor notability; this is a textbook example of how to write such a list, though probably a couple of individuals could be merged back in. (I also have strong views on the time this was nominated, but for the sake of politeness I'll class it as an accident.) Shimgray | talk | 16:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, as to "unmaintainable"; this page has existed maybe ten to twelve weeks, and had two hundred edits; that's multiple edits a day on average, which is a pretty good indication of it remaining maintained. These people do tend to get at least short notices on the news wires when they die... Shimgray | talk | 16:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Its the least we can do to show our gratitude to all the men- both dead and alive- who fought in such dreadful conditions for our freedom. Very useful and informative page, too. (This is user 88.108.87.158 (talk · contribs)'s first edit.) - Dalbury (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. We seem to have sockpuppets at work here. I realize this is a very emotional issue to many who have posted here, but the anonymous votes and votes from brand-new accounts are tainting this discussion. - Dalbury (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. This is no "David Wong" discussion! These first-time voters likely accessed the Wiki page and noticed it was to be deleted...is it fair to assume people register to vote without telling them in advance when there is to be a vote? Second, unlike the David Wong dispute (where there was obvious evidence of sockpuppetry), many of these first-time editors actually signed their name but didn't know how to post the message (which you went back and corrected). Surely a sockpuppeteer would have known how to post a message!131.96.15.39 00:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I just see a lot of unsigned votes, and votes from newly-created accounts. I might note that discounting those votes will still leave "no consensus", so I'll just let the closing admin sort it out. I will continue to identify unsigned votes and first edits. - Dalbury (talk) 00:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Surviving the First World War is not notable. Surviving well into your hundreds is not notable, although impressive, unless you become the oldest person ever or something. Wikipedia is not a memorial for people who aren't dead yet. I think I've made my point. Lord Bob 20:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep
These people were not only witnesses to events of great historical importance - they were also participants. Their actions helped enable the events to unfold that have given us the lasting legacy of those people, places and impacts that are now deservedly ensconsed in the pages of history.
These living links, to what is for most of us is a distant past, are invaluable - just by living and being acknowledged - in their ability to bring that history alive and relevant. The list of real, living participants in these key events that directly lead to the modern western world, cannot help but pique the interests and curiousity of those who otherwise may have had limited awareness or interest in this key historical event.
Lastly, for all of the positives of keeping this list, to what or to whom, does the maintenance of this list detriment? User: gr8f8 17:57, 14 November 2005 (There is no Wikipedia user named User:gr8f8. This is from 157.127.124.134 (talk · contribs)) - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 02:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There is just no encyclopedia topic here. This is WikiNews material. It might make it into an almanac. As a society, we should honor our veterans but that's not the proper role for an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep These individuals are lauded by presidents, royalty, and fellow countrymen, who regard them as heroes and living treasures. They are widely covered by the media. The simple fact that they are honored by so many makes them notable. Acctorp 02:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. I agree with Durova --FRS 02:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. I recommend that this article be kept and that all users who voted to delete it suspend their notions of what Wikipedia is and is not, procure a new notion which includes the permanent presence of this article, and then proceed to edit Wikipedia again. Seriously, some people are so far off track that it gives me concern for the project. What is going on here? silsor 07:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- What's going on here is that Wikipedia is being used to honor people (who, to be fair, do deserve to be honored), instead of document ideas and knowledge. I don't see the difference between this and using Wikipedia as a memorial or genealogical resource, both of which are called out specifically in WP:NOT. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Would we post a list of everyone who served in WW1? WW2? Why honour these people above all the others? My Grandfather served in WW2. Why should the fact that he died 10 years back make him less worthy of honour than the people on this page? What about those who died in the war? Why honour these people above them? Ben Aveling 07:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    - Indeed. This is part of why Wikipedia doesn't honor poeple; there are far, far too many people for this project to honor them all, without neglecting the primary purpose of making an encyclopedia instead of a memorial. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    - You are overlooking the fact that these people ARE notable. For example, as they die, their deaths are reported in the national press. If you or I die, our deaths will probably not be reported in the press. Why the difference? We are not notable and these people are. Similarly, many of them are also reported in the press whilst still alive; if they attend a service it might be reported. If they fall ill and go to hospital; it might be reported. And so on. Why is it reported? Because these people ARE notable! Marcus22 10:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      - You are confusing "notable" with "momentarily newsworthy." You may want to read WP:BIO. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        
        Nope, you are confusing "momentarily newsworthy" with "notable". Marcus22 11:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        
        That doesn't make sense. I am saying that not every person that is momentarily newsworthy is notable. Please, do read WP:BIO; while this list is marginal, individual articles on someone who is merely a surviving WWI veteran are clear-cut cases. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  - A Man In Black, I disagree that this list is meant to honor, 'per se', these individuals. The fact that they are honored worldwide makes them notable. It's this notability, not a desire to honor them, that warrants their inclusion. Indeed, many of these individuals are minor celebrities and had their own Wiki pages before this list existed. Acctorp 17:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep for reasons above. --Merovingian 07:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, definitely. My only question is what happens to it when the last vet dies. I suppose we could convert/redirect it into a chronology of WWI vet deaths. Everyking 09:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Delete this after the last World War I veteran dies of old age. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- See, that's the problem I was thinking of. In my mind, an article should never be temporary, awaiting deletion at some future time: if we're going to have it, we need to either plan on keeping it forever or have some idea for redirecting or moving it. Everyking 10:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  - This is incorrect: many wikipages address current events or are dynamic in nature. Acctorp 17:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    - I didn't dispute that. I just dispute the concept of a temporary article. I'm saying it's fine as long as we have an idea of how to convert it into a different kind of article (move and rework) or redirect it somewhere else. I can think of rational ways to do that; I was just raising a point that occurred to me. Everyking 06:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep It's a useful list. There are so few now that they are notable. --Amortize 11:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep - Information is information. The only way to be unbiased is to keep all the information we can - removing information is like trying to censor history.
Comment Some thoughts on what is being said in here. There are claims that someone is notable because his or her death is reported nationally. My first wife's death went out on the national wire services, and was printed in newspapers all over the country. Does that make her notable enough for a Wikipedia article? I don't think so, as her chief claim to fame was that she was the first woman "of color" to be elected a national officer of NOW. Her death was "momentarily newsworthy". What is notable is that only a few veterans of World War I are still alive. Their individual names are not notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. It has been claimed that these people are notable because of the conjunction that they are veterans of WWI and still alive. By that reasoning, can I start a List of veterans of both World War I and World War II? My grandfather would qualify for that. An encyclopedia is not supposed to include everything imaginable. I recommend everyone read Encyclopedia as well as What Wikipedia is not. - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 12:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Refactor into something more easily maintained with a name which does not compell us to delete the article in a few years. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 13:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep, and, yes, this article will eliminate itself within 20 years. I do think Zoe's comment was a little insensitive, not to mention untrue; the notability argument rests on both their age and the fact that they fought in WWI. Still-living witnesses to major historical events accrue notability as they become rarer. — Matt Crypto 13:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Note: listing still-living witnesses to a historical event has precedent on Wikipedia, e.g. Living Titanic Survivors. Acctorp 17:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Heroes though these people may be, this is not the place for them. Also, the list is obviously going to reduce every year. --StoatBringer 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, and as it reduces, the members of the list become even more notable. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep Do not abandon history and the memory of what these individuals have done to make the world we live in. --165.247.223.239 19:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Mike H. (First edit by user User:165.247.223.239)
Delete. Unless these people are individually notable, they should be summarised in an article. There is a difference between respecting what they did and thinking they individually stand out. People are not *entitled* to a wikipedia article, and it is not disrespectful to suggest that an article should not be written about them. --Improv 20:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is not a debate on deleting pages of individuals; it's a debate on deleting the summary article covering them all... Shimgray | talk | 20:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I say keep it, & please ensure this valuable resource is updated regularly. Mark Denton (First edit from 87.254.67.141 (talk · contribs))
Move to something like Veterans of the First World War who survived until after 2005. Wikipedia articles should specify a time period - this article will otherwise keep getting smaller over time. Imagine the 1911 Britannica having a comprehensive List of veterans who survived the Civil War, and kept updating it each time more people died until there was eventually no article left? ---- Astrokey44 22:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- One of the arguments for Wikipedia over Britannica is that we can continually update our articles to reflect current changes; so, no, I can't imagine 1911 Britannica doing it, but why shouldn't we? — Matt Crypto 23:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 - There just seems something wrong or disrespectful with this article. Its sort of like the comment above "ensure this valuable resource is updated regularly" which pretty much means crossing people off as they die. So its like you hear over the news that a wwI vet passes away - ok better go cross him off the wikipedia list. There is some policy I believe here that you should use the date rather than terms like "now" and "surviving" - I read it somewhere, cant find it now. It sets a bad precedent too, lets start: Surviving 1920s jazz musicians, Surviving athletes from the 1904 Olympics and be sure to keep an eye out for the news so you can cross them off as they die, and eventually delete the article completely. Why not a whole Category: Surviving people Astrokey44 00:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 - Comment I have suggested that this article could be re-named "Last Surviving Veterans of WWI". That word construction is ambiguous enough that it could include living and recently deceased WWI vets (since if they died in 2004, for example, they'd be "one of the last surviving veterans of WWI). In that case, the question becomes, what is the cutoff point? Someone has suggested Jan 1, 2001 (start of the 21st century). The alternate plan is to leave it as it is, and th deaths are being migrated to lists such as "WWI veterans who died in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005...)Ryoung122 09:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

That sounds better, and also mark them as deceased but leave them on the list when they pass away, so that the list doesnt disappear. Could you make the cutoff point 2005 and just say that it has been arbitrarily chosen? Astrokey44 11:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment Could someone explain to me how votes from new accounts are somehow "tainting" this discussion? I didn't notice anything in the FAQs about how long I have to have an account before I can vote on an article.Frank Womble 14:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. See Wikipedia:Sock puppet, and especially the Section near the bottom on Meat puppets. - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 20:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Preaky 18:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Due to various reasons already stated above WCX 19:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Just about as strong a Keep as it is possible to have. I came across this article because it has exactly the information I was looking (and more). Well, gee. Wikipedia has information a user needs shocker! Then I notice that some numbskull has chosen Remembrance Sunday to propose it for deletion. Breathtaking. Just breathtaking. Icundell 14:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed so, I honestly cannot agree more. Bart Versieck 14:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teatro do som

The article is blatant vanity. It was probably intended as an advertisement. Superm401 | Talk 09:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete - betcha it's a copyvio too. Renata3 17:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It's copied directly from [16]. While I don't see a copyright notice on the Web page, that's a problem. - Dalbury (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] That show this Morning

Notable school radio show ERcheck 16:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Apparent entry. Creator has articles. ERcheck 16:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Clearly non-notable. TrafficBenBoy 16:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Save Lack of vanity PTSE 17:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator. --Merovingian 05:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Save Why stop people from being educated about things, it seems wrong and against what this site is set up to do. --Seb 21:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Doc ^ask? 11:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Scandal

Original research. I cannot find evidence that the term "The Great Scandal" is significantly connected to the rôle of the Roman Catholic Church in the rise of Nazism. Whether or not the rôle of the Roman Catholic Church in the rise of Nazism is sufficently presented in Wikipedia, the idea of this article is flawed. We have several articles on this epoch, events, organizations and actors (Enabling Act, Reichskonkordat, Centre Party (Germany), Franz von Papen, Ludwig Kaas). --Pjacobi 20:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup. Digging a bit, the title actually refers to a hypothesis that Christian religious figures both Protestant and Catholic were involved in the Nazi rise to power. Broadly speaking, Germany is Protestant in the north and Catholic in the south. Thus none of the existing articles cited could properly address this issue. This is not original research. The term comes from an article by Gregory S. Paul in Free Inquiry. [17]. In terms of notability this is a close call. It's been cited among some secular humanists as an argument against Christianity. Given the weight of the subject and the scholarliness of the accusation, I'd say this deserves a balanced article. Durova 21:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as another soabox article. If this title deserves an article it should be about the article in question (analogous to Hitler's Pope) and not used as a soapbox. Str1977 22:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Please check my link to the original citation. This article misrepresents the scope of the original. The original is not analogous to Hitler's Pope. My college courses on German history support at least this much: there was no great outcry among the Christian clergy in Germany against Nazism or the Holocaust. Heroic exceptions of course exist, yet the overall picture is indeed a worthy subject for discussion. To cast this in purely anti-Catholic terms is unfair to Catholics. Taken as a group, Lutheran clergy were equally silent. Durova 03:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  - I'd consider your college sources to be mostly right, but this shouldn't result in separate article but be addressed in the relevant articles. --Pjacobi 11:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    - What relevant articles would those be? I checked every one suggested and none fit. The 1933 Enabling Act is inappropriate: that was a legal device the Nazis used to gain power. This doesn't fit into a biography of any specific Nazi figure. The Reichskonkordat, Centre Party (Germany), and Hitler's Pope are all specifically Catholic discussions. Germany has a roughly equal proportion of mostly Lutheran Protestants. NPOV cannot be maintained when three separate articles cover Catholic collusion with the Nazis and none discusses Protestant collusion with the Nazis. When a thesis appears that actually treats both equally, one editor erases the Protestant component and rather than restore balance you prefer to merge it into slimly related matters or a Catholic article? Consider the gravity of the subject. Durova 15:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
      - Yes, the issue is grave but this is not the proper article. If you want some article on non-Catholic clergy and the Third Reich, they could be created. Also, judging from my experience, the starting editor of this article will not talk much about the things you ask for, focusing solely on specifically Catholic discussion (apart from a bit on Industrial magnates on the side). I'm sorry to say that but that's how it is. Str1977 14:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup. Im just wondering what other article paints the pope as aquesting to Germany, because of his anti-communism. I didn't even know about it, until a WWII vetran brought it up. One of those 'missing' peices of the puzzle of WWII that never gets covered in the histry books. Should we just sweep it under the rug too? --Artoftransformation 22:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Str1977. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, OR. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete JG of Borg 04:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Clean up I've heard this phrase used in the context of Pius XII. D e nni ☯ 05:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep,Clean up and expand, possibly rename. Does the funny name justify deletion of the widely expressed allegation? Who says it does? Why? Have they tried balancing the various articles , I ask. How could they not repeat the necessary back-ground and links into each such article. Is it not artificial , and does it not obscure . The reference here to the WWII veteran proves my point at the start of H's Pope- that the term was commonly understood by earlier generations, or is , at best , the Nazi Pope. Because this was hazily understood by such generations, should we continue the haze obscuring it ? Do we not , in fact require editors to obtain the plethora of recently published books concerning this subject both pro and anti, and write the article better? The presentation of the subject of how the dictaorshop took legal hold at the Nazi/Hitler pages is minimal in understanding, and only I included the Communist arrests. Before that, it was written in WP that the Communist party had been banned from the Reichstag , for chrissakes . Keep, & invent true name. I will open a page that seeks to list all the possible titles , now .Ps. Readers of even the defensive links placed in balance will find little defence in the early era, and Goodoldpolonius2 blasted the latter era 's supposed, Jewish ,defence tother day on now NpoV tagged Pope Pius XII talk . Early era produces wriggling of the what w'd u have done kind. Nazi Accession Question posted .EffK 11:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep & Cleanup - looks very real [www.secularhumanism.org/index. php?section=library&page=paul_23_4]. Just needs quite massive clean up and checking for POV and accuracy. Renata3 14:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as it stands. If it stays, it absolutely must not remain under the current title, which is not an accepted term. (Grosse Skandal, Pius XII [18] produces no meaningful results in Google). Dottore So 14:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete It is a SOAPBOX article from an editor unwilling to subject his edits to verification and to consensus in the existing articles in the Wikipedia. It is a fork. It is original research. It is written poorly. It basically fails Wikipedia criteria at every point possible. The title The Great Scandal is meaningless and without definition even within in the article itself. patsw 22:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete. Title of article is apparently original research. Article as written is not capable of being cleaned up. Another article with a different name and written with better sourcing presented as NPOV might be capable of being written. Robert McClenon 01:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's amazing how many people don't follow other editors' links when they're offered. Durova 02:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup, possibly rename. Smerdis of Tlön 17:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Original Weedman and E-on

Not notable musicians. Google has no definitive, WP:MUSIC passing info on them. feydey 00:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete both per nom. TheMadBaron 06:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete both per nom. - Dalbury (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn musical Klonimus 23:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. They can come back after hit the bigtime. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete both. Non-notable. *drew 15:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Phormula

more band vanity. doesn't meet WP:Music.

Delete per nom --Bachrach44 06:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: CD presses in every studio mean that there are lots of "records" out there, but unsigned, unremarked, undistributed bands are still below the radar for an encyclopedia. Geogre 13:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, ignoring sockpuppets R e dwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tim McGowan

Overly illustrated page about a musician/composer. Creation by McMusic suggests vanity. Notability check please before I userfy it. -- RHaworth 09:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I wouldn't even bother with userfying it. It's an invitation to bring it back. --Nlu 11:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as NN, vanity. There is a profile of him on [19]. The home page of that site says, "Clear Channel has partnered with GarageBand to showcase the best undiscovered talent on our radio station websites." He lists nine CDs, but the only three I can find label information for were self-published (the "Tim McGowan" label and the "McMusic" label). Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC that I can see. - Dalbury (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete Just because the home page for Clear Channel states it is partnered with Garageband to showcase unsigned artists is irrelevant...Does that mean every artist listed on Clear Channel is unsigned? NO! Google "Tim McGowan" He is all over the place, get your facts right 1st! Overly illustrated!! Because someone showed the initiative to brighten the page up and be informative at the same time with album cover pictures and logos? This artist deserves to be listed. Have any of you heard of Kitaro or Arkenstone either??? Don't know where you got your "half of the story" release info from but his music is released by McMusic International (edit by McMusic (talk · contribs))
Comment. McMusic International does not qualify as a major label or one of the more important indie labels, as defined in WP:MUSIC. - Dalbury [[User_talk:Dalbury|(talk)]] 20:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment In your opinion...and who are you to state this? Uncle Sam? Important enough to have released over a dozen albums from several artists...be listed on the All music guide, Amazon in several countries including Japan - France - USA - UK, Yahoo music, AOL music, Napster, MSN, Sony Connect and dozens more!! His music has been in international/national radio station Top 10 lists for over 12 months, sometimes 4 - 5 different tracks simultaneously in the same Top 10 list. You would have learned this if you had researched properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.218.167.77 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 November 2005
Kill it with fire. Blatant self-promotion. If Mr. McGowan is indeed found to satisfy WP:MUSIC, it'd be best to start over from scratch from a neutral point of view. This is an ad, not an encyclopedia article. android79 23:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is all moot anyway – much of the material in this article is a straight copy-and-paste from [20], making this a copyvio. android 79 23:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
RE: Kill it with fire "Blatant self-promotion" would be the case if I was indeed Tim McGowan but, Tim McGowan I am NOT!! What do you find offensive about this page? The CD Cover artwork? The Logos? or his promo picture? #1 When Reading about any artist many people like to see the cover artwork...it adds to the collective information about the artists and tells a story in itself. #2 Many people like to see what the artist looks like. #3 Logos are as much a part of an artists identity as #1 & #2. #4. Permission was granted for inclusion of all materials used. Who knows their career history better than the artist himself. You are assured 100% accuracy.

I really don't see what the fuss is all about here. Other than being unfamiliar with the artist in question...Maybe you should broaden your horizon and listen to different genres. New age is a small selective market but thousands of music lovers do appreciate it. I am sorry you don't particulary find the information interesting but many fans do. McMusic

Let's see... McMusic is the music label. Your username is McMusic. How is that not self-promotion? You're promoting an artist on your own label with an ad disguised (poorly) as an encyclopedia article. android 79 05:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

So Cynical You my friend are promoting yourself on your page...telling the world your likes dislikes and just how wonderful you think yourself to be. It doesn't matter what I chose to use as a user name it's just a name. Your chose android79...Does this mean you are less than human and lack compassion, understanding and just common sense? The people blocking this page with ridiculous claims at the top are nothing more than vandals themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.231.159 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 November 2005

Please note. Android, Encyclopedias can be general, containing articles on topics in many different fields. An encyclopedia also often includes many maps and illustrations, as well as bibliography and statistics. An encyclopedia seeks to discuss each subject in more depth and convey the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject. All of which was done in article. By your comment above are we all to take it that all information on the list of musicians and artists listed on Wikipedia are nothing more that ads? Are we to go edit each of them with notices saying they shouldn't be listed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.231.159 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 17 November 2005
- Uh, that's my user page. It's not a part of the encyclopedia. Note that there is no Android79 or (insert my real name here), only User:Android79. Draw whatever conclusions you wish from my choice of username, though I've explained the meaning, such as it is, on my user page. Please refrain from personal attacks. The fact that you chose McMusic as a username indicates you have some relationship with the music label – that was my point. I'm well aware of what an encyclopedia is. I've got no problem with including an article on Mr. McGowan in this encyclopedia if he is shown to meet the criteria for inclusion and if the article is written in a neutral, non-advertising tone. android 79 19:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Criteria Met. It says in criteria "is notable if it meets ANY one of the following criteria:" He definately meets several of them, (#1, #2, #3 and #4 immediately jumps out just by visiting his website), if you want you can do the research...The article I wrote is neutral...I did not say he was the best thing since chocolate. I merely described his music for the reader who may never have heard any and wondered what to expect, as in style, if they did. His bio tells the story of what he has done in his musical lifetime so far. How is that an ad? There was no personal attack on your name either, as you put it "Draw whatever conclusions you wish from my choice of username" It was merely a conclusion such as yours on mine. Albeit a wrong one! You say you don't have a problem with Mr McGowan being listed, you can see he meets the criteria, therefore, if you have indeed become an administrator, please put an end to this nonsense and remove any notices and allow this page to be accessed directly without any further obstruction.
- The article indicates that McGowan's former bands meet criteria #1 and #2; this is an article about McGowan himself. McMusic does not appear to be a major label, so #3 is out. I see no indication of meeting #4. android 79 20:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Mr McGowan being the writer and copyright holder of the songs for previous bands he has worked with still entitles him to be considered to the meet the criteria of #1. regardless of who else played an instrument along side him in the recording. As far as #2 goes. I can also confirm that McGowan has toured the UK, several times, and I presume you will agree would be considered a medium size country. #3 and #4. are moot points, one does not have to meet all criteria listed...it states "ANY" should be met.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Todd McKinnon

Editor who created this also appears to be inserting links to it into other articles such as Melbourne, Ben Lee and WaveAid - however content of article, as well as quick googling, seems to show that it's all vanity. -- Chuq 00:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Chuq 00:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless sources given -- Thejesterx 01:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Real problems under verifiability for this article. A Google search for "Todd McKinnon" Melbourne had two results, a Wikipedia page and a list of Melbourne carpenters see [21].

A search of Australian and New Zealand newspapers for "Todd McKinnon" achieved 1 result, a profile of a junior rugby player in the Waikato Times. No assertion that he meets any of the criteria in WP:NMG such as albums, hits or tours. Capitalistroadster 01:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. .
Delete. Ambi 02:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Cnwb 03:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Can't verify this guy exists as claimed in the first place. --W.marsh 03:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete no schools named after him. Klonimus 23:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity/nn -- Ian ≡ talk 04:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete please. --Roisterer 04:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN. *drew 23:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 21:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Top 10 facist leaders of the uk

Clearly a POV insult page, but not clearly enough to be speedied. Superm401 | Talk 18:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Nominated for a Speedy and a clear candidate with the list starting with Hitler, running through Stalin and Jiminy Cricket with Jimmys Cousin rounding out the list at number 10. Could be speedy deleted under G3 as silly vandalism, A1 as a short article with little or no context and even A6 as an attack page. Capitalistroadster 18:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There's clearly context and that's a loose interpretation of the vandalism critera. A6 might work, but I didn't want to risk it. Superm401 | Talk 18:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - nonsense. ERcheck 18:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Capitalistroadster. Not one of the people on the list is an identifiable person from the UK (either they're not identifiable, not from the UK, or not persons). --Metropolitan90 18:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS - default to keep Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Veterans of the First World War who died in 2004

Also, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2000, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2001, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2002, Veterans of the First World War who died in 2003 and Veterans of the First World War who died in 2005

Wikipedia is not a memorial. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete for being unencyclopedic. Tuf-Kat 07:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep as companion to Surviving veterans of the First World War. Laszlo Panaflex 07:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment I am having trouble deciding where I stand on this afd. First off, I agree that Wikipedia is not a memorial, however I don't really see this list as being a memorial. Counter to this is the reason to keep because it is a companion to another page, which I don't feel is an adequate reason enough to keep. I would like to see this page kept only because the current system prevents me from listing all subjects that fulfill two or more categories, for example Category:2004 deaths and Category:World War I people. Hence, a system able to do this sort of database query would really superseed the need for these sort of pages. However I don't feel I should vote just yet. -- malo (talk) 08:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This just feels too much like a memorial page, and the grand majority of these people do not merit encyclopedia articles (so it's not a useful resource for browsing Wikipedia). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - sets a precedent for Veterans of the First World War who died in 1950, Veterans of the First World War who died in 1973, Veterans of the First World War who died in 1989, etc. FCYTravis 10:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. as per Laszlo. Or at least merge these articles into Surviving veterans .... Marcus22 12:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge to "Surviving veterans". That they are the final survivors grants an amount of notability, and is as such much different to the mentioned precedent. However, 2005, 2004 etc. deaths don't benefit from their own articles - although recent deaths and survivors should be kept separate out of respect for the latter. --Kizor 19:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete them all - I see no purpose for it. Renata3 14:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC) Neutral. Renata3 18:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment As has been pointed out elsewhere, all surviving veterans who fought in France have received the Légion d'Honneur. I don't know enough about the Légion to insist it confers notability, but it must need consideration. Marcus22 14:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting. All the surviving ones since when? Certainly not every single veteran who ever fought? -R. fiend 16:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Apparently France honoured all surviving veterans who fought on French soil in 1998. (Or, possibly, 1999). Marcus22 16:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    - OK, that makes sense. Any idea how many there were at the time? -R. fiend 18:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      - Comment To qualify, the person had to serve in France during WWI and still be alive in Nov 1998 or later. The number is likely 2,000. I feel this is an 'example' of commemoration, but should not be the criteria for inclusion. I prefer another choice: perhaps those whose deaths made the AP wire? Or maybe those still alive in 2000 or later, already a concession by dropping the 1998 and 1999 honorees (if the annual death rate is about 50%, we can estimate 1,000 left in 1999, 500 in 2000, 250 in 2001, 125 in 2002, 63 in 2003, 31 in 2004, 15 in 2005...)Ryoung122 21:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      - The ones here should be the majority. --Kizor 19:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Professionals at the Canadian War Museum have commented to me on how valuable a resource these lists are. - SimonP 14:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'll give some more information per request. My father is a historian there, and they are constantly being asked about how many surviving veterans there are, and about the rate that they are disappearing. I find this entire preoccupation somewhat grisly, but there is a widespread fandom for aged veterans out there. The War Museum people routinely direct queries to these Wikipedia articles, as they increasingly do for a wide variety of questions. - SimonP 15:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment. This may or may not be a valid reason for keeping, but it proves that - unlike many that end up in AfD - these articles are useful. --Kizor 19:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    - This seems to be a use essentially indistinguishable from using it as a memorial or genealogical reference, two things that are explicitly called out in Wikipedia is not.... Then again, I hate to say, "Bugger off, our site isn't supposed to be used for this." - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Rename to List of World War I veterans who died in 2004 (and the others too) so it follows naming conventions more closely. As long as the individuals deserve an article, this list is informative. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. They failed to create List of World War I veterans who died in 1991 and left out my grandfather. Durova 16:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, or perhaps Merge all pages into one of WWI vets who died in the 21st century. An arbitrary cutoff, but it's about as good as we can do. And I'm really wondering hwo we can merge them into the "Survivors" page when they'r dead. Makes no sense. -R. fiend 16:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think there is also a problem with most of the individual articles on the survivors. For the one's I looked at, the only reason they have articles is because they happen to be alive. That's not exactly notable. Will their articles be deleted when they die? I suppose they'd have to be, or else they'r jsut articles on average soldiers in WWI who happened to lie at one end of the lngevity bell-curve. -R. fiend 16:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - See my discussion on the subject in the following nomination. The last survivors of an old war become an important source of oral history. Durova 19:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Slighty off topic but why is it OK to honour Generals but not average soldiers? Most Generals, certainly in the UK and certainly at the time of WW1, did a darned sight less than the average soldier and yet, because they were born into the right family and thus became Generals, they are considered more readily notable!! (I'm not specifically saying that that is your viewpoint R. Fiend by the way). Marcus22 17:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    - Wikipedia doesn't honor anyone. Wikipedia documents encyclopedic topics, topics which have been widely analyzed and discussed. Individual soldiers (generally) fall below that bar. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      - No I didnt mean Wikipedia honoured Generals. Countries tend to honour the well-born and ignore the rest. Here in France there are streets named after Generals, likewise in the UK. Few if any are named after Privates. Its seems rather unfair. However, on a very closely related subject Wikipedia AfD's do tend to claim that "all nobility is notable" - which is just about the biggest load of t**s I've ever heard. Marcus22 17:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
        
        Oh, I get what you're saying about generals. I guess it's just because generals are visible and influential.
        As for nobility, however (un)important nobility are in a practical sense, they are widely discussed, analyzed, and written-about. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    - I for one, do not think Generals are inherently encyclopedic, but let's face it, many who fought in wars very are significant historical figures. And MiB is right, we're not honoring anyone. Certainly in terms of heroic deeds, many enlisted men did much more than any general; count the number of congressional medals of honor given to privates and comapre it to the number given to generals. But it is a simple fact that General Patton is an encyclopedic topic. The private who stood next to the guy General Patton slapped is not. Some guy who fought at the Second Battle of Ypres and and lived to be 102 is not any more encyclopedic than the guy who fought next to him who died of cancer at 67. -R. fiend 17:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes I agree re: Patton and that's a fair point re: the chap at 102 and the chap at 67. I suppose my problem is that in instances such as these, it seems to me that it is recognition which confers notability and not vice versa. (Hence Generals are more typically notable because they are recognised; even though they do not do necessarily do anything in order to become notable). That recognition, in turn - as is the case with nobility - owes a good deal to the fact that they form a much smaller and more prominent group. Precisely what these Veterans form by virtue of their longevity and relative uniqueness. Hence keep! Phew... I'll get off my soap box now ;) Marcus22 19:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The whole concept is un-encyclopedic. When I was a kid Life magazine would have an article for every Civil War veteran who died, but those deaths were current events, news-worthy because of their rarity, but not historical. At best, I can see a small section in World War I on when the last known veterans for the different countries involved died. - Dalbury (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Doesn't do any harm. Carina22 21:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Or merge into new article, "Last Surviving Veterans of the First World War." France decided in 1998 to honor all veterans who served in France AND were still alive 80 years later with the Legion d'Honneur. Of course, the number may have been about 2,000. The real question for me is at what point does the number remaining become significant? No one even bothered with 1998 and 1999, so the starting point seems to be Jan 1, 2000...those who survived to the new millennium. I note the 2005, 2004 lists are much better maintained; 2003 and 2002 have some use; 2001 and 2000 are thinner. So, each article should have been nominated for deletion separately.
Also, this is not a "category" list of people with articles: the idea is that while a few of them (Emiliano Mercado Del Toro, Henry Allingham) merit their own articles, the majority do not; hence the list becomes a way to note a few small tidbits about each one.Ryoung122 21:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. This is a perfect argument for why these articles should be deleted. These people are not notable. QED. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
- You are really being riduclous now: it's just the opposite, madam Zoe. Bart Versieck 22:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  - The point was, this was ALREADY a compromise. Some fanatics went around, trying to create articles for all these people. Having a list in one place with a small mention seems rational. There are many instances in which lists are made, and not everyone on the list is notable, but the list itself is. For example:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_elements_named_after_people
    Wikipedia does not yet have a page called Colonel Samarski.
    Colonel Samarski may not be notable, but "samarium" is.
    However, if you want to belabor the point, nearly everyone in the lists came from an AP wire story (that is, I found out about Kansas's last veteran from another state, not Kansas). Also, several of them have seen extensive media coverage, and so it makes sense to have an article that lists them, together with the others who may not warrant a separate article.
    Consider, for example, that France currently has six remaining WWI veterans who served 3+ months, and plans to make paintings of them. Henry Allingham of the UK has his own museum exhibit. Also, newspapers tend to mis-inform the public. In Jan 2005, it was claimed that Carlo Orelli was Italy's last WWI veteran (but there really are more still living).
    Finally, because what defines a veteran or significance varies,we see for example in Australia, "last Gallipolli survivor," "last digger," "last active-service," "last enlisted," etc. Clearly, a page with all of them together helps to educate and disambiguate what tends to be a confusing subject.
    If Wikipedia is ONLY going to have what's in the Encyclopaedia Brittannica, then we don't need Wikipedia. Ryoung122 22:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Exactly the same reason as for the "surviving" veterans article, my dear friends. Bart Versieck 22:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
As it looks like we're not really moving towards consensus here, a merge, along the lines of what myself and Ryoung122 proposed, might be worth pursuing. Obviously we need a cutoff here (we're not going to have a page for every year), so the 21st century might be a good point (that will involve losing the year 2000 deaths, however). SimonP makes an interesting point. He says that the Canadian War Museum "are constantly being asked about how many surviving veterans there are". I'm sure that's the case. Many people are curious, and I am a bit too. The answer, however, is not several pages of information, but a 2-digit number. I'm sure almost no one is really curious about what their names are, except their families (who obviously know), and some historians (who don't use Wikipedia as a source). And Zoe is quite right, almost all of these are not notable, and do not deserve their own articles (with few exceptions). -R. fiend 22:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep: I know Wikipedia is not a memorial, but listing those World War 1 veterans who died in a certain year is not a memorial. It should be kept because it can be a reference for people to see how many world war 1 veterans were living in a certain year. Stefan Heikel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.234.163 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 13 November 2005
Delete per nomination. Ejrrjs | What? 23:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the discussion so far about why these people are notable. I also agree that not all of these people need individual articles, so categories are not the way to go here. I like R. fiend's suggestion. Merge to Veterans of World War I who survived into the 21st Century. Jacqui ^{★ 00:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
Delete. WP:NOT a memorial. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. This is just not encyclopedic. Dottore So 14:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, useful and encyclopedic. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There's just no encyclopedia topic here. As a veteran, I feel strongly that we should honor these people. But Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Rossami [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 02:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Merge into WWI Veterans who died in 21st Century. This information is useful for researchers and media. Solidly encyclopedic. Acctorp 02:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
delete where did this information even come from? --TimPope 21:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Acctorp - JDH Owens[[User_talk:Jdhowens90| talk]] | [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Esperanza]] 21:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Merge as proposed above. For justification see my comments on the AfD on the surviving veterans. I think the 80th anniversary of the ending of the war, when France awarded the Légion d'Honneur, or January 1, 2000, or the beginning of the 21st century, are three possible options for an objective time at which to begin noting the deaths of those who experienced this war. Perhaps a renaming should be considered as these are essentially lists. David | [[User talk:Dbiv|Talk]] 21:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Whilst this is not the sort of information one would find in a paper encyclopedia, it is, in my opinion, useful, and worth keeping. I followed links to this page having seen a documentary on surviving veterans, and was curious to see if Wikipedia had any further information on the individuals featured, and those still alive in other countries. This is the kind of information I often turn to Wikipedia for, and, I suspect, so do many others. fatbarry2000 23:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep: Else, put it in another page for the oldest war veterans by age.-Neal. (first edit by —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.125.170.239 (talk • contribs) ) - Dalbury 11:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete all, unless this info can be verified - in which case keep--Doc ^ask? 10:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- But, Doc, it is definitely verified. Bart Versieck 12:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

This article was speedily deleted by User:Zoe with the summary "{{speedy}}{{db-a3}} {{afd}}he is Sooo Chan!!". This AFD is closed. encephalon 00:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Soo Chan

An article that wants to be a vanity page when it grows up. Corvus 17:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete - G1, A3. ERcheck 18:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - gibberish. --Bachrach44 18:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Definite Speedy, as above. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as above. TheMadBaron 19:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: this is an textbook Speedy, so I've added the speedy template to the page and it should get taken care of soon enough. — Saxifrage | ☎ 22:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedied. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Geogre as vandalism. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vladimir Stolishnikoff

Does not seem to be notable abakharev 01:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Hoax. The stub claims he was a Russian revolutionary who escaped to the United States and designed Carnegie Hall. Vladimir Stolishnikoff returns zero results on Google. Carnegie Hall was built nearly twenty years before the Russian revolution began. The principal people involved were William B. Tuthill with Richard Morris Hunt and Dankmar Adler as consultants (hall); Henry J Hardenbergh (tower additions 1894); James Stewart Polshek & Partners (hall renovation); Cesar Pelli & Associates (tower). [22]. Durova 04:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Seems like a hoax unless someone can verify the claim in the article about page 109 of "The New Russia" as the only place this guy is mentioned (seems unlikely). Anyone in a university library? --W.marsh 04:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as A1 short article with little or no context. User Durova has shown that he had nothing to do with Carnegie Hall other than possibly attending a concert there. Zero Google hits which is unlikely for the man who designed Carnegie Hall. Capitalistroadster 06:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speed-of-light delete, there should be a separate website for wikidotism. KNewman 08:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deleted as vandalism. A hoax designed to pull one of our collective fingers. Geogre 13:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 11:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White supremacy psych-pop

No evidence that this exists. Klonimus 23:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There is a Liquid Candybar garage band, but they play local club dates and have a couple of CDs that they sell for $5 apiece, or which can be downloaded. Google gave 161 hits for "Liquid Candybar", but half were for the cocktail; there was a lot of duplication among the rest. If they are the best known band in WSPP, then it is really obscure. - Dalbury (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I'm a bit surprised that there's no article on White power music to merge this to (and I'm not competent to write one). Gazpacho 03:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: The idea of an article on white supremacist music has some merit. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 08:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 04:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xenocanon

Bandvanity, fails to meet WP:MUSIC and has just 925 Google hits. FCYTravis 00:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Punkmorten 00:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete I can find no matching guidelines within WP:MUSIC -- malo (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per now. splintax ^(talk) 09:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
del. per nom. -- WB 22:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. *drew 15:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xunil Rumors

A single unverifiable rumor about a corporation which apparently doesn't have an article of its own. CDC (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ha, okay, ignore my last revision. I totally misread the article the first time around. Anyway, yes, completely unverifiable and unencyclopedic. Delete. Jacqui ^{★ 01:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
Delete - it should qualify under some speedy criteria as an attempt to create a blog. Renata3 14:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 01:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yaksha technos

Blantant spam. Speedy delete if possible (although I can't find a good category for it), otherwise simple delete as soon as possible. --Nlu 10:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Karol 11:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I love the "our solutions". How NPOV. Superm401 | Talk 11:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, blatant advert. Nothing worth keeping in case it's notable enough for a rewrite. Speedy if possible. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. And, once again, curse the unfortunate fact that "blatant advert" is not yet a criterion for speedy deletion. Here's to the happy day that omission is rectified. — Haeleth Talk 18:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. per nom. The only Google hits are mirrors of this article. - Dalbury (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Why, why, why is there no Speedy Deletion criterion for this sort of idiocy? Reyk 21:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] November 13

[edit] 24601

[edit] 2Bucks Short

[edit] 2KORPSE

[edit] 4th album : TBA

[edit] 80s Preservation Society

[edit] American Peoples Congress

[edit] Angry Aryans

[edit] Asif aftab

[edit] Basic German

[edit] Batipi

[edit] Behr syndrome

[edit] BelAmp

[edit] Benedict de Boithor

[edit] Bopsoc

[edit] Bråhögsbadet

[edit] Brian Watson

[edit] Cameron Young

[edit] Christopher J. Cohan

[edit] Clan McWho

[edit] Cock and ball torture

[edit] Conversational Recruiting

[edit] Cory You

[edit] Crossworm

[edit] Cyberbegging

[edit] David Bissette

[edit] D.C. Scorpio

[edit] Dead Sea Fucking Scrolls

[edit] Debbie wong

[edit] Diablozone

[edit] Dogbomb

[edit] Dr. Vinod Shanker Dubey

[edit] Dwayne Rudd

[edit] Eley Williams

[edit] Elvis and Slick Monty

[edit] Engineering Ivies

[edit] Environment Shift in Episodes of Avatar: the Last Airbender

[edit] Erik Klapton

[edit] Evorgreen

[edit] exacube

[edit] Exindfabrics

[edit] Extramarital sex

[edit] Flack Attack

[edit] Gingernaps

[edit] Glenview, Saint Clair County, Illinois

[edit] Golden City

[edit] GOTL Theology

[edit] HMS Duke of Edinburgh

[edit] I Have A Dream (song)

[edit] Idiyappam

[edit] Indian Evangelization

[edit] Industrial Rap-core

[edit] Interchanges on Ontario provincial highway 401

[edit] Interchanges on Quebec Autoroute 20

[edit] International Stock Imagery Association

[edit] Internet cartoon

[edit] Jack Edwards (EastEnders)

[edit] James Atkinson (software developer)

[edit] Jamie Lee Hamilton

[edit] Jaren Ashton

[edit] Jaycee Studios

[edit] John Abela

[edit] Jonathan Wellington

[edit] Kastle archives

[edit] Keynote Systems

[edit] Knovi: a life-long learning forum

[edit] L virginia bridal

[edit] Lancaster University Writers' Guild

[edit] League of Micronations

[edit] List of best-selling music artists 2

[edit] List of Jewish bankers

[edit] List of theatres in Mumbai

[edit] List of victims of the American Civil War

[edit] Luke Bailey and his Ukulele

[edit] Mantras and Prayers

[edit] Mario Days

[edit] Mark Curtis