Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 19

< November 18	November 20 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 14:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MuggleNet

MuggleNet was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-30. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MuggleNet/2005-07-30.

MuggleNet was nominated for deletion on 2005-10-07. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MuggleNet/2005-10-07.

See also MuggleCast (AfD discussion).

Wikipedia is being used as a media to publicise a Fan Site. 203.145.137.226 11:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixing malformed AfD notice. That being said, speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination from a vandal. H e rmione1980 13:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep. Previously nominated twice, and kept. I don't see any reason to delete this article. MuggleNet is notable enough for J.K. Rowling to invite its founder to her house for an interview. --D e ath phoenix 14:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep a site that gets 20m hits/month. Marskell 14:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep This is the third nomination in less than six months. This is getting absurd. Jtmichcock 14:35, 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.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spazz

looks like yet another non-notable band... -GTBacchus ^(talk)00:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep A few releases listed on AllMusicGuide and Amazon albeit on obscure label (Slap A Ham). The label's website is defunct. Seems to have a reasonable cult following Jasmol 01:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I can't quite agree with the above. (I have an AMG entry on my band, and I zealously oppose an article on it, so I'm not being hipocritical.) The reason is that the article says nothing, really, about a band, but merely offers a substub about a guy in the band who owns some..something... and then that there is a screen name in use with the same name. Basically, two CSD "empty" articles combined into one. If this is all there is to say about them, they're not encyclopedic. Geogre 02:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete another minor band. Power violence? That's a new one. Oh, maybe it's just them doing it... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Geogre. Pburka 21:12, 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.

[edit] Gary Bajaj

I'm unclear on whether this person is sufficiently notable, submitting to AfD for review. --Alan Au 00:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. He looks like a lokal businessman to me. Pilatus 00:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Notable in his local area but not prominent enough for Wikipedia. Doubt his company would meet WP:CORP.Capitalistroadster 00:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: It appears that he founded and runs an ISP and has been honored by his local newspaper and Chamber of Commerce. A locally significant figure, but not a person known or sought in a wider context. Geogre 02:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Joel7687 21:50, 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.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eric J. Lindblom PhD

This looks like some sort of vanity page. Harvard University is mentioned in the text, yet the Harvard phone dictionary (which lists all staff and students in addition to the teaching faculty) doesn't have his name listed.

The article states that he has a monograph published, but the daily bread of social scientists is to publish monographs.

Delete as vanity unless notability established. Pilatus 00:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nominated. Apparently this is a forum username of someone from Buenos Aires, Argentina. --Timecop 00:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: The article text is a jumble of references comprehensible only to the author, I think. No actual teaching job is mentioned, and the "book" cannot be found. At best, he appears to be a professor, of which there are many. He doesn't appear to be notable among those with such qualifications. Geogre 02:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom - notability not established. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 08:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Unverifiable - Google Scholar knows not of him either. Dlyons493 Talk 10:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable and probable vanity. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I have never been so sure about an AfD. This is probably autobiographical, badly (worthlessly) written, not wikified.. name something good, please. Nazgjunk - - Signing is ^{for Whimps} 19:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Er, the AfD tag is nice... :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:32, 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'Voice of All'^T|@|ESP 22:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coffee Comic

Must afd non-notable comic. feydey 00:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 01:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Jasmol 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, don't see any evidence of notability. -- SCZenz 16:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as no evidence of passing WP:WEB Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The comic is not funny, has a spelling error in it's title, it is ugly drawing, and no one seems to know it. Yes, it *is* that simple. Nazgjunk - - Signing is ^{for Whimps} 20:25, 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.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St. Blog's Parish

Umm, right... wikipedia is not a directory of the web/vanity/advertisement. This appears to be hosted off earthlink, so I couldn't really do an alexa ranking of it. The google hits are full of incestuous linking so I don't find those relevent considering this is some webring. Skrewler 00:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Nice thought, and condolances for the death of the founding member, but very much non-notable. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 00:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As nominated. non-notable blogjunk. --Timecop 01:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Stop clogging my internet. -- Femmina 01:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: The aggregate of separate blogs is not a cumulative significance. Essentially, this is a portal page for blogs. Although a few of these, such as blogspot, might be so overwhelmingly central as to pass the threshold, almost none others will. Geogre 02:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Jtmichcock 04:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. per nom. Don't worry about the Alexa issue, the intersection of notable websites and Earthlink hosted sites is probably a null set anyway. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:17, 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 speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Kaplansky

Attack page, Hoax, Deleteabakharev 00:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 00:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete somewhere between db-bio and nonsense. Jasmol 01:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete: Libel/slander page. Geogre 02:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as an attack page. I don't know why he buried those people in his crawlspace, it'd be really hard to dig down there. Also, what do human resource hedgehogs do? -- Kjkolb 08:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete - attack page. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 08:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deleted. Libellous attack page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 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 Speedy Delete.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 22:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Levi Connolly

Appears to be non-notable vanity bio. The show that he produced, "Country Close," is not listed in IMDB. No Google hits for +"Levi Connolly" +"Country Close" Jasmol 01:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete or speedy delete: Another "up and coming" musician whose first album is supposed to come along next year. Seems like the usual fantasy article. Geogre 02:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with nomination, existence of participation in a series called "Country Close" is unverifiable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete no evidence of notability, no releases to date, come back when you're famous. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:24, 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 no consensus to delete; article moved to WBSN. Johnleemk | Talk 11:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LifeSongs Radio

Eh, no google news, 12,000 google hits, not even bothering with Alexa as this is a radio station. Skrewler 01:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Die please. -- Femmina 01:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete: It's not a web radio station, according to the article. Thus, if this is an actual radio station, the article is mistitled, as it should be listed by call letters, and not slogan or trade name. Verification is therefore made all the worse. It is likely that the station that hosts this programming already has an article, but it's impossible to know. Geogre 02:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Question: How would you name radio station foreign to the US which don't have call signs? As far as I know stations are named by their frequency in the Netherlands. Naming them by call signs (if existing) would break the rules of using the most common name. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, its call sign is WBSN. It's a class C station and those aren't usually notable enough for inclusion (still only a proposed guideline). It appears to be a religious station that rebroadcasts content made elsewhere. -- Kjkolb 08:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete although since it is an actual station broadcasting on actual FM (apparently) others might disagree. It is undoubtedly of strictly limited importance. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep/Rename Call the article WBSN. It's a fairly large and popular New Orleans station.Vonspringer 21:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Rename and Redirect to WBSN. Radio station broadcasting in New Orleans; notable enough to keep. Eusebeus 14:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Move to WBSN and make this redirect there. I don't support articles for individual radio shows, but if we can confirm a station's existence, then I don't see why we can't keep it. Jacqui ^★ 15:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Move to WBSN. Seano1 22:07, 24 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 02:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Weate

Vanity, 1,000 google hits. Skrewler 01:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

- Comment - this was an orphaned AFD. Now listed properly. Eddie.willers 01:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- Femmina 01:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep if verified. Forget the blog: the book is verified, and that is a tremendous number of hits for a philosophy popularizer. Geogre 02:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete 1,000 hits is a low number of google hits for a philosophy popularizer who claims notability. No indication of notability. Mr. Weate also lists Consultancy as his profession on his blog. Bwithh 03:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep To help work against systemic bias. For someone working in philosophy from Africa that's a lot of hits. He's also published scholarly papers Achille Mbembe and the Postcolony: Going beyond the Text in Research in African Literatures and Postcolonial theory on the brink: a critique of Achille Mbembe's On the Postcolony in African Identities. That would be below my bar on an American/European academic but I'd keep this. Dlyons493 Talk 10:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Dlyons493 and for Young Person's Guide to Philosophy, available in many school and public libraries. - squibix 15:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:BIO as author of widely published and reviewed book. Capitalistroadster 16:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep marginal but systemic bias argument is persuasive in this case. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep author listed on amazon with a popular title. --Quiddity 04:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per the verifications above. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per, um, everyone. Good research, guys. Jacqui ^★ 15:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Why was this targeted as part of the The war on blogs? The blog link is incidental. He is writing and publishing in a country where 1% of the country has internet access. Google is not likely to be an accurate measure of his notability. As above, this is a great example of systemic bias. mennonot 00:04, 22 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 02:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Austin

vanity/bio Skrewler 01:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. -- Femmina 01:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep: The Firesign Theater is quite popular, quite well known, and Nick Danger is still quite well remembered. More particularly, there are many references to the character/skits in other ("hippie") media. The article could be better, but it's not deletion material as it is. Geogre 02:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:BIO. Appeared in several films see IMDb [1] and New York Times movie guide. [2]. Capitalistroadster 17:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete - yes, he has an IMDB entry, but the most recent (of very few in total) items were all TV or straight-to-video, and reviews for the two verifiable films include such choice comments as "This movie is proof that the Firesign Theatre's best medium is radio." Maybe Firesign Theater is bigger than this guy (althoguh he is twice credited as Firesign Theater, so maybe it is this guy) - or maybe radio / record is their medium and I'm just looking in the wrong place? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, radio was their medium, absolutely. Duck's Breath Mystery Theater and Firesign Theater were, with the National Lampoon Radio Hour, very popular high brow entertainment in the early days of FM (1970's). Their albums sell/sold well, and their syndicated shows were very popular. However, they were never a visual act, and Nick Danger, in particular, is very thin visually. This is the scene that the first Saturday Night Live cast came out of (not this particular troupe, but the nightclub and radio performers of the West Coast in the 1970's). Geogre 04:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  - OK, keep it is then, thanks. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per IMDB entry. One shouldn't go on the most recent entries. This guy has several acting and writing credits for regular and TV movies even if straight-to-video stuff was ignored. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to have been a notable radio personality in the 1960s and 1970s. Pburka 21:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Tuohirulla 21:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Firesign Theatre? Of course it's a keep. D e nni ☯ 00:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. It's ridiculous to claim this is about his blog when he's been doing work on radio and in theatre for years. It just means no one has bothered to do any research. I've added a few links to external sources and made a start at an expansion. There's plenty of information out there if someone wants to take the time. mennonot 23:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Nick Danger! -- DS1953 04:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Geogre and Capitalistroadster. Hall Monitor 23:44, 22 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 02:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] La Shawn Barber

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Shawn Barber

Vanity. 3 google news hits, but some of them are from BLOGS? since when does google news point to blogs?.. alexa is 100,000. useless Skrewler 02:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Since provision of news online has become increasingly important. Google News checks all of its sources before adding them and inclusion in the Google News database is an indication of notability for a blog. Further, both Google and Yahoo have a blog search given that blogs are becoming increasingly important in the news cycle. To this nomination, Barber meets both WP:BIO and WP:WEB Further, she is published not only on blogs but in publications such as the Washington Post, National Review Online and the Washington Times see list of writings [3]. Over two million hits for La Shawn Barber see [4].

Keep. Capitalistroadster 02:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep: Terrible article, terrible person, but extremely well attested in outside media. He is referred to quite often in other formats. Geogre 03:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep--notable blogger, often referenced on other notable sites (e.g. National Review Online or Redstate.org) and has a wide readership. As per Geogre--terrible person, but notable. Meelar (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Has made several appearances as a commentator on Fox News. Agree with Geogre and Meelar: Barber is a truly odious person, but a notable one. Andrew Levine 04:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Rhobite 05:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. What gives with the anti-blog campaign dude? —RaD Man (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. You people are a bunch of uninformed, anonymous screaming squirrels. First of all, I am NOT a man, so dispense with the "he." Second, I have NEVER been on FOX news. What kind of voting process is this when voters don't know the facts? I never wanted to be on Wikipedia and hoped the "Deletes" would win the first time I was nominated for deletion. Unfortunately, the "Keeps" won. This time around I hope the Deletes win so my name will no longer be associated with this site. VOTE ME OFF! - La Shawn Barber
- LOL <3 Skrewler 16:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep odious but verifiable and almost certainly notable. Quality sock above, BTW, congrats to whoever it was :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete if the author herself wants deleted. I'd personally think she deserves to be included, but we've deleted numerous more bloggers with a lot more traffic and a lot more links. So in the interest of consistency, and especially if La Shawn wants off, this is a no-brainer. --YHoshua 19:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
comment User:YHoshua has emailed me (and presumably other users as well as I have had no previous involvement with this article or the previous AfD) in an attempt to canvas delete votes:

Please help me remove this entry that's simply a vanity blog ad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/La_Shawn_Barber_%282nd_nomination%29

We've deleted many more blogger entries that had more traffic, hits, and publications, so in the interest of consistency we need to delete it. Besides, the blogger herself asked to be removed, so it's a no-brainer.
I note this here in the interests of openness and fairness to all sides. no vote. Thryduulf 00:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Peculiar use of "no-brainer" if you ask me. Keep. A ninny, but not a non-notable ninny. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete because not notable, and author wants to be removed. See the Wiki terms on that.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.166.224.237 (talk • contribs) Thryduulf 22:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. As long as the article is factually correct and NPOV, it should not be up to the author whether it is included or not. Ms. Barber is notable for her publications both on and off the Web. What's with calling someone a "terrible person"? That says a lot more about the person writing it than with the one so described. Logophile 14:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's a dinky stub that could use some heavy TLC, but she fits the "published author" criterion on WP:BIO. (I was also e-mailed by User:YHoshua, FWIW.) - jredmond 15:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Also, color me skeptical about that comment being from the real La Shawn Barber. -Colin Kimbrell 15:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Being published isn't enough, and her list doesn't meet the criteria on WP:BIO. -- User:Bobby B 15:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- No such user as "Bobby B". The vote was actually by User:149.166.220.125. Rhobite 21:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Can we tone down the attacks towards the subject here? She's well known enough to warrant an article, whatever your opinion of her. In addition, a subject doesn't get to choose whether Wikipedia contains an article on her (though I highly doubt it was the real person making that comment). Carbonite | Talk 20:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see anything that's changed since the last nomination. --Carnildo 22:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
This anonymous squirrel screams delete an article on somebody who's touted as yet another rightist -- and doesn't the US have more of them than of schools? -- but whose own website redirects to some "Teletubbies" nonsense. -- Hoary 03:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per everyone else Joe I 03:57, 24 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Superman

At best, this is an inferior reproduction of Superman. At worst, it's an attempt to present fiction as fact. Delete and redirect. On a related note, delete Image:TheSuperman.jpg as unsourced. Melchoir 02:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Sure looks like a joke. A redirect is cheap, but I hate even having the possibility of preserving this in history. Geogre 03:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination and Geogre's comments. Do not redirect. ERcheck 04:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are plenty of free websites that can host joke pages. Jtmichcock 04:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree with everything above. Gsd2000 17:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is almost funny. It doesn't add anything for people who haven't been living in a bunker since 1938. Nazgjunk - - Signing is ^{for Whimps} 20:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete semi-amusing nonsense. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I suppose in the fictional DCU Earth this article would require a request for expansion, because it's very incomplete :-) --Pc13 22:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PJM 07:03, 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 Keep. --Tito xd^(?!?) 02:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scott W. Johnson

Vanity W Johnson 900 google hits nn Skrewler 02:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as a substub: No position on the worth of the subject, but the "article" is a predicate nominative. A fact is not an article. Geogre 03:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:BIO and WP:WEB. Highly notable blogger and opinion leader. Co-founder of PowerLine, Time Magazine blog of the year for 2004 for the their role in exposing the use of fraudulent documents by 60 Minutes leading to the end of Dan Rather's career. [5], Website has 80,000 visitors a day see [6] "Scott Johnson" Powerline gets 141,000 Google hits see [7].

Johnson appeared on CNN's reliable sources program in response to a book from CBS Producer Mary Mapes see [8]. Highly notable blogger. Capitalistroadster 03:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Independently noteworthy from Powerline. Jtmichcock 04:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Agree with capitalistroadster. His blog is notable and if one of the blog co-founder's Wikipedia article has barely survived the AfD process. I don't see any harm of keeping this one. --J. Nguyen 04:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I have expanded the article including the material cited above. No change of vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 01:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. You know how I am with substubs. (I squish 'em!) Geogre 04:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Skrewler, if you don't know what you're talking about, you should probably stick to reading instead of trying to edit anything. --Daniel11 02:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Please, let's not insult nominators or other voters. It's enough to vote to keep. Geogre 04:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but don't bite the Skrewlers. Jacqui ^★ 15:09, 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 Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notmyrealdomain

No Alexa rank, WP:NOT a web directory. --Alan Au 03:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Basically a forum site. WP is not a web directory, and it absolutely isn't a forum Yellow Pages. I'm glad its participants enjoy it and find it humorous, but it isn't encyclopedic content. Geogre 03:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

notmyrealdomain is more then a forum. To some, it is an entire way of life. In the forum private section, some of the more venerable have made such threats as to kick their dog if the site is not listed in Wikipedia. By no means am I an animal lover, but I would hate to see a dog be needlessly kicked. notmyrealdomaintites are all very upset. Also note that notmyrealdomainism may eventually evolve into a religion.

Delete, but I suggest we BJAODN the above comment. Jacqui ^★ 15:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable website/forum. ERcheck 04:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. Herostratus 05:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I will edit the article to make it more neutral.

Delete NN mdd4696 21:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Joel7687 21:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Pc13 22:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum or web guide means we only include articles about websites with a significant amount of visitors. Since the nominator couldn't verify this was the case with the particular site he nominated this for deletion. It's nothing personal and you shouldn't feel upset about it. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- See WP:WEB for suggested criteria for the inclusion of websites and forums. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 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 no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsafe sexual practices

Not suitable for an encylopedia. Not useful information. Rubbish Alex Bartho 03:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I don't see why it's not suitable, the information needs some cleanup but it is useful. Ifnord 03:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Suitable topic for entries and (potentially) very useful information. Jtmichcock 04:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep although article needs some work. Herostratus 06:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: if this is to be kept, it needs objective definitions of how a practice qualifies as safe or unsafe, with statistics and references for proof about what is actually dangerous. -- Kjkolb 08:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: 1. Mistitled (should be Unsafe sex. 2. Already covered in Safe sex. 3. Because of the title, it is POV. Let me explain this last: These are practices that qualify as "unsafe sex," but they are not practices that are unsafe inherently. Inasmuch as "safe sex" and "unsafe sex" are both compounds that refer implicitly to HIV/AIDS, they have lost their literal meaning of "safe" and "unsafe" + "sexual intercourse." 4. In this form, it's rather a Wikibooks entry. To be encyclopedic, it would need, really, to indicate sources, history of the scheme, implications of the campaigns, etc. Geogre 13:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete and transfer useful info to sex. --YixilTesiphon 17:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Effectively a mirror image of Safe sex. --Last Malthusian 18:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Geogre. KingTT 18:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
VoiceOfAll closed this debate as no consensus after a single day. Since that is improper, I have reverted. Also, delete, fork. R adiant _>|< 23:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep. This page needs a lot of cleanup but it contains what is very useful information in these days. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete User:Ejrrjs says What? 00:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete This is almost certain to be searched for at safe sex. Replication here is silly. D e nni ☯ 01:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge antyhing useful and redirect so people who look for this actually find something. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Geogre is exactly right. Eusebeus 14:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, especially per Geogre... and Denni. Jacqui ^★ 15:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect redundant article to Safe sex. — RJH 16:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. -Sean Curtin 01:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge Why not have a section in safe sex that outlines what are considered the riskiest practices? Sethie 07:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge anything useful per MGM. Kappa 12:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Has a lot of potential. Voyager640 05:43, 27 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 redirect to Codename: Kids Next Door. —Cleared as filed. 05:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King Sandy's Castle

Obscure, only appeared in one episode. Kookykman|(t)e 03:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep or merge with the episode in question. Kappa 06:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Codename: Kids Next Door as per WP:FICT. —RaD Man (talk) 11:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Codename: Kids Next Door. Merging is unnecessary, IMO, as items found in single episodes are far below the threshhold of what is part of an encyclopedia's coverage of a show. Geogre 13:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per Geogre. I agree with him again. Eusebeus 14:44, 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 delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This is a hard call, so I'm exercisigin my judgement. Several said the entry to be kept only if changed to some titles. For instance current title (about "standard classes") has a HUGE systemic bias. The titles as "known by many" are way ambiguous, etc... There's also a majority of delete votes (almost twice as keeps) but I concur with several math fellows here that this list is not the proper approach. However there are some interesting ideas (an entry about NAMED formulas, etc.... and I want to chip one more: how about an entry about trig formulas, one about calc formulas, etc so you can put them in context and explain the relationships between them (as they relate to the same topic) so to avoid the list gathering for the sake of gathering (and then using a category to group those themed lists)?

[edit] List of well known mathematical formulas

Wikibooks Introduction to Astrophysics has a page on the topic of

Laws and Formulae

Wikibooks' Trigonometry has more about this subject:

Sum and Difference Formulas

Wikibooks' Trigonometry has more about this subject:

Trigonometric Formula Reference

Wikibooks' Electronics has more about this subject:

Formulas

Wikibooks' [[wikibooks:|]] has more about this subject:

Collection of Mathematical Formulas

Delete title is far too broad; there's no way this list could ever be sufficiently inclusive while staying within a reasonable length for an article. --Trovatore 03:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Trovatore. Dmharvey Talk 04:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, if it got longer, it could be split. Bizarre nomination. Kappa 06:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. I have no objection to a list of well-known articles. I could sort of enjoy a list with Euler's formula, de Moivre's formula, Pythagoras'. But a+b=c? That isn't a meaningful formula. I might change my vote if the article improved a lot. -lethe ^talk 07:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- After thinking about it some more, seeing the improvements made to the article, and reading other peoples votes and comments, I'd like to change my weak delete to a normal delete lethe ^talk 23:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep if someone actually puts some work into this. I could turn into a intresting page eventually.--Ewok Slayer 07:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

¿Should we change it to Significant mathematical formulas? as some of these formulas will only be know to people who have taken their respective math classes.--Ewok Slayer 08:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not useful article. If someone is looking for some formula on Wikipedia, there are better starting points (like articles about the objects in question). Samohyl Jan 07:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete Much as per Iethe. This could become an interesting starting point but needs a lot of work. Dlyons493 11:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment Ewok Slayer has done some good work and the list is less trivial now. But it's still a grab-bag of things thrown together for no obvious reason. I still think that no list produced under this title is going to be anything else, because as I said in the nomination, the title is far too broad. --Trovatore 16:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)*'
Strong keep - Definitely must keep, for people who are generally looking for formulas should use this, but for a more exact formula then, perhaps they should use the appropriate article. --Kilo-Lima 16:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep as useful list. Well done to Ewok Slayer for his work on this list. Capitalistroadster 17:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Arbitrary list of questionable use, and poorly written. "Well-known to whom?" is the key question here.--David Dumas 17:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If this looked like List of equations I would support its inclusion, but few formulae have their own articles. KingTT 18:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment The list might possibly make sense under a title like List of formulas taught in standard mathematics classes, and I suggest that this is possibly the original intent. A title like that would provide some sort of logical rationale for the choice of the results presented. The intro could specify that it's talking about classes presented in a standard sequence, meaning up to basic calculus. (After that, things start to branch out.) --Trovatore 18:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Impossibly broad. There are thousands which are well known to scientists and mathematicians. Vonspringer 21:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. useful list. --Vsion 22:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We don't need yet another poorly written, unmaintainable, impossible list. It could be useful if it was split up by category, and referenced real articles. Editorial energies would be much better expended by improving the articles in Category:Elementary mathematics, most of which cover the topics in this list. Elementary math topics on WP are in terrible condition, and creating something like this list does not improve that situation in any way. linas 23:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. I'm not sure this is encyclopedic, but it's at least handbookic. I have before me Pocket Ref, Thomas J. Glover, 1999, Sequoia and it's full of stuff like "Formulas for electricity: 1) Ohm's law, 2) Resistors in series, 3) Resistors in parallel," etc. CRC Standard Math Tables (does anyone still use those?) has its tables of derivatives, integrals, mensuration, etc. An argument for something like this is that if you know there is a formula but you don't know what it's called, you might not be able to find it by name, but you be able to find it in an article like this. On the other hand... well... it's listcruft. I agree with Trovatore that I suspect this of being the sort of thing you'd bring in as a "cheat sheet" for an examination that allows it... Dpbsmith (talk) 00:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC) But only if it is moved to List of well known mathematical formulae Dpbsmith (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
If kept this should be renamed to List of mathematical formulas per naming conventions. Any formulas that are not well-known or notable don't belong on a list in the first place. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Formulae! Formulae! True, I just checked and discovered that some debased, meretricious so-called "modern" dictionaries accept the barbaric and incorrect spelling of the plural, but I never, never will! O tempora, O Moses! Dpbsmith (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Mores! Mores! Even debased, so-called modern dictionaries of quotations won't use "Moses" (I hope). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hugely and impossibly broad topic. We could never fit this into one article. It is spelled 'formulae' as well. --Bucephalus [[User talk:Bucephalus|talk to me]] 11:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Abstain. CRC Standard Math Tables are still used, as are other handbooks with mathematical formulas. The problem is that these are complete books, so we need to be extremely selective if we want to keep the list within a reasonable length for an article. On the one hand, I think this can be done in principle; on the other hand, I don't expect this will be done in practice. I am not happy with the list, and I shared my worries with the author at User talk:Member#List of well known mathematical formulas a few days ago, but I cannot find a good enough reason to vote to delete the list, hence I abstain for the moment. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- "can be done in principle... don't expect this will be done in practice." Nicely put, and my own thoughts precisely. When are we going to get the article rating feature turned on? Dpbsmith (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete I don't believe this is encyclopedic or manageable. Eusebeus 14:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment If there are other lists on Wikipedia, then why not keep this one? --Member 21:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The difficulty is that it is not at all clear what belongs in this list, even with the new title. To me, it sounds too much like list of well known English phrases. You could include "the cat sat on the mat" and "peace in our time" and "these aren't the droids we're looking for" and "I think therefore I am", but where do you stop? (See also Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists.) Dmharvey 22:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

(that should have been "I have a bad feeling about this") :-) Dmharvey 23:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. There's no such thing as standard mathematics classes. Conscious 07:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- My bad on that one; I suggested it and Member took me up on it. On reflection a better name would be List of formulas from elementary mathematics. That's at least plausibly a manageable and useful list, and seems to be more or less the original intent, provided Elementary mathematics is defined to include basic calculus (which I think it should be). --Trovatore 07:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Move to list of common mathematical formulae. There is no reason why we can't have an easy-reference list of formulae. Charles Matthews 10:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
KEEP. On the condition that its title is changed to something more specific, such as "formulas commonly known by many." With the current tile, it could be interpreted as: "okay, who are these forulas most well iknown to?" Now, I know it refers to those that are commonly known, but it needs to be specific. The Wookieepedian 19:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete under any of the names so far proposed. (Is continually redirecting the article appropriate while it's under AfD?) Cannot be encyclopedic. Could be appropriate for wikibooks, if the title is established. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I see no use or purpose. Fredrik | t c 06:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment as it is, the article lists rather lame formulas, not notable in their own right. I think an article which lists "named" formulas (like Euler's formula and so on) might be a good idea, but this is just a collection of trivial school stuff. Grue 17:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Half-cooked, unencyclopedic, and not helpful. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep the updated list. Klonimus 06:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It seems this page was created for the purpose of listing high school algebra/trig formulae, calculus formulae, etc. I note that most of the supporters of this page seem to have this idea also. There may be nothing wrong with a page entitled "list of common trigonometric formulae" etc., but the current title (and all redirects so far) are misleading. I recommend deletion and that people interested in creating lists of trig formulae,etc., do so under an appropriate heading. --C S (Talk) 22:36, 24 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 02:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ionian School

This article refers to a non-existent 'school' of philosophy, and causes unnecessary confusion WhiteC 03:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Many Google hits for "Ionian School" as a pre-Socratic school of Greek philosophers. 70.122.87.59 04:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe the concept began as a reference to the Ionian philosophers and got transferred to an mythical school by analogy with the Milesian school.Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep real encylopedias have articles about this. Kappa 06:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Is not Wikipedia a real encyclopedia?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Even the puny Encarta encyclopedia mentions this school of philosophy [9]. The article looks good to me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

If it looks good to you, then you ought to be able to say what the school platform is, right? Would you care to enlighten us?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. What the hell is wrong with you? Five seconds on google proves this is real. Night Gyr 09:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Very emotional. But what do you mean by real in this context?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. *ahem* Looks like someone is confused alright. —RaD Man (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying you are able to judge what is confused and what not? If so, care to fill us in?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep but please, please, please, let's not go off insulting nominators. AGF applies to all edits, including nominations. It's sufficient that the article will be kept. Geogre 13:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

But I thought that was what was to be decided!Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup. The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica had an article on this school. Google books comes up with 10 books mentioning them including two by Karl Popper [10]

27 results from Google Scholar see [11]. Notable philosophy school. Capitalistroadster 17:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that this article was in several encyclopedias does not mean that it is not inherently misleading. Referring to any group of philosophers whose only common attribute was geography as a school is misleading--they didn't all agree with each other, and were from several different time periods in Ancient Greece. Perhaps this usage is sufficiently common that it should be retained in Wikipedia as a stub to point at schools of philosophy which are not arbitrary classifications. Anyway, I challenge anyone to come up with a different reason than geography for including all these philosophers in a 'school'. WhiteC 02:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Almost all of them were physicalists and proponents of monism. Also, besides the geographical region they shared, they obiousvly shared a cultural background, and a mythology that they tried to keep out of their philosophies (makign the the first true Western philosophers). Isn't that enough? Karol 10:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Accepting for the moment your argument that there is nothing that can actual be called an "Ionian school" of philosophy, the fact that this term is in several other encylopedias makes it inherently likely that users will try to look it up in this one. If usage is inconsistent then we should do our best to describe this inconsistent usage in an NPOV way. Kappa 03:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

There is something to that argument, but does Wikipedia want to be in the business of overtly correcting error in other encyclopedias? I say, no. Let those in error correct themselves.Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Karol 10:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep if other encyclopedias cover it, we should as well. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia should strive to be independently excellent and in so doing provide information that is fresh and not always to be found elsewhere. Why should I not get my Britannica or MS Encarta off the shelf if Wikipedia is only a parrot?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. WhiteC, I can understand your logic, but it appears that so many other sources call this group by that name, that that's what people would search for. If you'd like to add something to the article pointing out their differences, that's your perrogative. Jacqui ^★ 15:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

But what if they should decide to search for sky-hooks. Is it our business to provide an article on sky-hooks?Dave 05:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, immo vero! I had a lengthy section in here but someone altered it without any indication of who, and no record of the alteration in the history. That can only be a Wikipedia sys admin. It is pretty hard to answer tactics of that nature. This is beginning to sound like Plato's ideal state, where only the few get to do any thinking and talking. I hope that will not be the case, but it will be if you let it.

Let me retiterate and summarize, there is no Ionian school. I have no idea who on the Internet is promulgating the notion, but you know, once something gets said once, it gets repeated over and over. The pre-socratics are not physicalists, neither are they all monists. As for the panmetabolists, that term is incomprehensible to the general public and certainly is not ancient. Wikipedia seems to be having a lot of trouble with its philosophy. I suggest that getting back to basics will improve things considerably. Don't we have to think about the public? As a bottom line, I would like to say, if you have to start out by saying there really is no Ionian school, you aren;t building any confidence that what you say is true.Dave 19:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

PS I'm really talking to you, aren't I , Karol? No, the reasons you cite are not enough to distinguish an Ionian school. The coast of Anatolia was diverse, Different dialects of greek and different languages were spoken there. So there is no geographic unity. As for the cultural background, it was Hellenic. The Ionians came from Attica and bronze age Peloponnesus. Why not call the Athenians Ionian? And the mythology, they didn't believe anything no other Hellene didnt believe. Where's the distinction? And physicalist? A very obscure neologism I dare say. It is nowhere defined. I don't see ANY method at all here, sir. No way to distinguish an Ionian school is presented.Dave 05:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I am replying upon request. I don't doubt there were substantial differences between the particular Ionian philosophers, and we know they didn't "collaborate", but they had alot in common, at least in my view of them. I can't argue specifically about cultural backgrounds and history, because I don't feel knowledgable in that area. In any case, grouping philosophers into schools is really a post factum job, chronologically speaking, so the concept of "school" goes beyond who they were and what they spoke/wrote/thought to include our contemporary interpretation of their philosophies. I'm probably writing more than needed. Let me just add that physicalism is not a neologism (you can also find references outside Wikipedia), and I know I used the term "off limits", but that was intended, becuase I couldn't find a better one at the moment - perhaps materialists? Karol 08:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The discussion seems to be centering on the concept of materialism. See the next comment. My main doubt is that I do not see the "materialism" as distinctively Ionian.Dave 18:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep The "Byzantine Empire" never considered itself that. To it's subjects, it was the Roman Empire, and they considered themselves Romans. They preserved Roman culture for nearly a thousand years after the Western Roman Empire fell. But historians have a problem with calling it the Roman Empire, because the original territory of the Roman Empire was lost. Oh well. They can call it whatever they want. It's a convention. That's what names are. Conventions. "Byzantine" makes it easy to differentiate the later Roman Empire from the earlier. Which brings us to the distinction of the Ionian school of philosophy. So what if it's geographically based. It's also called the Melesian school, also a geographical distinction. It was started by Thales of Melitus, so go figure. Thales had a couple really cool disciples (well one disciple and one sub-disciple), and some contemporaries who no doubt benefited from all their wisdom. Between the lot of them they pumped out enough philosophical material to be considered a school. For this, maybe we should call them "materialists". Hey, I can make any distinction I want, but that won't get it in an encyclopedia until it becomes some kind of consensus. But they are already materialists by another more popular distinction, and Ionians, so let them stay in our wonderful encyclopedia!!! We can work on my new definition of materialism later. Go for it! 16:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I recognize that the term 'Ionian School' has widespread usage. But I thought that since the 1911 Britannica article recognized that the term did not refer to a coherent classification scheme, perhaps it might be time (after almost a century) to remove it. I suppose I will have to keep the article, and try to stay NPOV in a (hopefully brief) discussion of classification schemes for philosophical schools in the article. I will start a discussion over on the Philosophy tasks, since this seems to be more specialized than just deletion.

Out of curiosity, what kind of criteria would an article from 1911 Brittannica have to meet in order for it to be deleted? Factual error and/or extreme bias? WhiteC 17:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

More on materialism. I like the way this discussion is centering in on materialism, which is partly at the heart of the problem. I grant you many of the philosophers - Thales, etc. and the pluralists - DO seem to be concerned with the explanation of nature. 1) What do we moderns call their interest? I'm not sure materialism does the job, as our materialism (I think - maybe I'm wrong) implies that there is no spirit, no God even, and that matter and the laws of matter are supreme. None of the philosophers thought that. Also, we want to avoid any connection with our physics, as the only one who thought numerically was Pythagoras, and he is not an Ionian. 2) What do you do with the incipient skeptics - Heraclitus and Xenophanes etc. The latter is not in the article but he was an Ionian. Is Ionian to include all Ionians or just some of them?Dave 18:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep It is considered a school. --FranksValli 20:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Speaking of "movements", there is "one" taking place at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy right now. It's a general stir up, really. And you are all invited!!! There's an election going on, and it's not for mere keeping/deleting. We're deciding on what to CREATE! Come on and vote on our December collaboration. Go for it! 00:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep Is this some sort of vindictive joke? Banno 20:38, 26 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] /pizza

A single command in Everquest 2. And haven't I read somewhere that pages with forward-slashes in their names are bad ideas? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hilarious, if true; if a source can be found, merge to either Everquest II or Product placement. (Names with slashes are not completely bad—/dev/null, for example—but don't behave quite the way you'd expect sometimes.) Kirill Lokshin 04:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Don't have a source, but it was in the news some time ago. --Halal 08:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Everquest II#Business already talks about it; I don't think a redirect is going to be useful here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Would it hurt to have it, though? I doubt anyone will search for the command itself, but it's still possible. Kirill Lokshin 04:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Kind of funny, actually. How about a merge? - Lucky 6.9 05:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I don't mind the merge, but it's non-GFDL kosher to merge and delete, and I really can't imagine command line entries in article space (i.e. in the resulting redirect). Perhaps there should be a section Everquest 2#Easter eggs. Geogre 13:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No mergable content and pointless as a redirect. KingTT 18:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Already covered in Everquest II. (I'm hoping people would be smart enough to look up a game to find out about it if they can't find anything using the /pizza command). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with product placement if it's not already there. The mention at the Everquest article should stay, too. But this doesn't need its own article, though it's funny, and it seems an unlikely search term.Jacqui ^★ 15:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, really nn. Grue 17:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, subtrivial gamecruft. MCB 22:34, 23 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 CambridgeBayWeather as no context. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Samsel

Image posting of "real person". No text in article. No assertion of notability. 70.122.87.59 04:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. If there were words in the article, it might be a clear case of speedy delete for non-notable bio. 70.122.87.59 04:07, 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. There also seems to be a desire to merge, so someone may want to take care of that. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 23:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Temperance organizations

Page is superfluous now that Category:Temperance organizations has been created, and largely re-hashes material in that category and in Category:Temperance movement.--chris.lawson 04:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Duplicative material per nomination. Jtmichcock 04:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Temperance movement. Capitalistroadster 05:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: If there is a cat tag now, I don't see the utility of a merge, so delete for duplicate material. Geogre 13:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, de-listify, and expand. The fact that a category has been created is not a deletion criteria. Just the opposite, really. I have made this the lead article in the new organizations sub-cat. Marskell 14:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Marskell CalJW 15:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, if the article doesn't provide any useful info not already present in the cat (for example, an unannotated list that cannot be usefully annotated), that is a deletion criterion; it's dupe content. That said, this is useful prose, so merge this into Temperance movement. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- A rarely invoked guideline that I present here: Wikipedia:Abundance and redundancy. Redundancy is admittedly a merge criteria (not a delete criteria) but this isn't enshrined: lead articles in a cat ought to be somewhat redundant. Here is the subject in manageable chunks within the cat, and here is a lead article that sums them all up. This article should be expanded, not deleted or merged. Marskell 19:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  - I don't think we're in disagreement, even given that guideline (which I'm not entirely happy with, but for completely unrelated reasons). I think this should be merged into temperance movement because temperance organizations and the temperance movement are the same subject. That guideline suggests duplicating info in separate but related subjects, whereas I see these two articles as covering the same subject. (I wasn't arguing this should be deleted anyway.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Temperance movement and redirect. The list/cat argument doesn't do it for me. It's not about the fact that this is a list of sorts. It's about the fact that like information likes to stick together. Jacqui ^★ 15:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Preferably Keep, otherwise Merge with Temperance movement and redirect. The Temperance movement article is actually not very adequate and I came to this article from that one. There is much more to be said on the movement as a political force. This article should be expanded to show that there was a diversity of organisations within the movement, many with different agendas, even though with the same professed goal. While there was overlap with organisations there was difference too - the Ku Klux Klan and the non-conformist movements (eg Methodists) on the Australian gold fields are not the same. How such disparate groups co-existed and their successes with prohibition and early closing in the early twentieth century would make an interesting article beyond the scope of what is already there and the article on the movement.--A Y Arktos 08:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment -- I certainly wouldn't object to a merge and redirect either, per AYArktos and Jacqui M.--chris.lawson 02:33, 22 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 NA. Admin speedy deleted article as non notable bio. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 09:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cody Cox

Keep. Why delete it? it hardly takes up any space on their servers and ill never see it unless iam looking for it. I cant think of any reason why anyone would care to post this but whatever, if someone wants too let them.
Delete. Agreed, this is no place for obituaries.
Delete. I agree! I understand the purpose and it noble, however I beleive it in appropriate. Entries such as these are ok now, but allow this, and you must allow all
Delete. there is no conspiracy here and it's sick to crawl all over it when none of you actually care what happened.
What? Why should it be deleted? What if it was your kid?
Delete. encyclopedias are not a place for obituaries
Delete. just another person dead, sorry but it happens everyday

nn death, OR, speculation, no sources, probably a copyvio though I haven't found from where. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Although sad, death was not notable. Jtmichcock 04:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Sorry for the loss. --Halal 09:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's try to avoid acronyms in our nominations, please; not all VfD/AfD deliberators will be veterans. At any rate, Delete for violating WP:NOT (sorry): Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Geogre 13:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, along with the photo, per Geogre. Pburka 16:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The photo is a family photo, no copyvios, and I don't see why a good person cannot get an entire Wikipedia page when an off-brand computer game from the 80's can. Johnroberts 12:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Wikipedia is not a memorial site. No evidence that this person's death has had widespread influence or media interest. Sorry, but that's what makes something encyclopedic. FCYTravis 19:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_%28Tekken%29 And THIS is of widespread interest and worthy to have its own encyclopedia article?! Not only that, but it contains copyrighted images! Here's a list of people who want this article kept and think this had significant influence on their community and lives: Kayla Stultz, Reagan Allison, Britney Bullins, Justin Ingold, Kenny Johnson, Brandy Dillard, Robbie Bennett, Donna Swain, Meredith Walch, Holly Byerly, Karen Cline, Maggie Summey, Brandy Osborne, Zig, Andrew Martin, Michael Ring, Matt Poindexter, Brittney Imam, Jessica Mays, Luke Basinger, Ryan Friddle, Ashley Brown, Cody Brown, Clint Basinger, Codie Calloway, Gena Cox, Jared Branch, Sarah Winters, Samantha Swink, Kristen W, and Amanda Mikles Unsigned comment from User:Johnroberts. Pburka
- Comment. The link you've posted is a character from a game. As the game in question has been released worldwide and is a large part of pop culture and gaming culture, it is of widespread interest and worthy enough to have its own article. Cody, however sad the death may be, is neither an icon of pop culture, nor of any widespread interest outside of his hometown. dpkonofa
Delete Not a notable person. Does not fit with article guidelines whatsoever. Unsigned vote from User:67.171.230.147. Pburka
What is wrong with it?? Unsigned comment from User:65.94.135.170. Pburka
- Comment. Clearly, Cody Cox was very important to the people who knew and loved him and his death is tragic. To be encyclopedic, though, there needs to be some indication that the story is more notable than many similar stories. This story does not seem to have been picked up by news sources outside of North Carolina, indicating that, at this time, it is still a local story. Sadly, killings are sufficiently common place that they are not, in themselves, notable. Additionally, the last section (The Conspiracy) appears to be original research. This is doubly inappropriate for Wikipedia. Pburka 04:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: This is an information database as it should always be, free from personal opinions and feelings. If his death has a noticable impact, then it should be kept and Cody wil be put up there with Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln, and the other important historical figures, until then.. sorry. On the otherhand, I'm sorry for your loss and may you try to find another way of keeping Cody's memory alive. Unsigned vote from User:216.58.17.167. Pburka
Abstain At the moment, I do know what significance this has on any matter, but it does give me an interesting idea. I will return to change my vote in a few days if I feel it is necessary. Sweetfreek 05:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I agree that wikipedia is not a memorial site. If one obituary is allowed then it'll open the floodgates to all. Noone would expect to find this story however tragic in any other encyclopedia. Orcus 05:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't delet it. This website is not so damned important that it can't include the informa

tion on the life of one young man. He died young; who he may have become will never be known, but this is a website for information, and I want it there. I don't think that many people are going to put shit up for a "memorial" so that's a stupid point anyways. And this website is not completely free from personal feelings. If it were, you would not care whether or not this was put up. User:Colin D. Fee 05:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

"This website is not so damned important" -> subjective (to you it may not be important). Objective: wikipedia has gained a huge reader base, high pop. and many services/software applications depend on it nowadays. wikipedia = database, wikipedia website = a possible frontend, wkipedia can also be accessed through xml,... "this is a website for information, and I want it there." -> the internet is for information, this website is for entries meeting the definition of encyclopedia and leeway making room for the information age. "And this website is not completely free from personal feelings." -> that's one of the fundamental ideas of the project, a vast user base reaching a common consensus in a joint effort (learn/ look up def: objectifying / objectification). "If it were, you would not care whether or not this was put up." -> it is cared for because information has to be confined herin to objective criteria. If somethings not cared for, it is neglected by definition, resulting in prematured decay ( Also see thermodynamics, entropy). You right in that personal feelings are involved in keeping this project running! Hope i could help in clarifying some points for you, and showing you that no-one here wants to work against you.

- The above is in reality 152.23.196.170 (talk · contribs), and this is his/her only edit to Wikipedia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 08:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I'm sorry but Wikipedia is not a memorial and this is a non-encyclopedic article. --Camw 07:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Same reasons others have mentioned.
KEEP - Of Course this should be kept for reference if someone had to do a report and wanted to reference this incident. Having items like this makes WikiPedia a good source of information. If something with this entry is incorrect it can be changed.
Delete - To the person above, please figure out how to format. Your argument is also difficult to swallow, since ANYONE can change this article. If I wished to insert a comment that distorted the events that led to the death, (ie given how there are different viewpoints, someone inserted writing in support of the person who stabbed Cody Cox) then how is it a reliable reference? This is not the appropriate place to remember someone, therefore I must support deleting.
Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... not the obituary section of the newspaper. Tezkah 08:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - This is a local news story.

Delete, there are thousands and thousands of people murderd every year why is this one special? I do have sympathy for the family, however I don't see the relivance on Wikipedia.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 07:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of African musicians

Categorize Absolutely nothing here that could not be handled with appropriate categories. No indication of why these particular musicians were selected for inculsion. Some lists are useful, but this one isn't. Caerwine 04:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep, this way users can see a whole continent at a glance, instead of having to click on 50 categories. Kappa 05:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep However a Category for African musicians sounds like a good idea. An advantage with this though is all the red names can hopefully inspire someone to "turn them blue." Usually a list with a great many red names I think is a bad sign. However African issues are so poorly dealt with at Wiki anything that encourages better coverage I think is a good idea. All the names there needing to be filled could do that.--T. Anthony 06:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Category:African musicians exists. There doesn't seem to be a Category:European musicians though. Kappa 07:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Good catch, I have just created Category:European musicians and have started adding Category:Austrian musicians, Category:Belgian musicians, etc. to it. Andrew Levine 00:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Two reasons for keeping this list: 1) The red links are suggestions for new articles, as Anthony said. 2) If you want to search in Category:African musicians, you need to browse all the subcategories as well to find a musician if you don't know his or her nationality. Riki 12:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep being African has a fair chance of having influenced how they play music, whereas ebing Jewish has little chance of influencing how you play chess. -Doc ^ask? 20:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Riki and Doc. Andrew Levine 00:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Kappa and T. Anthony. You can't categorize red links and we need them to improve coverage of African music. It also makes searching for a musician a lot easier if you don't know where they live. Lists and categories serve different purposes, and I think the use this list serves is clear. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Riki, Doc and WP:CLS. No problem with keeping the cat too, though. Jacqui ^★ 15:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy keep this list is useful. That Europe does not have an equivalent list is not an adequate argument – there are lists that adequately accommodate even the most non-notable European garage band (eg. List of death metal bands). Removing this list will only lead to the need for 42 eternal three sentence stubs like List of Benga musicians, which will do nothing but exacerbate the existing bias. / Ezeu 05:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment Given that the only thing these lists have at the moment are names, one wonders why the search box in the sidebar won't suffice. The only other reason I've heard expressed for keeping this list and the other one that I proposed for deletion is not that a reader will find the list useful in its own right, but that it will somwhow act as a spur to improve the coverage of this area of knowledge by Wikipedia. Exactly how this magic is supposed to occur is never explained, but I'll assume for the moment that it will somehow occur. If that's the case, why shouldn't this list be moved to Wikipedia:List of African musicians that Wikipedia needs articles on or more normally Wikipedia:WikiProject African musicians? Caerwine 07:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"Exactly how this magic is supposed to occur." You get new people interested in African musicians. If this is placed in the category of that name all the better. Anyway I have an interest in China. I think I found List of Chinese painters because for a time I had a Chinese involved category on my watchlist. All the red names I saw on the list did inspire me because I had information in my own books that could add those names. There might be an article on Mi Fu without that list, but it would've been done later and the list gave me a job to work on, with pleasure, for a time.--T. Anthony 01:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

That said if a Project is preferred for that okay. The thing is not all of us are as social as others. I don't follow projects very well or go to the community portal that much.--T. Anthony 01:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The search box would suffice if the search result could yield a list of African musicians sorted by country (now, that would be magic). This list, like every other list on wikipedia, is a compliment to the search box, and a compliment to categories. With your argument, all lists should be deleted. According to Wikipedia:Lists, Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of the 'pedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. This and other examples of why this list is useful is given there. / Ezeu 14:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- There are three purposes Wikipedia:Lists gives for lists, Information, Navigation, Development.
  
  Information Unlike a List of Academy Awards ceremonies, List of Baku metro stations, or anyother number of lists on Wikipedia where there is some reasonable prospect that a person would seek the list as a whole and thus as information, why would anyone seek this list as information in its own right and not as a aid to navigation or development? By its very nature it is inherently incomplete and can never be completed. There is no indication of why these African musicians and not others have been included. Considered only as information it is at best a collection of indiscrimate information, not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.
  
  Navigation There is nothing in this list that is an improvement over the ability to navigate provided by the category system. It lists its entries in alphabetical order for each country, the same as is provided by the category system. Considered only as an aid to navigation, it is not an improvement over categories (at least in its present form) and thus not worth keeping.
  
  Development I will concede that this list is potentially useful for development (if we can find someone who is willing and able to do the development), but since it has no other apparent value, it belongs in the Wikipedia namespace, not the main one. Caerwine 16:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You said "if we can find someone who is willing and able to do the development" - do not patronize those who have contibuted to that list. What will you crusade against next, List of African writers (by country)? / Ezeu 08:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Possibly it could be divided into East, West, North and Southern Africa. My interest in African music is mostly Southern and West although I like Souad Massi a fair amount. Alternatively if it lives maybe we could divide the nations up that way instead of alphabetically. Or I'm just babbling due to the hour.--T. Anthony 09:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, this list offers the navigational advantage over the category that users can see every member without having to click on a separate link for each country. From the point of view of information, it has the advantage of including an alternate name for Steady Bongo, which a category cannot do. From the POV of development, we are much more likely to find someone who is willing and able to write articles about African musicians if these people actually find this list, which is much more likely if it's in the main namespace, linked from other pages and google-able, than if it's buried in the wikipedia space. Kappa 09:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep — RJH 16:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 09:15, 23 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 02:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Punjabi musicians

Categorize Absolutely nothing here that could not be handled with appropriate categories. No indication of why these particular musicians were selected for inculsion. Some lists are useful, but this one isn't. Caerwine 04:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep, helps fight systemic bias. Categories can't contain red links, which are necessary for fighting systemic bias. Kappa 05:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews, when if anyone delete, please tell my talk page. --Sheynhertz _געשׁ״ך 07:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Categorize or Merge with Punjab_region, Punjab,_India, or Punjab_(Pakistan). I prefer Punjab_region, to avoid offending either Pakistan or India.
Strong Keep. Categories can't contain red links (per Kappa). I'm guessing they were included because those were the Punjabi musicians the creator knew about. If you think the coverage is insufficient, feel free to expand with more. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per what I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African musicians. Jacqui ^★ 15:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:17, 23 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 02:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spacker

Neologism, previously deleted page (although apparently with different content). Also see old deletion debate for Spacker template. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Neologism and dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not the Jargon File. Geogre 13:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. PJM 07:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per Geogre Pete.Hurd 22:29, 22 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 Lucky 6.9 as attack page.

[edit] Trexing

Neologism. Delete. Andrew_pmk | Talk 04:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Attack page as well. Going away right now. - Lucky 6.9 05:10, 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. — JIP | Talk 08:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Loxian

nn conlang. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Although I personally think the concept is silly, I have to concur that being promoted on an Enya album, thus reaching millions of people, is sufficient enough for inclusion. It also Googles well. The article needs serious improvement, however. wikipediatrix 04:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep, and not very enthusiatic. Needs cleanup, definitely. Jtmichcock 04:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, conlang sung to a large audience. Kappa 05:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I guess, if Enya used it. Herostratus 06:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Erg. Shoot, I don't think even use by Enya makes it a conlang that needs coverage. I'd rather see a merge and redirect to Enya and the article on the newest album. Geogre 13:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete A conlang created for use on a single CD can only be described as non-notable. I don't care how many people will hear this - babble is babble. D e nni ☯ 01:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep having a large audience is one of the major points in determining the notability of a conlang. Failing that, merge and redirect to Enya. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete It's a nn conlang. Delete and redirect to either Enya or Wikipediatrix's new entry on the conlang creator Roma Ryan.Eusebeus 14:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep all trends that Enya sets. :-P Jacqui ^★ 15:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, not only used on the Enya CD, but also in a book by Roma Ryan, thereby more than one reference. Chrysalis 18:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Roma Ryan. I should note that there *is* no book which uses Loxian yet; Water Shows the Hidden Heart has not yet been published, and no details are yet available. Indigozeal 05:18, 24 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 Zoe as nn-bio. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Bouboushian

Significance not established. Google finds 11 hits, at least 9 of which are Wikipedia-based -Rholton 04:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. ERcheck 04:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy deleted under the nn-bio CSD. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:35, 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 Speedy deleted as vandalism by Lucky 6.9

[edit] Dungalized

Neologism. Much to my surprise, no google hits. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. An article about things covered in crap being an article that is. . . no, won't go there! Jtmichcock 04:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Crappy article on crap. (Notorious4life 04:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC))

And what do we do with crap, fellow wiki workers? Right! We flush it. Bye, crap! - Lucky 6.9 05:16, 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 02:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DWWE

Either a greatly embellished account or a pure fantasy -Rholton 04:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Wow, this article is too funny. (Notorious4life 04:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC))
Delete. An amusing article that I will enjoy when it finds a home on Geocities. Jtmichcock 05:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Definitely fiction. --Bookandcoffee ^{(Leave msg.)} 05:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Somebody had too much coffee. Herostratus 06:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Retain. This organization isn't fictional. I currently live in Jacksonville and I've heard of them. From what I understand they put a lot of humor into their production, which can be seen in this article. DaveRogers(I'm a little guy) 11:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete ~~even if only because of the blatant sock-puppetry.~~ Pburka 16:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- The sock-puppetry appears to have been vandalism, and has now been fixed. My vote stands. Pburka 17:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Direct quote from article: " this is a greatly embelished and humorous account of the companies dealings and history." Delete --YixilTesiphon 17:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
The Digimon Wrestling Federation is a great idea... FOR ME TO POOP ON! Delete. --Pc13 22:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Funny like leftover pasta. D e nni ☯ 01:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete and BJAODN. If only people devoted this much effort and energy to real articles. MCB 22:39, 23 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 02:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blogroll

Useless neoljizzum, merge into List of Blogging Terms if it's not already there. Skrewler 05:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is already int he List of Blogging Terms. Why do we need a whole article on a term that refers to your list of blog sites
Keep--valid article on a potentially confusing (and certainly interesting) term. This amount of information wouldn't fit into List of blogging terms. Meelar (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wiktionary. A definition for a frequent term in the blogosphere that is useful as a dictionary item. Jtmichcock 05:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable term in blogging. Long enough to stand alone. Capitalistroadster 05:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Since List of blogging terms already has enough information on this. After all, this is just a list of blogs on a blog. Heeello. Borderline dicdef here too. --Timecop 05:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete; being a real word is not sufficient for an encyclopedia entry. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As is stands the article is more than a dictionary definition. -- Curps 06:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Herostratus 06:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Duplicate content and dictdef. Every phenomenon generates epiphenomenal slang. Geogre 13:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep: interesting article about a widespread term that has seen more press than most other silly blog-related vocabulary. - squibix 16:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki as per Jtmichcock. Qwghlm 16:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep word transcends simple blog-culture jargon. Jessamyn 02:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. agrees with Jessamyn. __earth 04:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
If this is deleted, please replace with a redirect to the list of blogging terms so the entry there can be found. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep this word has been everywhere. CNN has used it! Jacqui ^★ 15:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep this is a term that is widely used enough that it merits a discussion of its origin and history. It exemplifies wikipedia's importance as a flexible encyclopedia that adapts to changing terminology of the internet. mennonot 10:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Informative article. Just because you don't agree with the contents doesn't mean its not encyclopaedic. Rhobite 20:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Capitalistroadster and Jessamyn. MCB 22:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Very helpful to someone unfamiliar with a term to be able to Google it and find this page near the top of the list.dawno 23:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep As a blogger newbie this article was very helpful. Lawyer2b 03:00, 26 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 02:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warblog

or merge into llist of blogging terms. same rationale as poker blog. do we need a Food Blog Giraffe Blog Pedo Blog, too? Skrewler 05:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Notable category of blog and article gives context. Some of the most notable and well-read blogs have been called war blogs. 547,000 hits for warblog see [12]. Four replies in Google book search [13] and 10 original sources in Google Scholar [14] indicate that the phrase has gone well beyond the blogging community. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Notable for its historical relevance. This is not the same as poker blog, it goes beyond a simple definition and list of blogs to describe the history and growth of a phenomenom that recieved attention in major news media during the build up to the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003. See the Current Relevance section in the article. Just because it's not as relevant now as it was 2 years ago, doesn't mean we should delete it. To the contrary it should be expanded and better documented as a part of a historic event. mennonot 09:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Is it difficult being a moron? --Daniel11 01:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Please read WP:Civil, thanks. Skrewler 05:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Per capitalistroadster. Jessamyn 02:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep --NeuronExMachina 05:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and please note that the criteria listed at The War on Blogs are not the same criteria that most of Wikipedia would share. I suggest you limit your AfDs to ones that you think are the most reprehensible. Jacqui ^★ 15:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Informative article. Just because you don't agree with the contents doesn't mean its not encyclopaedic. Rhobite 20:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Little Green Footballs Klonimus 20:16, 22 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 03:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Experimedia

NN/Vanity. Another netlabel. Alexa doesn't even have any info on it. Skrewler 05:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. -- Femmina 13:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. WP not a web directory. --Squiddy 14:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above. There are thousands of unknown netlabels, no need to list them all here. --Timecop 07:52, 21 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 19:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ghetto_Slime

Appears to be an advertisement for the game's authors and company. 202.89.173.183 05:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. --Squiddy 14:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete non-notable, advertisement --Halal 23:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. -- DS1953 04:57, 22 November 2005
Don't Delete-entertaing game and it is a slime mod with apparently lots of hits.

(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.200.212.193 (talk • contribs)

Delete-I changed mine. I played the other slime games and this it the exact same except that the colors and names have been changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.194.216 (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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 03:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Robert Bell

Google turns up hits, but only about a 1000. The article contains numerous links, but I'm not entirely convinced they prove notability. --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 05:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 05:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable as per nom Bwithh 05:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to be notable. See [15], for instance. He seems to have had quite a few solo exhibits. Pburka 21:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not yet notable enough, Pburka's point notwithstanding. He seems to be mostly known for erotic paintings of Kala, which is to say, a svelte rubenesque female Sasquatch luxuriating. Also, 151 distinct google hits, so returns on total sample size of 1000 is 90%. Eusebeus 15:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per Eusebeus Pete.Hurd 22:29, 22 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Ronald Thatchwald

Marked as speediable. I removed the speedy tag and am listing it here instead. User claimed that Thatchwald has no hits on Google, and claims this is a hoax. I haven't checked into the assertion myself. No vote. —Cleared a s filed. 05:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as hoax, possible speedy as silly vandalism. No Google results at all for "Ronald Thatchwald" see [16].

A Google Scholar search proved to be similarly fruitless see [17] Capitalistroadster 06:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete hoax.--nixie 08:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 08:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleep. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- Longhair 08:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom. Ben Aveling 10:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete away, per nom. --Roisterer 04:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
delete hoax Pete.Hurd 22:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
delete hoax and no google hits for name with/without "professor". Sarah Ewart 03:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax IanBailey ^(talk) 09:33, 26 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 03:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hurley Expressions

Delete Not notable, may be self-promotion Chris the speller 05:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Advertising for non-notable store. Dlyons493 Talk 11:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as adspam. I think there's a skateboard company by this name, though. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
delete advertisement for NN company Pete.Hurd 22:22, 22 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 03:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yyrt

The term "yyrt" turns up few hits on Google, and most of those seem to be nonsense. I could have sworn I'd heard of this before, but I'm having little luck turning up anything to prove that this isn't a joke/vandalism/hoax. --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 05:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Neutral for now, will wait to see if anyone can turn up anything else. :P --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 05:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC) Delete, given the opinions stated below. —Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 00:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment Needs careful consideration. The main point of the article seems to be a possible POV re Armenians rather than Zoroastrian circles. So at least verify and cleanup - else delete. Dlyons493 Talk 11:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unverifiable, and non-notable even if real, which I doubt. 337 unique Google hits, all for mistranslations, misspellings, secret codes or random characters strings; none for the subject of this article. No references = no article. --A D Monroe III 16:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Google search for yyrt and zoastrian (also tried zoroastrian) comes up with 0 hits. Fake. Alex Bartho 03:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
delete unverifyable Pete.Hurd 22:19, 22 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. --Nlu 11:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jhandugiri

Entire contents is: "slang for a highly specialised way of passing time without noticing it". No google hits, possible "short, no context" speedy. Kappa 05:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. "Burn it! Send it to hell!" wikipediatrix 06:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's probably just a newbie test... Kappa 06:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete no contest. Herostratus 06:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete no context.--Alhutch 07:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment In the future, just tag something like this with {{no context}}, don't even bother with AfD.--Alhutch 07:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete due to no context added. Capitalistroadster 08:28, 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 03:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rich Gallup

Delete. Nonsense. --Foobar 06:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Rich Gallup already has a mention on the GameSpot article; the only line to be kept from Rich Gallup is the line stating he's the features producer, thus making the article unnecessary (unless someone wants to create a biography, which is unlikely considering that even the creators of GameSpot don't have biographical information on wikipedia). --Foobar 16:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

DeleteNon notable Alex Bartho 03:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Dirty pool cribbing the background of one of the few X-Men I actually like. You can call me Al 21:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as above Pete.Hurd 22:18, 22 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 03:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of poser bands

Poser Bands is not a NPOV, just someone opinion Ewok Slayer 06:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination --Halal 08:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV-pushing. Punkmorten 11:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Poser and relevent artists' articles. These bands/artists are considered posers by the group named, and well here on WP we do not push POVs, we do report on them; this is considered a major distinctive property of music by those who use the label. --User:Taejo | Talk 14:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - as unverifiable. Taejo is right in saying we report on POVs - but we do not report on anonymous POVs attributed only to the nebulous "punk/goth/emo/hip hop music cultures." That is encyclopedically unacceptable. Without published references, this article is unsourced original research and must be deleted as such. FCYTravis 19:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete this per above. But I would support a small list at poser that was properly sourced. Jacqui ^★ 15:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as NPOV. One mans poser is another mans rock god. Also oppose poser list on the poser page. Megapixie 09:57, 21 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 speedied. --Phroziac^(talk) 13:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big Timers

Nonsense, attacking and non-notable if real CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as attack and silly vandalism.--Alhutch 07:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete nonsense --pgk^(talk) 10:14, 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 03:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dave kayani

Non-notable producer of a local cable channel show. Delete —Brim

Delete as per nom. Harvestdancer 18:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:21, 22 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 08:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fukitol

Self-confessed viral marketing. Delete. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Advertising.--Alhutch 07:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete self-promotion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete acknowledged advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Pc13 22:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to List of chemical compounds with unusual names, where fucitol is listed as an entry. Denni ☯ 01:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- If it's to be redirected, I'd suggest direct to Fucitol, rather than to a list containing it, but I still think this is better deleted, as it does not seem to be a misspelling of fucitol. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Fucitol. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

If Fukitol is deleted for "self-promotional" purposes because it is a commercial entity, then entries like Microsoft should also be deleted. What is the purpose of this Public Encyclopedia? Fukitol has been a spoof that has been around since 1974; and it's here to stay.

Entry: "Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT) (HKSE: 4338) is the world's largest software company, with 2005 global annual sales of 40 billion US dollars and more than 55,000 employees in 85 countries and regions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.219.163 (talk • contribs)

- One way to get the article to be accepted is to improve it. Reading the article at the moment, I can't tell if Fukitol is a drug (like Viagra), a website, a venture capital company (like Virgin Group), a long-running comedy skit, or a brandname looking for a product. The reason this article is presently proposed for deletion is summarised in the What Wikipedia is not policy. The fact that the article is unclear what Fukitol is, combined with a policy of guerilla marketing raises it as suspicious. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, apparent advert or company/site vanity. Incoherent article. MCB 23:38, 23 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 08:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clan Oo

Sorry folks, wikipedia isn't a place to publicize your mapmaking clan. Kappa 07:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Advertising, which Wikipedia is not made for. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Halal 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete individual gaming clans. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn, advertising --Ebz 13:03, 26 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 as rewritten by User:Wackymacs. — JIP | Talk 08:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Libcom

vanity page Halal 08:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep, of some importance, I have cleaned it up and removed most of the vanity. — Wackymacs 09:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable in anarchist circles. Jessamyn 02:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Withdraw nice job on the clean-up. --Halal 18:07, 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 Delete. --Tito xd^(?!?) 03:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fleep

Hoax, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professor Ronald Thatchwald. The other link to this article refers to a comic strip (Eisner Award). Delete --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment.According to Google, Fleep refers to a comic strip which has won an Eisner Award which would make an article on it notable enough for mine. The current article is detritus which should be swept away. A search for Fleep Thatchwald strikes out completely on a Google search see [18].

Capitalistroadster 08:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 08:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom. Ben Aveling 10:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Roisterer 04:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep Needs some form of proof that the term exists (Im not talking about newspaper articles or anything), even an unreliable source which simply shows that the term is in common usage --Sparks 333 00:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom Sarah Ewart 03:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete IanBailey ^(talk) 09:31, 26 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 speedied by Ingoolemo as hoax. Ingoolemo ^talk 16:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby league in Argentina

Steps 1 and 3 of AfD were done by User:GeorgeWilliams, but not the vital step 2, creating this subpage. There's also a speedy tag here. Hoax article, apparently. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Sorry I missed a part of the procedure; I'll check it out because there are more of these hoax RL articles. Quite simply, RL is not played in Argentina. Therefore, how can the subject have a WP article? It is noticeably quite empty and isn't even a stub! --GeorgeWilliams 10:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Rugby Union is a national sport in Argentina. That's a different game. Delete all similar articles nominated below before we end up with Water-polo in Tibet (article=It's not played there). Dlyons493 Talk 11:28, 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} 23:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misfit

Appears to be nonnotable. In the absence of further information I propose that it be deleted. Jogloran 09:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to The Misfits. Pburka 16:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non notable, vanity, self-advertisement most likely. Alex Bartho 03:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:13, 22 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 03:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby league in Japan

Speedy delete. Hoax page as RL is NOT played in Japan GeorgeWilliams 10:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment Japanese Rugby League. You are patently wrong. - Randwicked 15:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep and tag for cleanup. KillerChihuahua 00:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep - Prove that it isn't played there. I say it is, and there is a website: [19] Grinner 12:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep As above pointed out. Work in progress pages as the template testify. POds 12:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Not the first spurious attack on wikipedia's rugby league coverage by this user. Please leave off. CalJW 14:04, 21 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 silly and meaningless vandalism. The article makes no mention of its subject, and is just daft and incoherent. I tried to rewrite the article to be about the independent record label by this name, as per "What links here", but couldn't find out anything at all about it, and so couldn't even create a stub. Uncle G 14:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colt Records

This is plain nonsense warpozio 10:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete - Patent nonsense -GTBacchus ^(talk)10:45, 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 03:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby league in Kenya

Speedy delete. Although this article admits that RL is not played in Kenya after an abortive attempt to introduce it in 2000, the information is not important enough to constitute an entire article and the single paragraph about the abortive attempt should be added to a wider article about attempts to expand RL. It is quite true that RL is not played in Kenya; indeed the sport is not played anywhere on the whole continent of Africa. GeorgeWilliams 10:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep, users should be able to find out that an attempt was made to introduce rugby to Kenya. Possibly rename to Rugby league in Africa. Kappa 16:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Not a hoax. Kenya does not play rugby league any more. This is here mearly to document its begining and end. Perhaps slightly useless. Tried to delete it myself once, but my reason "because they don't play rugby league anymore" was not good enough. There may yet be more information on this topic. POds 12:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Separate article necessary for categorisation purposes. This nomination is a reflection of the old antagonism between rugby league and rugby union, which almost everyone except George Williams has put behind them now. CalJW 14:01, 21 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 03:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby league in Morocco

Speedy delete. Hoax article: RL is NOT PLAYED in Morocco or indeed anywhere in Africa. GeorgeWilliams 10:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Member of Rugby League European Federation [20]. Plays in Mediterrean Competition. Capitalistroadster 18:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Please provide a source that says RL is not played in Morroco. Grinner 10:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Not a hoax. These pages are a work in progress. Have patience. Morroco have participated in the last 2/3 Mediterranean cups as documented else where on Wikipedia and other many sites. Give it up George. Focus your attention on being creative, not destructive. POds 12:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Separate article necessary for categorisation purposes. This user once tried to get the rugby league category deleted, apparently under the misapprehension that the deletion of all the articles in it would automatically follow. CalJW 14:00, 21 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 03:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby league in Canada

Speedy delete. This is a hoax article. RL is not played in Canada. GeorgeWilliams 10:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. You're quite wrong, according to this. Have you actually checked up on all of these nominations? - Randwicked 15:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment You should stop by Canada one afternoon. Of bloody course we play rugby here.

D e nni ☯ 01:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep Work in progress pages, plenty of information available.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 was Keep. Non-admin closing. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rugby league in Canada

Delete - While rugby league once was played in Canada it no longer is, so I don't think something virtually nonexistant merits its own page. James Bowes 21:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

*keep - I refer the nominator to this site, which clearly demonstrates that rugby league is still played in Canada. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep for historical value at the very least. The site I referred to above (and which was used in the previous AfD) is in fact about rugby union, a mistake which was made due to my browser being unable to load the entire page first off. That said, the nominator and I are both unable to find any evidence later than 2003 dealing with the sport in Canada - things can change drastically in 3 years, but at the very least we know it was played that recently. Importantly, there is no reliable evidence that the game is not played still

Comment - If you read the source you'd realise it was a rugby union competition and thus irrelevent to this rugby league article.James Bowes 17:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I don't want to go calling names, but a check of this user's contributions makes for odd reading. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep - even if it was not currently played in Canada, a major sport in a major nation would still be article-worthy.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep The word "duh" comes to mind. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but it's not at me, maybe at people who think a rugby union competition is a rugby league one.James Bowes 17:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep obviously. History is a key component in an encyclopedia. Resolute 01:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I'd like the nom to give his source for the assertion that rugby isn't played in Canada. Since when? If that's the case, there's a rather active rugby club near where I live that never got the message. (All this said, the article needs work, but that's not grounds for deletion). 23skidoo 04:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- -Check the articles for rugby union and rugby league. The rugby you know is a different sport to the rugby league of the article. James Bowes 17:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
~~Still delete~~ That webpage is quite clearly rugby union. Rugby union is a semi-major sport in Canada, rugby league there is dead. Can you check the sources carefully before making claims. I refer people to this article rugby union in Canada and this one Rugby Canada Super League James Bowes 10:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment You get one "vote" to delete, not two or more. There's no sources indicating a dearth of rugby league. Additionally, remember WP:NPA and cease calling people "ignorant". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I shouldn't name call but using a rugby union site as evidence for rugby league in a country is clearly wrong. The only site I can find for rugby league in Canada is this one:http://www.angelfire.com/ab7/canadianrl/. Despite being an active site there is no mention of seasons post 2003, and the guestbook has loads of people asking about rugby league in Canada, but no replies suggesting there is. It's quite clear that the sport is dead in the country but I'll try find better sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by James Bowes (talk • contribs)

I'm impressed you can get anything at all out of that site. I've tried it a couple of times and the best result I got was a series of links with broken pictures (which were thankfully still clickable). Sort of a feeling-your-way-in-the-dark thing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If you move your cursor over the boxes to the left there are still open links, but that site, with no matches played since 2003 is the only page concerning rugby league (as opposed to the rugby union played in the Canada Rugby Super League) suggests that the sport is at best dormant in Canada.James Bowes 14:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep; even if something is defunct, it still has historical value. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not just a directory of "things that are current in 2006". Bearcat 20:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep; article needs work but no need to delete it. Also I'm pretty sure Canada had two competitions at one point, either a East/West split or a split because of Superleague. Need to do some more research but that should be included in the article. Mattlore 07:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There were Ontario and Manitoba 9-a-side leagues up til 2003 as evidenced by this site http://www.angelfire.com/ab7/canadianrl/ (you need to run the cursor over the left hand boxes for the link). However, all evidence suggests that rugby league in Canada has been dormant since 2003 (at least on an organised level, who knows if there have been ad hoc matches). I think the article needs heavy improvement as to describe rugby league as an emerging sport there is both inaccurate and a non-NPOV as there's no evidence it will ever emerge there. Not sure of the split but I would assume all rugby league in Canada was allied to Super League, as it was in most countries, with the ARL largely being localised.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 03:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby league in Ireland

Speedy delete. There is no RL competition in Ireland although abortive attempts have been made to start the game there. The minimal information in the article should be added to a more general RL article. There is nothing here that justifies an independent article. GeorgeWilliams 10:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete It is not a popular team sport in Ireland. [21] gives a totally misleading impression of its scale and popularity which is somewhere well below throwing a ball as far as you can down a road. I suppose there's a case for merging all these misleading substubs into Rugby League Dlyons493 Talk 11:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- the Ireland team lost 22-6 to the Cook Islands from Ireland_national_rugby_league_team. I think that says it all. There is no need for separate articles. Dlyons493 Talk 22:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Rugby league is definately played in Ireland. No-one is claiming it is a major sport, but it certainly exists. Ireland Rugby League Grinner 10:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have re-written the page to an extent. Grinner 12:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep Not a hoax. These pages are a work in progress. Have patience. Ireland have bee playing as recently as the last few weeks. Just because your not familiar with the topic, doesn't mean its not worthy. This is not the first attempt of this style of culling by this person before. Refer to my user rugby league page POds 12:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep If there isn't a separate article the information cannot be categorised properly. CalJW 13:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep The history of a major team sport in a country where it is played is certainly encyclopedic. Sam Vimes 22:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep There is something like a 15-team competition in Ireland. They recently hosted a game of the ENC. RL is most certainly played there.Smerk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. --Tito xd^(?!?) 03:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby league in Lebanon

Speedy delete. This article is a disgrace. RL is not played IN Lebanon but the sport in Australia is played by a number of Lebanese ex-pats and, in order to artificially increase the number of teams playing in its so-called "World Cup", the RFL included a team that largely consisted of these ex-pats and called it the Lebanon national team. This is disinformation of the worst possible kind and it has to be said that it is typical of certain elements in the RL fraternity who will go to any lengths to "talk up" their undeniably minor sport. GeorgeWilliams 10:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

comment The Lebanese Rugby League website suggests there has been a domestic league since 2002. Its contact address is in Lebanon. Are you sure they don't play there? The two national teams seem to be one made of Australians, and the other made of local Lebanese players. I agree the current article is useless. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There is a Lebanese rugby league team. It has won the Mediterrean Cup for the third year in a row with other nations participating including Morocco, France and Serbia-Montenegro. This year, they beat France in the final see [22] France has a long history in rugby league although it is overshadowed by rugby union. Nevertheless, the French played Australia last month. 102,000 Google hits for "Rugby League" Lebanon see
Keep Not a hoax. Do some research before declaring these pages are a Hoax. For example, see the references or external links at the bottom of the pages. POds 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[23]. Hasem El-Masri who played for Lebanon set an Australian point scoring record in 2004 as the Canterbury Bulldogs won the competition. While the current article isn't much chop, I will clean it up. As for the use of ex-pats, Jack Charlton used the same tactic to great effect when coaching the Republic of Ireland. Capitalistroadster 18:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep This one especially over any of the others nominated. Lebanon had a team in the last RL World Cup for goodness sake! Keresaspa 14:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep The history of a major team sport in countries where it has been played at a senior level is encyclopedic. Sam Vimes 22:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep I have added some actual content to the article now. Grinner 15:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Grinner's expansion --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Ridiculous. Please do not waste time by making claims like this, if you even did the slightest research you would know that RL is indeed played in Lebanon. Instead of disturbing Wikipedia, find some other way to satisfy your dislike for Rugby League.Smerk ^Talk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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, WP:POINT? --Tito xd^(?!?) 03:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rugby league in Singapore

Speedy delete. RL is not played in Singapore. This article is another RL hoax. GeorgeWilliams 11:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Singaporean Rugby League. Have you checked any of these? - Randwicked 15:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep all mass-nominated Rugby teams. Reason given for deletion is inaccurate. KillerChihuahua 00:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep all mass-nominated Rugby teams. Reason given for deletion is inaccurate per KillerC. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep all mass-nominated Rugby teams. Not a hoax. Do some research before declairing these pages are a Hoax. For example, see the references or extenal links at the bottom of the pages. POds 12:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep RL is definantly played there. Smerk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 08:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Portrayal of German Society during 1918 to 1933

This page is a personal essay. While it contains useful information this should be included in wikipedia by editing George Grosz, Otto Dix and New Objectivity NHSavage 11:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Long, rambling, redundant POV essay. Belongs on a personal website. Perhaps the author could contribute to existing articles on German culture and history. Durova 21:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per the above. The very first edit to the article indicates a Table of Contents with page numbers raising the suspicion of either a personal essay or copyright violation. Edwardian 21:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete or maybe move to Wikisource. Seano1 21:21, 24 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. However, the suggestion to userfy is a good one, so I am moving this article to Karl's userpage. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 00:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Svozil

Vanity, nn. Created by User:Karlsvozil. Martg76 11:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This is a verifiable article on an academic; whether he is more notable than the average per the "professor test" I wouldn't like to say. Article is in pressing need of cleanup, though. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Additional data: Google scholar finds 268 hits for this name, which is quite low. About 1000 for Simon Wessely, who is quite obscure outside his field. Still undecided - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting experience with the "moderation" procedure: Martg76 just tries to purge an officially accredited Austrian university the Sigmund Freud University out of Wiki existence, and now he tries to purge a physics professor of the Vienna University of Technology out of Wiki as well.

May I kindly ask you then when a person is notable enough to stay in Wiki? Are there generally accepted rules?

One indication may be given above: “whether he is more notable than the average per the "professor test" I wouldn't like to say”. What does this mean? Although my publication list http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~svozil/publ/ includes more than 100 articles in scientific journals, as well as two monographies, I might not be “notable enough”.

Or is it the Google science scores?

With regards to Google science: there seems to be an interesting methodological problem coming up here: Just zis Guy, you know? reports 268 entries after obviously searching for “Karl Svozil”; i.e., http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=Karl+Svozil+

But a search for an abbreviation of “Karl”, namely “K. Svozil” http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=K.+Svozil+&hl=en&lr= reproduces 745 entries

One might consider the following articles written in well-known journals about my work recently: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/dn7535 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4097258.stm http://www.nzz.ch/2005/07/06/ft/articleCXN7B.html

This is an interesting example of (I believe totally benign and unintentionally) how to downgrade a score within the same database; and an interesting example of scoring in general --- see my article on related subjects: http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0208046

In summary: I would be very interested in criteria as to when an academic is “notable enough”. Thank you for clarification.

I would also be most thankful for clarifications as to why this “Article is in pressing need of cleanup.” Thank you for this as well.

Karlsvozil

Comment; It is quite common to discuss deletion of articles created by their subject, so I do not think that the nominator did anything particularly strange in this case. In particular, it is always considered a bad idea to write an article about oneself (WP:VAIN). It is also true that we have some articles written by their subject, such as Carl Hewitt.
Regarding this particular entry, I think that the main issue is not the number of hits, but the number of citations to articles. The first two results of Google scholar [24] (books) get 107 and 38 citations; the first article gets 31, the second 27 and so on. Now, if we wanted to follow what my friend Uncle G once proposed (which would be ideally the best thing to do), we should read all papers citing Karl Svozil's papers and see what the other authors say about the cited article. Just we do not have enough time for that. On one point Karl is wrong: searching

for K Svozil without quotes returns a number of articles written by other authors (this search matches articles containing K far from Svozil: compare searching for "K Svozil") Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep I'm assuming the publication list on his web site is correct. If not, Technische Universität Wien, would be somewhat negligent. Dlyons493 Talk 22:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Paolo, for this clarification. Let me say one or two things about self-publishing (which is now standard practice in physic e-print archies such as http://arxiv.org ): if you try to avoid self-publication officially, you get inofficial self-postings. The most natural thing is to self-post from other identities (remember the scandal at Amazon about fake reader comments written by the authors?); or to ask some friends to post a given text. I could have done this. I could also ask some of my international friends to post for me in my favor, but I refrain from doing this; mostly for pure lazyness and curiosity. I could even approach some of my students who work for the wiki community here an Austria.

To be frank, the reason why I decided to put up this page is because I wanted to create an entry on endophysics (which I suppose will get deleted now by Martg76 as well ;-) because I have been invited to give a talk in Tübingen and will be able to speak about this entry with Otto Rössler there. Of course, you or Martg76 might decide that endophysics is something for quacks, and then all this is in vain, from both perspectives. But yesterday I thought that I got so much already from wikipedia, and I should give something back. Today I have second thoughts.

The real problem in my opinion are guys like the moderator Martg76 who hides in anonymity (he/she has not even an email entry!). He/she did not contact me in the SFU case but rather decided to immediately purge the entry out of existence for reasons of "copyright", (substituting my entire entry incl. logo etc by a single line), which are obviously incorrect. With such practices, I am afraid, Wikipedia will not prosper in the way it should. Still, a very interesting experience!

And as to the "correctness of the publication list on my website": you would be astonished about the harsh reaction of the scientific community on fraud. I might not survive such a scandal professionally, and nobody I ever knew personally (and I am in this business for quite some time now) did such things!

Let me ask the wiki community one thing: I obviously seem to be interested and reaching out. I am member of a scientific communitiy. Why not take a chance and see how I can be made to practical use for wikipedia, instead of attempting to fight me off?

Karlsvozil 22:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment Karlsvozil if, in fact, you are Karl Svozil himself, then you should take a look at our longstanding guideline on autobiography, as it would apply. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep and tag for cleanup. Published physics professor is noteable; Google has a built in bias similar to WP, and physics publications don't get passed around on websites nearly as much as AYBABTU or dancing rodents. Google is not an Oracle. KillerChihuahua 00:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

books.google.com and www.a9.com with "books" checked as the search have much less of that bias, by the way. I was going to post some results of those searches but it's just all too borderline. Karl Svozil returns more hits than the first three professors listed alphabetically in the current roster of University of Wisconsin Department of Zoology, but fewer than the major professor I had when I was there. My best guess is that a case can be made for his being somewhat more notable than the average professor. A search on the surname "svozil" in a database called the Proquest Research Library turns up exactly one hit: "Short notices of books -- Randomness and Undecidability in Physics by Karl Svozil" in Endeavour. Oxford: Sep 1995. Vol.19, Iss. 3; pg. 137. Not overwhelmingly impressive for a database which "indexes more than 2,000 periodicals and provides the full text of nearly 1,000 of them. It has a mix of general interest and academic journals that cover the arts, business, education, health, humanities, psychology, sciences and the social sciences. It contains periodicals covering multicultural and women's issues and international affairs." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Karl, I think you are misunderstanding what is going on here. I hope you don't feel that I'm on a personal crusade against you, and I hope you are not insinuating that my nominatins were made in bad faith.
- First, I am not a moderator, I am simply the nominator in this two AfDs. Like most Wikipedians, I do not give an email address on my userpage, but you could have left a message at my talk page which I check regularly.
- Second, I originally nominated Sigmund Freud University Vienna because I thought (and still think) that this educational institution is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, given that it has no track record at all except for the accreditation. (I hope not every single PädAK or SozAK is going to get a page now.) But if consensus is going the other way, so be it. I only later discovered that the text on that page was a blatent copy & paste from the SFU website. You are surely aware of copyright law, to which Wikipedia must adhere like everyone else. Hence, I tagged it as a copyright violation, which is why the page was speedily deleted by an admin, not be me (I can't do that since I'm not an admin). I have no objection to the current SFU page if it survives AfD. You are as free as anyone else to expand it, and I would encourage you to do so.
- Third, concerning this nomination, there is consensus on Wikipedia that not every academic should have an encyclopedia entry here. Personally, I don't think that every Austrian ao.Prof. is encyclopedia material, and there are many in my own field who are very far away from it. If you have made outstanding, unique contributions to physics, then you absolutely should have an entry, but the page currently on review here does not describe anything like that. If a page was created by its subject, this is usually an indication to the contrary, without any prejudice to your case.
- Fourth, I find no reason why endophysics (which I know nothing about) should be deleted. The page might do with some cleanup (for comprehensibility). Keep in mind that pages here should be understandable to the general public. It is certainly to the benefit of Wikipedia if you use your time to create and expand pages on topics you are an expert it. I hope that these AfDs (which are a normal Wikipedia quality control procedure) do not discourage you from editing. This was certainly not my intention. Best, Martg76 09:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Response The first and fourth point I understand; they are organizational. Thank you for the clarifications.
- In the second point, you state that Wikipedia should be *more stringent* than the official accreditation council set up by the Austrian government in granting university status; in particular listing as university. I disagree with you in this respect.
- Your third point stating that “I don't think that every Austrian ao.Prof. is encyclopedia material, and there are many in my own field who are very far away from it” is an interesting judgment from your side. In this respect you seem to agree with the present government, in particular concerning the addum "a.o." as compared to "o." or just the recent "private nothing". Here, the fine tuning of the Austrian university with all its subtle indirectnesses can be studied anecdotally ;-))
- May I give a hint which I also tell my PhD students and younger colleagues when they start getting their first requests for peer review from scientific journals? First think, then recommend rejection ;-) This may sound a little bit arrogant from my side, but it helps others to create new science rather than frustratingly cope with quasi-objective opinions with very little substance. --Karlsvozil 11:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Two things:
- Let me clarify that I do not believe that every o.Prof. should be included here as well, especially given how the appointment process sometimes works.
- Your (slightly offensive) second hint is absolutely out of place here. As it stands, the page Karl Svozil still does not explain how Mr. Svozil is of encyclopdic interest. It's just a resumee with a list of research interests. Martg76 13:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: what's the story with this "oProf", "aoProf", etc? I don't know about the others, but I'm not following the discussion much.
Martg76 gave a good suggestion about the Karl Svozil article: summarize what you have actually done, rather than your interests. Regarding the endophysics article, it may be also a good idea to add some references (possibly with some link to articles that are available on-line).
Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. Looking at a few of the websites which turned up in a Google search and the fact that his own article claims he has written three books, it seems he passes the "professor" test under WP:BIO but the article certainly needs work and it would be helpful if more notability could be stated in the article. -- DS1953 05:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
suggestion while passes the professor test. The author wasn't aware of attitudes/precedents against autobiography and made the contribution in good faith. The appropriate response is probably for the author userfy the entry and the rest of us to hope that AfD hasn't totally turned the author off further contributions in his area of expertise. Pete.Hurd 20:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This makes excellent sense. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Userfy as suggested by Pete.Hurd, and encourage subject to write encyclopedic articles about topics in his field. MCB 23:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Support for Userfy per Pete.Hurd. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Userfication is fine with me (the nominator). Martg76 10:24, 26 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. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 01:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sigmund Freud University Vienna

University that was created in August 2005. No students, no staff, no research yet. Martg76 11:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep Its been accredited by Austrian Accreditation Council. It's notable as a university that exists so not crystal ball even if very new. Dlyons493 Talk 11:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment The nominator subsequently put a copyvio notice on the article and an admin deleted it. I've put in a stub which hopefully someone will expand. Dlyons493 Talk 16:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep

I disagree with a deletion for the following reasons:

(i) this is not just a private "pop" stile university, but it has been *officially* accredited by the official accreditation commission set up by the Austrian government recently.

(ii) I do not agree with Martg76 that if an institution was founded recently, it should not be entered into wikipedia.

(iii) I do not agree with Martg76 that if no student & staff numbers etc are given, the institution ought to be deleted: by the same standards, the University of Vienna and the Vienna University of technology (the university I am professor) would have to be deleted from wikipedia as well.

Hence I strongly recommend revising the deletion procedure and keeping SFU online on wikipedia.

In case of doubts, I also strongly encourage Mart76 or anybody else to contact me directly.

Thank you,

Karl Svozil Svozil(at)tuwien.ac.at Karlsvozil

Sounds like keep to me, but it would have been better to wait until it was at least open before documenting it! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, deletion of this entry would result in an incorrect and inconsistent wiki knowledge base, since SFU *is* an official Austrian university, no matter if you keep the entry or not. Deletion of the entry would result in the fact that some moderators or users purge an existing Austrian university out of the wiki database.

In this case I would kindly like to know when an Austrian university would be acceptable as an entry in wiki.

In my opinion *by definition* it should be included in wiki if it is included in that official list: http://www.akkreditierungsrat.at/cont/de/privatuni.aspx

Actually, for private universities, this list and the wiki list should be one-to-one. Karlsvozil

Keep as an apparently verifiable university (with a singularly horrible website). - Randwicked 15:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Update: Most of the page is a copy & paste from here [25] and has been tagged as a copyvio. Martg76 16:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. DLyons493 stub. Officially accredited university named after eminent person, albeit one yet to open. I think that all accredited tertiary facilities are worth an article and I vote to keep accordingly. Capitalistroadster 18:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete; which sources say that this university is real? The article and the university web site say so [26], but Google search for "Sigmund Freud University"+"Wien" does not help (similar results for Vienna instead of Wien). The problem here is not notability nor crystal ballery, the problem is verifiability. What exactly is the proof that this is not an hoax? If sources are provided, I would be happy to change to strong keep. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC) Sorry, I was reading an old version of this entry, without the link provided to the list of accredited universities Keep Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. I think a not-yet-open university is pretty crystal-ball-y, but I'm eventualist enough to believe that this will be a fine article when the university opens, which is apparently fairly soon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep concur w/Guy. KillerChihuahua 00:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment The university is already open, has students and staff, and is up and running (ie teaching courses, staff etc.) ;-) So, dont worry, not crystal-ball-y (funny name)! Yet I repeat my allegations with regards to user Martg76: why delete for an obviously incorrect reason? His claims that SFU has no staff can be falsified with a single look at the SFU homepage which I clearly linked... He also did not dare to contact me, although it would have been so easy to sort things out.
- I hold explicit written permission from SFU to use the logo of SFU for its Wikipedia entry, so there is no need for anybody to purge the entry because of the logo copyright ;-) --Karlsvozil 10:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Please don't get personally offended if a page you write gets put on AfD. I don't think the SFU website establishes that SFU is notable. It doesn't have a list of courses (only a rough overview of the program here [27]), and the staff seem to be mainly people with jobs at other universities who are doing this part-time. And please, I did contact you about the copyright violation on your talk page, as is customary here. Martg76 13:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Martg76, for your continued interest in the matter. I am not personally offended. But I have to clarify wrong claims, as these affect decisions here. Let me state things clearly, at least how I see them now:
- The original claim of Martg76 (please see above, first entry) was that SFU has no staff and no students. This is provable incorrect.
- Martg76 now points out that (please see last posting), from his judgement, SFU is not "notable". This is a shift in argument. I disagree with this claim.
- However, there is another interesting issue here: disregarding the official Austrian accreditation council, which decides in a lengthy and very considerate process about an institution's university status, a user in the status of Martg76 could argue for deletion on the basis that this decision is *not sufficient* for a listing of this institution in Wikipedia; thus making Wikipedia's entries effectively incomplete. This quite subjective way would not correspond to methods by which I personally would like Wikipedia to add information; it is certainly not in accordance with practices I know in science. (It appears to me that by analogy, somebody could argue that Nobelium is not worth mentioning because it is "so rare";-) --Karlsvozil 15:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The shift in argument is due to this discussion and changes to the page resulting from discussion, which has brought more facts to light. In that sense, it has certainly been fruitful. Originally, the page did not give figures about students and staff. The website does not state any such figures either (at least I couldn't find them), it doesn't even make clear whether courses have started yet. As said before, the page seems to indicate that the "staff" consists mostly of people normally teaching at state universities. I highly doubt that the figure of 80 given at the page now refers to 80 full-time employees. With respect to the criteria for inclusion, I don't think that government approval is particularly relevant. Lots of institutions and things need to get goverment approval. The general criterion is "notability" or "importance", which, however, is nothing that could be subject to scientific review. It's of course highly subjective, which is why we have discusions here to reach consensus (which seems to be going in favor of this page anyway). Martg76 16:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a very interesting discussion, and at least I learn a lot from it. Because the way I tend to see an Encyclopedia like Wiki is like this: the world out there is factual and "quasi-objective", and there should be a corresponcence between the world and its representation. Effectively, what is implemented here is a (more or less) pluralistic-democratic way of "voting" how this representation should look like. This sounds reasonable, because all representations are man-made by definition. However, for me as a physicist it appears questionable to "vote" for or against certain things which are fixed by convention (such as the SFU case, which was settled by the Austrian Accreditation Council) or by Nature itself---it would, to repeat the extreme case, be questionable to "vote" for against the inclusion of an element in the Periodic table. ---Karlsvozil 10:42, 21 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fingerjade

Article makes no assertion of notability, no evidence that the band has been signed or released any records, not on allmusic.com, and scores the coveted zero Google hits, the Web's favourite benchmark of band vanity. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

That is an incorrect opinion because as stated within the article Fingerjade is in the market for a record deal having rejected two proposals from distinguished labels. I am a resident of the ACT and I can assure these young men put on a brilliant live show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystrat (talk • contribs) 22:40, 19 November 2005

So the fact that they are unsigned is incorrect because they are unsigned? Er, right :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 14:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 08:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 21:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Johnleemk | Talk 09:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I have also heard the band play and I vouch for their reliability. This cannot be a "free" encyclopedia when people will delete quality articles and social commentaries. Cool down and don't be so annoyed over the "waste of space" this article is... Accept it and move on to better things in life than whining 203.129.52.116 10:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable band. jni 11:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't delete it; burn it with fire. If no fire is available, burn it with something almost as cool as fire, but more easily-obtained. I'm from the ACT, too. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:02, 26 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 21:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Hollas

Spoof. Peter Hollas appears to be a non-notable mathematics student at Wadham College, Oxford. See Ampleforth College 2003 Oxbrdge entry results. Flapdragon 12:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A Google search for "Peter Hollas" rugby gets three results [28] two of which are related to Wikipedia. The third is the "Wadham College Gazette" where Hollas is mentioned as a leading member of the cricket team - you would think that an English rugby union player with 30 caps would do better than that. Delete as hoax due to lack of verifiability even possible speedy as silly vandalism. Capitalistroadster 17:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as hoax. Ifnord 18:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. "Indeed, it may be asked, who now has heard of Peter Hollas?" No one, and thus it shall remain. Sam Vimes 21:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 15:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete hoax/non-notable bio. Stifle 22:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. D-Rock 00:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Senpai systems

Failed the Google test - the only hit is the website itself. Article appears to be self-promotion. Gsd2000 13:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete if article is a recreation, delete as advertisemnt otherwise. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Flapdragon 19:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 21:51, 22 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kate Richards

Fails WP:BIO. Too insignificant for an article, could be autobiographical. Blightsoot 13:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Local theatre actors are non-notable. - Randwicked 16:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I'm a local theatre actor and I'm certainly not notable. RasputinAXP T C 17:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 20:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe she was the first person under the age of 18 ever to play the leading female in an amateur production of a Sondheim show in the UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.52.110 (talk • contribs)

Comment: 86.133.52.110 - I'm afraid it still fails WP:BIO, and it's hardly a significant well recognised achievement. Also, I'm from Oxford. I live and work here, and even I haven't heard "of her" (Or perhaps "of you"). I even go to the theatre myself now and then. :O Blightsoot 19:30, 24 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alice ever falling

Advertisement. Nothing on Amazon [29], 19 google hits Zeimusu | Talk page 13:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Flapdragon 13:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 20:18, 22 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 as expanded by User:Capitalistroadster. — JIP | Talk 08:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ripple, Kent

seems NN - can't find anything of interest on the place in Google; the creator is obviously a joker --User:Taejo | Talk 14:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep, real place. Kappa 15:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment Contains no information not present in the title. This is not even a stub, this is an improperly executed article request. If nobody feels like working up a proper stub I think it should be deleted, and an article on Ripple Kent requested. It seems to be verifiable...... Here are some pictures... No vote until I see what happens in the next few days. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep and further expand. Britannica states that it is the birthplace of John French, 1st Lord of Ypres, commander of the British Expeditionary Force in World War 1. [30]. Our article states he was born in Ripple Vale, Kent. I have expanded the article beyond a one line substub. I would appreciate British Wikipedians have a look at this article so that it can be further expanded. Real place with real communities of interest. Capitalistroadster 19:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Much worse to be found on Wikipedia. Thanks to Capitalistroadster for the expansion. D e nni ☯ 01:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep in present form. Thanks, Capitalistroadster. Now, for the limerick contest... first line, "There was a young lady from Ripple..." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep the present rewrite, and hopefully it will expand yet more. Jacqui ^★ 19:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep the current version (nice work). Real villages are all valid topics. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 21 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adventurer-Many Worlds

Advertising for not notable game - near speedy

Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 14:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 20:10, 22 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. 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish chess players

Delete this for the same reason the List of Muslim athletes is up for deletion; see its AfD page here.

The faith of none of these people had a bearing on their career as chess players, and using lists such as these to boost ethnic pride is contrary to the principle of neutrality central to Wikipedia. Pilatus 14:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not useful breakdown Dlyons493 Talk 15:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete ridiculous -Doc ^ask? 20:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment-I know of champion checkers players who got their start in church functions. If there are cases of chess players who got into it in synagogue or yeshiva I'd say keep. Uncertain though.--T. Anthony 00:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

If there are cases of people who got into chess because of the attendance at a religious group's activities, then that belongs in their article. Putting them in a list with co-religionists who perhaps learned chess in the navy, at school, on a gay safari in the Congo, or whatever, tells you nothing. Would we stand for a list of people who learned chess in school clubs, I think not. --Doc ^ask? 00:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me rephrase because that's not how I meant it. "If there are cases of chess players who got into it in synagogue or yeshiva I'd say keep, under the understanding I mean restrict it only to chess players who started like that." I think learning from a religious institution would be more noteworthy then a school and I think religion can effect almost everything in a person's life. This is a very marginal possibility on that so I am not voting keep or voting at all.--T. Anthony 00:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Absurd. Impossible to maintain. KillerChihuahua 00:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is it impossible to maintain, or indeed any more difficult than many other lists? - RachelBrown 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete If being Jewish had any influence on the ability to play chess, I would vote to keep. But it doesn't. D e nni ☯ 01:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete There's a category that's practically identical to this. EscapeArtistsNeverDie 06:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless some chess scholar presents us with the synagogue gambit and the yeshiva defense. Durova 06:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, about as useful as a list of Catholic sailors (which means: "I agree with the reasonings above). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment Note that Category:Jewish chess players is up for deletion and it has been suggested the category be listified. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 16#Category:Jewish chess players. Hiding talk 17:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

While the cat is indeed nominated for deletion, that nomination is going to fail by a large margin. So it's safe to assume the category will continue to exist regardless of the outcome of this AfD. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with all of the Wiki's features, but it seems to me that a category such as "Jewish Chess Players" should not be a category in and of itself, but an intersection of the "Jewish" and "Chess Players" categories. Is this a limitation of the Wiki software? If so, it is definately a feature they should add. --mdd4696 08:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

You are quite correct and is why it is, to me, prefereable to Keep the list rather than the category, which is up for nom again as part of an umbrella nom at CFD. Hiding talk 13:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews (2nd nomination), when if anyone delete, please tell my talk page. --Sheynhertz _געשׁ״ך 07:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep - The proportion of Jews among chess players is so high that there must be some significance. - Londoneye 18:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete because category already covers it (the fact is notable, but category seems better mechanism). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. CG 19:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep - RachelBrown 22:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Edwardian 23:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete 72.144.71.234 05:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per cat. handling it. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep LazarKr 07:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless some relation can be shown between Judaism and notable chess players. mdd4696 23:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment This list would be easily generated once all the articles in it were tagged with categories. The reasoning behind my vote is this: Since this list is the intersection of two different lists, it can be easily generated once those single topic lists (List of Jews and List of Chess Players) have been created. Now, if this were a list like the List of Jews, I would've voted keep, since the article would be very useful when trying to find all of the articles listed on it for tagging. I would only vote to delete a single topic list after each article in the list were tagged with the proper category. --mdd4696 00:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, redundant with category. R adiant _>|< 00:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Αλεξ [[User talk:Alex S|Σ]] 02:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as a category, this is fine StabRule 23:38, 27 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newsonomy

Neologism, Dictdef, 2 Ghits

Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 14:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. - Randwicked 16:15, 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pergola lodge

Please can you provide details of how this can be improved so it's not considered spam? Many thanks, --lorry108 ^(talk) 14.59, 21 November 2005

Advert for a guest house. I removed the linkspam, but there is nothing in the article that says why it is worthy of an encyclopedia entry.-- GraemeL ^(talk) 15:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete!!! This can be speedied as spam, can't it? - Randwicked 16:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no WP:CSD for spam. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua 01:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert. (It needs to be a lot spammier for me to consider it at any rate speedy worthy). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete!!! was it just me or was the article rather biased as well?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opening credits history of Smallville

A collection of screenshots and nothing more. WP:NOT a depository of image files. Extraordinary Machine 15:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. RasputinAXP T C 17:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Hneh? Quite silly. D e nni ☯ 01:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as massive image copyvio. (Please don't forget to delete the images first). Can't possibly be fair use. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. If this is to be kept, it should be mostly words explaining the topic rather than pictures. Michael Hardy 21:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Why not leave it? Information is information, after all. llumynia 10:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Vote actually cast by 221.92.236.229 (talk · contribs). Extraordinary Machine 18:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. While I see why this article was nominated based on its current form, I would definately vote to Keep it if the pictures were replaced with words describing the opening sequences. Furthermore, I find it disturbing that this AfD for a potentially encyclopedic topic was done without a single comment about it on the talk page for this article. I think it should be discussed there before anyone even considers closing this AfD. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 08:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think there's much that could be written about opening sequences for television shows, apart from describing the roster of characters and cast members...and an article for Characters of Smallville already exists. At the very least, merge into the main Smallville (TV series) article. Extraordinary Machine 18:19, 28 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tabernacle Bar & Grill

Please can you provide details of how this can be improved so it's not considered spam? Many thanks, --lorry108 ^(talk) 14.59, 21 November 2005

Advert for a restaurant. I removed the linkspam, but there is nothing in the article that says why it is worthy of an encyclopedia entry.-- GraemeL ^(talk) 15:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua 01:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per GraemeL Pete.Hurd 20:09, 22 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 nn-bio. Ingoolemo ^talk 16:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DR. Alexander J. Hammond

Not notable, probable vanity, reads like a resume ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 15:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete: I would have been tempted to mark it a CSD as a biography that doesn't assert the notability of its subject. - squibix 15:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment I've gone off nn-bio as every single time I've used it, someone has contacted me to say I'm using it wrongly: the article should state that the person is nn; the article should state that the person is notable but then turn out not to be; the article should contain nothing biographical; the article should contain only biographical info; so on and so forth. So I'm AfD-ing these when I come across them as it's just easier! :) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as vandalism. The IP address has a history of vandal edits. Pilatus 16:36, 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 Speedy Delete by Jni. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Los angeles web design

Blatant advertising for non-notable design partnership. Title differs from name of actual company, which looks like a Google pagerank trick ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 15:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per Redvers.--Hurricane111 15:22, 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NOA ANDY

Vanity page for non-notable employee of Nintendo.

'Delete' as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 15:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable. - Randwicked 16:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Sorry Andy, you're a nice guy. But you're not really notable. RasputinAXP T C 17:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PJM 07:01, 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 no consensus. —Cleared as filed.

[edit] List of Jews in sports

At present this is a huge, unmanageable list of Jews who are prominent in sports.

Delete this, unless this is whittled down to a list of sportsmen whose faith or ethnic affiliation somehow had a bearing on their career, e.g. because they had to overcome prejudice or wouldn't compete on religious holidays. Pilatus 15:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Pilatus. And even then probably delete on the grounds that a category would do the job just as well without inviting entries insufficiently important to have WP entries. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Pilatus and Guy. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Pilatus. A list of trailblazers against prejudice and discrimination would be notable. A list of their successors is not. Durova 21:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Pilatus. Edwardian 21:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Perhaps because of the stereotype that Jews aren't good at sports, Jewish athletes generate a lot of interest. See, for example, www.jewishsports.com, www.jewishsportsreview.com, www.jewishsports.net, etc. A list might allow for extra info (e.g., "converted after end of career") not possible in a category. -- Mwalcoff 02:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete per Pilatus. I'll change to keep if someone demonstrates these were trailblazers against discrimination or, like Sandy Koufax, dealt with conflicts between religious observance and major sports events (Koufax refused to pitch in an opening game of the World Series because it fell on Yom Kippur). Durova 06:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment As evidence that these lists do not reflect a neutral point of view, I point out that virtually all of the lists of these kind are lists of people whose achievements are in areas considered respectable and praiseworthy. If the purpose of these lists were the neutral compilation of information, then, since Wikipedia considers porn stars to be encyclopedic, and includes a List of male porn stars and List of female porn stars, I would expect to see religious/ethnic breakouts of these, too. But in fact, we do not. The motivation for these lists is the patently the cultivation of ethnic/religious/national pride. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Although odd if you want say a list of confirmed Papal mistresses or Catholic suicides I don't think I'd go for deletion. There already is List of sexually active popes. Although it offends me on some level I'll concede it's notable in history. Things like "Jewish criminals" I thought was sounding like flame bait, and also too broadly defined. There were Jewish gangsters during prohibition so I could cautiously see a List of Jewish-American gangsters(if heavily scrutinized) as historically noteworthy in the way List of Italian-American mobsters was considered to be. As for Catholic suicides the religion is so down on suicide, traditionally, I could see some historical value.--T. Anthony 04:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Antidote 07:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Note We already have a List of Jewish American Athletes and corresponding sports sections on Jewish country lists. Aren't these lists just over doing it? Look at the revisions that have transpired at List of Roman Catholics Antidote 23:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews (2nd nomination), when if anyone delete, please tell my talk page. --Sheynhertz _געשׁ״ך 07:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep - a very interesting cultural phenomenon. - Londoneye 18:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep as the nom calls this list huge (does not look huge to me) and seems to be suggesting that it can be improved. --JJay 18:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Rename to List of Jewish sports figures. I really dislike the "Foos in bar" verbal form for lists and cats. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep - RachelBrown 22:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
weak keep I suppose this makes more sense than a lot of the other lists - I have seen lists of ethnicities in terms of sports. 72.144.71.234 05:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep LazarKr 07:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rename per Lulu. Kappa 12:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep - There's really nothing "unmanageable" about this list. --Αλεξ [[User talk:Alex S|Σ]] 02:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete What country lists and categories are for. StabRule 23:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep the list is not huge as nom claims. Arniep 17:42, 28 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I heart My STD

A non-notable one-person band which has existed for three months. - squibix 15:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete reviewing the "releases", 2 demos and one, er, unreleased. Unsigned, unnoticed and unimportant. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity --Halal 19:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Vanity with 0 entires in allmusic. --Hurricane111 05:08, 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 Delete, no content to merge, history undeletion can be requested later on WP:DRV. --Tito xd^(?!?) 05:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resolve

Single track of an album. Incorporate with album article. ERcheck 15:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Single track of an album does not merit its own article.ERcheck 15:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete under db-empty. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 15:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Resolve is the next single off of the album: [1]. I have the feeling that if it gets deleted now it will eventually reappear if the song becomes popular. Arenacale 16:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy for empty/insufficient context. Ingoolemo ^talk 16:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, provides context and will need to be recreated when the single is released. Kappa 16:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
merge with the album and redirect. I can see absolutely no sense or point in keeping articles on single tracks. This album is not Sergeant Pepper, and even that has some duff tracks. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Redirect; there is nothing to merge. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete; it can be recreated when it actually becomes notable. - squibix 18:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with In Your Honor. If and when it becomes a hit and it can be expanded usefully beyond one line, a seperate article can be created then. Capitalistroadster 19:29, 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 consensus to redirect to Model United Nations. Johnleemk | Talk 12:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Westchester Model United Nations Conference

Non-notable local high school debating thingum. Randwicked 15:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, or Merge with Hastings-on-Hudson High School if someone wants to create the school article. Pburka 16:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
merge and delete - no independent notability, and hard even to verify properly. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Merged material requires a redirect per GFDL requirements so the history is retained. Merge and delete is therefore an incompatible vote. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Model_United_Nations. We don't need one for each individual conference. Article already exists. Zordrac 10:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: It would be inappropriate to merge all the hundreds of conferences into Model United Nations, as they change every year and move about, and there are national, regional, and state gatherings of each in the US alone. If there is no article on the school, we can't merge there, either. That leaves us with a delete. I'm sorry, but there is no merge target. The only other alternative would be to userfy it. Geogre 12:33, 29 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of gags in the Naked Gun series

There are several problems with this article:

The entire show is one long series of rapid-fire gags; there are hundreds of them. You might as well include the whole script as there are few bits which are not intended to be funny.
Some things count as a gag in some eyes and not in others, other things might be counted as either gags or plot devices depending on POV. The list is subjective.
I see no need for an article on the gags in the shows separate from the show articles themselves, which are not over-long.
If the shows were generally serious then a list of humorous moments might be worth having, but since the concept is humorous this, too, does not argue for a separation of the humour to a separate article.
It's listcruft.

And I say the above as one who liked the TV series and the first film a lot. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 15:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete - got to agree, and I've previously thought of doing this myself. violet/riga (t) 16:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 16:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It might be suitable for IMDB, but it's not encyclopedic. Pburka 16:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This entry has been present since July 2004, and although it's not encyclopedic, it does have some amusing entries...even if it is subjective. Andrew73 17:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Andrew, please note that being amusing is not an inclusion criterion. Neither is being overlooked since July 2004. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete much too crufty --Bucephalus [[User talk:Bucephalus|talk to me]] 11:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's just for fun, stop being so anal! Ponch_316 1:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought this was an encyclopaedia, not a joke book. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as trivial fancruft and lack of encyclopedic content. MCB 23:59, 23 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AmRich

Unverifiable. No related results for the founders names [31], can't find any site or media about this company. http://amrich.com/ is a placeholder. --W.marsh 15:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete I'd even consider this a borderline speedy candidate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
delete NN business substub Pete.Hurd 20:08, 22 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The white bear

Mainly spam for a pub website. Some minor claim to notability asserted but does one signed menu merit an entry? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 16:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Not really. Delete. The Land 18:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
delete NN business Pete.Hurd 20:06, 22 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, which seems to have already been done. ~~Someone might consider deleting the article now that the useful content has been merged.~~ Redirecting. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 01:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Better Off Dead (Soundtrack)

This page is a deadend orphan on the soundtrack of a not-particularly-notable movie. I'm not saying we don't need the information. It's just that there's not much here worth merging, and certainly nothing we can't say in the Better Off Dead article itself. ♠PMC♠ 22:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

- I'll change my vote to a 'merge', nice rewrite Edwardian. ♠PMC♠ 04:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. ♠PMC♠ 19:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
keep, soundtracks are better discussed in separate articles. Kappa 16:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge & Delete. The film's article is not long, and I don't see evidence that the soundtrack has a life of its own. I can't find articles on Star Wars (soundtrack) or Paris, Texas (soundtrack), although the former is probably the most listened-to piece of classical music written in the 20th Century and the latter plays a major part in establishing the mood of the film. I can't find an an article on the soundtrack of Close Encounters, either, despite the (unusual) way in which the music crossed into the plot. We do have a separate article for the album Quadrophenia, but that predates the film by six years and the film was based on the album. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merging of useful information has basically been done...although if anyone wants to get a track listing for the Better Off Dead page, I wouldn't object. I couldn't find one. ♠PMC♠ 19:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article as it stands is an album review not an encyclopedia article about it. It outlines the author's opinion of the album and there is little to merge. According to Allmusic.com, there is nothing of great note in the soundtrack [32] :If there was any information in this article as opposed to opinion, it could be merged with Better Off Dead which already has a section on the soundtrack. If it was a notable sound track such as Star Wars it should have an article. Well done to Edwardian for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 04:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Capitalistroadster 19:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, or merge with Better Off Dead or I want my two dollars. -- Edwardian 21:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC) edited 22:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Anything useful has already been merged. (That's how little was useful.) ♠PMC♠ 19:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  - I added the tracklisting and a few other details. Edwardian 22:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable soundtrack album. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, period. UNnotable soundtrack: no milestones, no genre-breaker, no notable work by a composer, etc. --Calton | Talk 00:35, 21 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 08:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conclave des ombres

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as a hoax, unless some reputable references can be provided. Pburka 16:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete and have the author killed for breaking the code of silence. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Pburka. ERcheck 20:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - points to fiction --> Conclave of Shadows is a fiction series by author Raymond E. Feist. ERcheck 20:25, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fred P. Hall Elementary School

This afd nomination was incomplete. The afd tag on this article placed by the only non-minor editor, so it's technically speedyable, but I think it's worth keeping. —Cryptic (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless the article is improved. I'm a school-inclusionist, but there is nothing worth keeping here. Pburka 16:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The authors can't even be sure if it has a middle school or not. And how old is "very"? The school I went to is one thousand and fifty-seven years old - that is quite an old school. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Old, by U.S. standards. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Barely any assertion of its existence, let alone notability. --Last Malthusian 18:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, then enter as a requested article. This is not a stub, this is an improperly executed article request. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- The article request page is more or less a waste of time imo. People are far more likely to improve existing articles that to start a new one. Only a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of people who have edited have ever started an article. CalJW 10:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I have rewritten the article; hopefully it is a more suitable stub now. Please reconsider your votes given the current version! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-20 01:41:12Z
Delete. If kept, move to Fred P. Hall Elementary School. Vegaswikian 06:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten by HorsePunchKid. Goddamn DataMgr.c, Line:9529 errors... —RaD Man (talk) 08:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep A good start. CalJW 10:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. Can someone add the year they won the contest? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep for the rewrite. Thanks for your effort. Jacqui ^★ 15:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Please use the {{cleanup-school}} tag for school-related articles which require cleanup, rather than further clogging up the AFD system. Silensor 23:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nn school 86.134.164.85 00:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep all schools. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. -- DS1953 05:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
delete non-notable ankle-biter farm Pete.Hurd 07:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this is a notable school. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
keep please this school is important and notable too Yuckfoo 22:27, 22 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. — JIP | Talk 08:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nocturnal Submissions

Obsolete, obscure journal that ceased publication 6 years ago.

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems to have been a legitimate publication. Wikipedia is a useful historical record. Pburka 16:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above. Kappa 16:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I can find evidence it existed, but njot that it was influential or widely published. Is there any verification that it was anythign other than author vanity, as some such journals are? Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- We could ask at the regional Australian Wikipedians' notice board. At any rate, being a defunct publication should be a reason for a historical article, not deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  - No, but it does make verifiability more difficult. A lot of literary journals have tiny circulation and are largely vanity, as I'm sure you know. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 15:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Legitimate magazine, possibly of historical interest. — Stumps 14:20, 22 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. — JIP | Talk 08:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heads Up with Richard Herring

Minor chatshow on minor satellite station. Guest list is a veritable Who's That of British "slebrity" with the single notable exception of John Thomson. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 16:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep Notable show with a notable host... I'm keenly aware of Richard Herring from Fist of Fun, etc. I don't know quite what would make a chat show "minor" exactly, but it's major enough that all the guests listed already have WP articles, many of them quite sizable. It's certainly not the British equivalent of a public-access show or anything similar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Richard Herring is certainly notable. N (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2005

I never said he wasn't. But this show? I think not. What are the verified audience rating figures? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 22:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

No idea, but this is far from the only article that doesn't include verified audience figures. That it's the UK's first poker chat show, on a station that is actually notable among UK poker fans, with a notable presenter, and with (reasonably) notable guests is enough, for me at least.. - N (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep, although I should note that not all the people listed as guests had WP entries prior to the creation of this article. Several, including Malcolm Harwood and Tiffany Williamson were created at the same time this article was. Essexmutant 16:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The show just started, and it's impact isn't guessable at this point. But it's certainly the first of its kind, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's a lot of shows that follow this format soon.--Mike Selinker 04:41, 26 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xigbal

Speculation about a character from a yet-to-be-released game. -Rholton 16:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete "Xigbal is a member of the XIII Order, a group of Nobodies" ... upcoming game ... Nothing is known at this time ... I'm left wondering whether the author put the AfD tag in there as well, to save time! Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect in XIII Order. IIRC from recent nominations it's a group of villains in a already released game. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Apostrophe 19:37, 24 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Madam Majestic

Delete Unsourced sub-stub that does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Caerwine 16:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as lacking any evidence of importance. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 20:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. mdd4696 23:53, 25 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft Interview

Delete — As with the previous AfD, the same reasons there, apply here: Is there even any need for it? It's and interview process; is it just becuase it's Microsoft that it gets its own page? People should be fairly familiar with the interview process. If it has to be deleted, then perhaps put a {{deletedpage}} on it? ^KILO-_LIMA 17:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, and if it's substantially the same as the last one, speedy delete. I'm not sure it is - of course I can't see the original, but one of the sentences was quoted in the AfD - I searched the article for part of it ('development manager') and found nothing, so it's probably not completely identical. Its only purpose is still basically as a how-to, which violates WP:NOT. --Malthusian (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete There is next-to-nothing in the article that is different from a majority of 'prepare yourself for a job interview' articles that are published on a weekly basis. The Microsoft aspect doesn't make it notable. (aeropagitica) 17:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Article has improved since the last AfD. Even a merge is better than delete. I don't think we want to upset a relatively new user to Wikipedia by deleting one of his decent articles? --★Ukdragon37★^talk 18:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- There are numerous new users who's pages are delted. Some are even wrost than AfD, and in this case, I mean Speedy. This article seems to blatantly advertise Microsoft's interview, and Wikipedia is not a how-to. ^KILO-_LIMA 20:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep or Merge I think my article should at least be merged with the Microsoft entry. Microsoft was one of the first, if not the first company to develop this unique style of interviewing. Since other companies like Google and Yahoo also use this type of interview, it is becoming more commonplace, so I can see why people might want to merge my article with Microsoft. I did spend a good deal of time crafting the article and you can find that the content is factual and well-written. I only decided to write this page after reading the Microsoft entry and seeing that "Microsoft Interview" was not linked to a Wiki page. I think that those who are more familiar with the more traditional behavioral interviews will learn something about how technical interviews are conducted. -- Suvablee0506 18:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I can't see what makes the interview process unusual, personally. The procedure and the questions all seem pretty standard. This may be because, if the article does have a purpose, it's hidden in all the stuff that frankly, doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia entry. We don't need to know, for example, Microsoft's current job postings, or that they pay for your accomodation, or their expense claims procedure (which is, btw, identical to every other expense claims procedure). Or rather, we would if we were applying for a job at Microsoft, but no-one who isn't could possibly find that information interesting; that means it's not suitable for an encyclopaedia. If it's a unique style of interviewing, then tell us about it and remove all the other stuff, because I honestly can't see it in this article. --Malthusian (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I do see your point. Perhaps I can incorporate some of what I have written in "The Second Round Technical Interview" and and "Interview Questions" into the "Business culture" section of the Microsoft entry and delete the separate entry for "Microsoft Interview"? - Suvablee0506 18:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Me too. Perhaps merging would be better. But no large amount of detail should be added. It is only a process as to whether someone should ge a job at Microsoft, or not. ^KILO-_LIMA 18:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There is neither anything notable nor encyclopedic about this entry.Microsoft's interview process is not particularly different than the interview process for other similar companies. I think it borders on advertising, to be honest. Crunch 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Back in the 80s and 90s, the Microsoft interview procedure was influential and innovative. I don't diasagree that the article needs to be cleaned-up, though. The talk page suggests there was a far more interesting version previously available, but I don't see it in the history. Can it be resurrected? -- Mikeblas 19:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - The Microsoft interview process is definitely notable and drastically altered interviews across the whole field of computer science. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 21:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. If that's true, then I think the article can be rewritten with that fact as its focus, and less detail on all the steps of the interview process, many of which are common to every job interview in every field, dating long before the 1980s. Crunch 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Smells like a copyvio or an official submission to me. e.g. It is expected that the candidate research Microsoft's various businesses and product groups, and come prepared to speak in-depth about his/her résumé in addition to asking thoughtful questions. --kingboyk 22:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- It was no intention of mine at all to create an entry that would cause controversy. I was just reading the Microsoft entry and found the wiki-link to "Microsoft Interview" with an unwritten article. I was totally unaware that it had been deleted before. I understand everyone's concern about the entry. Perhaps an addition to the Job interview entry could include a description of a technical interview using the Microsoft interview process as an example. Obviously, only parts of the current article would be used. I myself am leaning towards deleting the "Microsoft Interview" entry and merging parts of it with possibly Microsoft and Job interview because that type of interview is becoming more commonplace. I am however against deleting it outright before at least some of it is used somewhere because I did do genuine research and put forth an honest effort. Any thoughts? - Suvablee0506 23:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Don't worry too much about the controversy, honestly. We try to assume good faith and I'm sure there's a way we can use some of your material. Besides, the guidance presented to a user when (s)he clicks on a red link maybe isn't good enough. --kingboyk 23:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Before the article was deleted, someone really should have checked 'what links here' and dewikilinked 'Microsoft interview'. --Malthusian (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Wikipedia is not a how to guide. --Bachrach44 02:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I would just like to say that contrary to what people are saying here, this article's subject in my opinion is quite notable. This interviewing process is drastically different from what the majority of other companies use. There should be somewhere on Wikipedia to document this. I agree that maintenance may be needed (clean up, removing potential adverts, merged etc.) but I do not believe this article should be deleted outright (as per my vote above). --★Ukdragon37★^talk 18:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Unencyclopedic, the pracice will surely change over years. As an anectode: I know about one guy who got hired by Microsoft (as a tester) w/o any interview at all (a student who finished university, not someone with big name). He was recommended by a friend (who even didn;'t worked in MS) and got in without being asked anything at all. So the article isn't even correctly describing reality. Pavel Vozenilek 22:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Would everyone be okay with just using some part of the entry and merging it with Job interview to describe a technical interview using Microsoft as just one example? The Job interview entry has a section on behavioral interviews but not technical interviews. Again, I am not against deleting the entry but not before some of it is used somewhere.- Suvablee0506 17:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge As has been noted above, the subject of the article is particularly noteworthy because of its originality and subsequent effect on many companies, especially in the 80's and 90's. However, the article itself is not spectacular. It should be condensed, refocused, and placed either on the Microsoft page or the Job interview page, the other with a note and a link. Rexmorgan 03:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 speedied as nn-bio with insufficient context. Ingoolemo ^talk 16:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Daley

No pertinent Google hits for 'Robert Daley tuxedo'. Listing it here for more eyeballd but really should be speedy deleted as an attack page. Pilatus 16:41, 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Shakes

Ad for a wedding band. NN Randwicked 16:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep this internationally renowned million selling wedding band Only kidding. Delete of course. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. ERcheck 20:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete but surely there's an article on the medical condition of "the shakes" that this can redirect to after deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to essential tremor. Gazpacho 06:07, 21 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subiblicly

Neologism, vaguely defined. Original research. Google has never heard of the word. Speedy tags repeatedly removed. --Tabor 16:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. And burn it. And the user account of the creator. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. ERcheck 20:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Dictdef that is not even defined. According to the article, the “underlying principals and meaning...are both still unclear” and there is no way “to know in what sense this term is used”. •DanMS 00:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. mdd4696 23:53, 25 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Businessintro

Wiki is not free web hosting even for Eden Prairie, MN.

Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 16:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting site WP:NOT. ERcheck 20:13, 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Filibuster

PLEASE VOTE DESPITE THE COPYVIO This is a copyvio that claims permission, rather than seeking permission we are sending it here first. This is an article about a podcast that used to be a college radio program. It doesn't seem to have any claim to notability. --best, kevin _└ ^KZOLLMAN/ _TALK^┐ 16:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete podcast with no evident claim to notability. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete this, but I'd support an article about WIDB. Jacqui ^★ 19:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 07:30, 22 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert of basevorn

Appears to be original reasearch, written in the form of a paper, reads like ORjfg284 ^{you were saying?} 17:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomjfg284 ^{you were saying?} 17:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Removing vote, replacing with no vote. The author has cited sources, making it not really original research any more, and improved formatting to make it read less like a paper. It looks like he was bothered to take that scythe and trim it. Still not sure if it fits relevancy, because 14th centruy isn't so much my field, per se. Would vote keep other than this relevancy problem, now.jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 15:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete original research, unless someone can be bothered to take a scythe to it and trim it down to a proper article. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per JzG Pete.Hurd 07:24, 22 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of star wars schools

This entry combines three major reasons for delete in a single article: 1. it is a list; 2. it is fancruft; and 3. it is about schools. Seriously, the problem is that articles of this kind are supposed to be lists of articles, and I doubt that more than one article on a star wars school will even be written. At least, the argument “this school is real” does not apply here. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as fancruft. Anville 18:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete ... a single entry does not make a good list. ERcheck 18:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete particularly vacuous fancruft. Are there any other schools in Star Wars? Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I can't imagine this ever being a useful navigation tool; I can only think of two academies or schools in Star Wars. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
"procetedioce-ly" Delete Maybe all schools shouldn't be included ;-) Karmafist 23:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Schools are inherently notable. No, wait, delete. D e nni ☯ 02:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 02:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete If you only have a single example, why create a 'list' in the first place? {Master Deusoma 02:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)}
Delete Fancruft. --Bucephalus [[User talk:Bucephalus|talk to me]] 11:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete all 'lists' with a single entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Mgm. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This article has potential for expansion, but it's worthless as it stands now. Even if it were kept, it wouldn't be a list, more like "Schools in Star Wars" or something.-LtNOWIS 01:36, 22 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. -Doc ^ask? 20:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pikkel Weezel

Clearly made up. --Tabor 17:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete... nonsense. ERcheck 18:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete nonsense Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:39, 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assbroken

No such place exists. Punkmorten 18:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Nonsense. Or even vandalism. ERcheck 18:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax. The only references to this refer to Tony of the band Future Prophecies, so Is suspect he's the perpetrator. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as above Pete.Hurd 19:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I wonder if there is something similarly-spelled that actually exists, but I was unable to find it. MCB 01:39, 24 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. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 01:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalist Casualties

Minor band on very minor label (allmusic lists only a couple of dozen releases over a decade or so). No evidence of appreciable sales or following, no mention of chart position on indie or other charts. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep per the fact that they have several albums listed on All Music Guide. Underground following, but enough to be sold on Amazon. Punkmorten 20:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Capitalist Casualties is a known band in grindcore circles, and there is no reason to delete the entry just because someone thinks it is a "minor band on very minor label". The article does need development though. - Quirk 18:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No reason other then WP:NMG, obviously. Interpretation of some facets of this guideline may be subjective, of course, but to suggest that it was not referenced is scarcely good faith. For the record the guideline says:

1. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country*

2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one large or medium-sized country.

3. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour over notable musical venues in at least one large or medium-sized country*, reported in mainstream media.

4. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

5. Has been prominently featured in any major music media.

6. Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such.

7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

8. Has won a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno or Mercury Music Award.

I looked for and did not find evidence of any of the above. So I brought it here. And I may be wrong, someone may have evidence that it meets these criteria, but band vanity is sufficiently common as to make it quite understandable that one would be sceptical. And nobodyu is infallible, which is why we have votes. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:23, 23 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cab Clothing

Advertisment for a shop Delete Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. ERcheck 19:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete spam. Negligible content, negligible company by the looks of it. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Per nom - N (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. mdd4696 23:53, 25 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Astronomy for beginners

Unencyclopedaic amateurish essay - Delete. Vsmith 18:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete original "research". Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nomination. linas 23:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Transfer to Wikibooks which needs contributions at all levels. A Wikibook on astronomy for beginners would be a valuable contribution. Then, the author can correct the facts and expand the article. Fg2 00:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Done. The timing is fortuitous. Wikibooks is currently looking to drastically improve its Astronomy textbook. Uncle G 04:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Wow! If this nonsense will improve wikibooks, they are in deep trouble. :-) Vsmith 15:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete The sun is powered by nuclear fission? Nice try! D e nni ☯ 02:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Sun says it nuclear fusion, just misspelled 2 letters. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete I'd like to meet this very entertaining mother who's giving out these extra big servings of pancakes though Bwithh 04:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Karol 08:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete since Uncle G transwikied it. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If anything, this should go in the Simple English wikipedia. – Iggy Koopa 20:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Guy. Essay and not an encyclopedia article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per the above. Edwardian 21:35, 22 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 Redirect to The Compton School. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Compton Scool

There is already an article The Compton School - it looks like this was just created by a vandalous IP (212.85.15.69) and is an exact replicar of the original article. No reason at all to keep this. Secrets 18:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. New article title has "school" misspelled. ERcheck 19:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete with glee. I can't believe we're going to be allowed to delete a "naked lady" and a "scool" on the same day! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete and they even mis-spelled Skool - what's the world coming to? Dlyons493 Talk 21:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy redirect to The Compton School. I put the redirect in but left the AfD notice for the time being. It really is a complete duplicate of the target article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-20 01:14:41Z
Speedy redirect to The Compton School as per HorsePunchKid. —RaD Man (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete — Any unlikely mis-spelling. — RJH 15:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy redirect as a possible misspelling and protect the redirect to deter vandal. Bahn Mi 05:52, 22 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, with a possible merge. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 01:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] K.I.A.

Producervanity that does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Releases are on self-published label? and none get any significant Google hits. Article is not helped by the extremely-fluffy writing and iTunes Music Store links - at the very least this needs cleanup and at worst, deletion. See also the near-identical Shinjuku zulu. FCYTravis 18:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Kirby Ian Andersen the guy behind the project. He comes up with a mention in major newspapers in Canada and an IMDB mention and enough references in various databases to indicate he probably crawls over the standard of notabilty. Needs a rewrite since it is clearly a press release. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 19:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep and cleanup. Has an Allmusic.com entry including a biography see [33]. K.I.A. stands for Kirby Ian Andersen. Is verifiable and notable enough. At least three albums to his credit. Significant within genre and meets WP:NMG for mine. Capitalistroadster 20:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep Seems notable enough. - N (talk) 23:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Kirby Ian Andersen, and redirect K.I.A. to KIA. I'm not convinced this guy has enough record sales to qualify as notable, and the vanity index of this article ought to make him cringe in embarassment, but... it's arguably close to WP:MUSIC... Pete.Hurd 20:02, 22 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spray booths

Advertising for Mist-on tanning booths. ERcheck 18:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Reads like a sales brochure. ERcheck 18:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Owen× ☎ 19:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete spam Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
is editing an option? When writing the article, it was not intended as Spam, since I have no stake, financial or otherwise in the company involved. I will edit if that would help, or you are free to delete as you feel is needed. Sorry, did not mean to create an issue, I am new, and was simply intending to add some info, since I have noted that people ask about this type of product alot.--66.82.9.87 00:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Great idea! If you can edit and bring it up to the same standard as, say, Sunbed, I'd gladly change my vote to "Keep". Be sure to post here when you're done, so we can all take another look. Owen× ☎ 02:13, 23 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 kept - since when was anything on a talk page private communication? I can see no valid reason to excise the record. The fact that the nomination is "on request of David Patrick Taylor himself" is irrelevant. He does not own his article's talk page. FCYTravis 19:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:David Patrick Taylor

On request of David Patrick Taylor himself, who considers the contents of the talk page to contain private communication. - Andre Engels 19:11, 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NakedLady

Product is still under development. Not notable. Delete —Brim 19:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete hey! we finally get to delete one naked lady from WP! And I thought it was impossible... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong keep When you get to my age you hang on the very occasional naked ladies you come across Down Boy! Down! Delete Dlyons493 Talk 21:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 07:23, 22 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. 05:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abovetopsecret.com

Someone from the site claims 40,000-odd registered members, but link:-site: on Google presents only a dozen or so hits, mostly deep inside discussion boards, and the only Google News hit is a press release from the site. Unless the claim to notability can be independently verified, I'd say its webcruft. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

More info now I can get Alexa to work: Alexa rank 14,925, 100-odd sites linking in, mostly personal homepages by the loooks of it. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Promotion/adv for website. ERcheck 20:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

comment OTOH they are the leading disscussion board for conspirocy theories on the web.Geni 05:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

So they say. And this is a leading conpiracy to delete it form Wikipedia. Run! I can hear the black helicopters coming! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:19, 25 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tectricians Consulting Services

NN Company. - Mailer Diablo 20:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete - advertising. ERcheck 20:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete incompetent spam (note that they can't even make up their minds what their name is, and at least one version is mis-spelled!) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
this is not spam. it's a history of our company..give it a chance -rmitch5555- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmitch5555 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-19 20:38:35 UTC
we just started the article it will have useful information.. again don't delete give it chance -rmitch5555- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmitch5555 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-19 20:42:14 UTC
- Comment: Check WP:CORP. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete although consluting is certainly what some consultants do. Dlyons493 Talk 21:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
AGAIN, WE ARE NOT PROMOTING, it the history of our Company and what we do. The HTML mock up includes useful links within Wikipedia. Somewhat dissapointed about the mean spirited comments. I see similar articles.. we are not spammers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmitch5555 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-19 23:53:40 UTC
The article is a history of a company. It cites no sources, and research turns up no published histories of this company (indeed, no published works at all) written by people who are independent of the company. The subject thus does not satisfy the WP:CORP criteria, for starters. The company's own web site contains the same history, created by the same person (Rob Mitchell, whom the article tells us is the founder of the company), a scant few days before he submitted this article to Wikipedia. This is an original history, being created from scratch by a single person, of himself and his company. The article is autobiography, and has the common problems that autobiographies have of being original research and unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 04:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is a work in progress. It is by no means complete. This is our first entry and prior to deletion. Lets us fix the article in accordance with Wikipedia standards.

Delete. Wikipedia is not a business directory. A company should have some notability (e.g., publicly traded stock, well-known product, or news coverage) before it gets included. -- DS1953 05:39, 22 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. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 01:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slovak-Hungarian War

Appears to be original research, WP:NOT. - Mailer Diablo 20:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOR. The article even says it's research. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The fact it says "Research by..." doesn't make it "original research". Delete that phrase and anything that can't be substantiated. I'm no expert but it doesn't look particularly "original" to me. It could use some improvement but it's a perfectly good subject for an article. Flapdragon 13:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Unless there is something here that is disputed, it seems fine.

You cannot delete it, because this is a normal article about a real war, also known as the "Little War" (which is a very pertaining name). I will correct the text. Juro 01:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alliance of Nine

Recruitment ad for some OGame clan. Wikipedia is not self promotion. --W.marsh 20:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Per nom - N (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete for the reasons stated in the nomination. -Colin Kimbrell 15:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert. mdd4696 23:52, 25 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus Christ Saves Ministries

Jesus Christ Saves Ministries is a 1 man show run by the extra nutty fruitcake, Mr Jason Gastrich (who is being deleted here) by Chochi (talk · contribs) who must be about the sixth or seventh unconvincing sockpuppet of Mr Gastrich. — Dunc|☺ 20:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete sockpuppetry. Repent, Mr Gastrich! Your spams will be forgiven* Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep - Critics are essentially vandalizing this entry. JCSM is obviously notable and no good reason exists to delete entry.--Chochi 20:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- What makes it notable is the remarkable number of advertisments for a ministry. Wikipedia is not a for advertising. David D. (Talk) 03:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Yes, true. Chochi is Gastrich, being disingenuous, as usual, and JCSM is an exceptionally minor player in the evangelical community.
    - Gaaaah! I visited Chochi's user page and found The Teeth! I am traumatised... - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Clearly another attempt by Jason Gastrich to use Wiki to promote his ministry. It's simply not possible for him to post on the subject and maintain a dispassionate POV, and his antics make it difficult for anyone else to engage in dispassionate discussion.
Delete as more vanity cruft from Mr. Gastrich. Durova 21:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
"Delete with extreme prejudice". Wait until your operation is big as Scientology (or at least Robert Tilton or Gary Spivey) before reapplying, Mr.Gastrich. wikipediatrix 21:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Self promotion and vanity pages are not appropriate. Mark K. Bilbo 23:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Mark User:Ejrrjs says What? 00:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
SPEEDY DELETE with prejudice. This is a very minor ministry by a self-promoting conman who thinks he can become notable by telling everyone he is notable. Eliminate the Discussion page, too. Harvestdancer 00:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
delete Way too many adds for a serious ministry. This looks suspiciously like an effort to increase the sites traffic. David D. (Talk) 03:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Clearly an attempt to promote a ministry site for an exceptionally minor "ministry" that generates revenue through and suspect sales schemes.
Delete. Note to Mr Gastrich: If you want your name on Wikipedia so much, I suggest you found a high school, name it after yourself, and build a website for 'verifiability'. --Last Malthusian 17:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Self promotion, non-notable. -Willmcw 01:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
delete NN, Be Gone! Pete.Hurd 07:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per all remarks above. Anville 09:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per everybody. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

*may require additional payments, terms and conditions apply, not all spam is forgivable, always read the label, may contain traces of nuts.

Delete per the above. Edwardian 21:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, or redirect to Joanie Loves Chochi. What? Oh, never mind. MCB 01:42, 24 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radar Recordings

Non-notable record label, Allmusic has a "Radar Records" but the band list is different. Only ten albums released in three years, and four ouring bands (none of whom apear to meet WP:MUSIC) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. PJM 21:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as above, article seems intended to serve as advertisement. Pete.Hurd 07:16, 22 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boomstick44

Vanity bio ERcheck 20:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. ERcheck 20:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
No, Boomstick44 did not make this page.
Delete fancruft, vanity bio or gamecruft? You decide! Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. Blightsoot 21:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PJM 21:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom - N (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Maybe when he goes pro and gets a fan club he can be notable too (see Lim Yo-Hwan). - Bobet 00:20, 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 delete as re-created content that we have deleted from the main article namespace numerous times before, and have covered over and over in the project namespace. Uncle G 02:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia golf

Does it matter whether the game is popular or not? There are people that play it, and it is sweet, and thus we should be allowed to spread its glory with a Wikipedia entry about it

I highly doubt that this is a popular game. Difficult to get relevant google hits, but few nonetheless. Also an attempt to communicate. Punkmorten 20:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete it gets a hole in one to AfD! Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Tuohirulla 21:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PJM 21:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom - N (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Clean up and Keep - my son told me it is a quite popular game in his school, though it is named Wikipedia Racing in Australia. Obviously the E-mail of the editor should be removed from the article. abakharev 00:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Max Pratt Game. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-20 01:06:51Z
Aaaaaargh! How many more times? I'm closing this now. Uncle G 02:19, 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] So Sexy

Non-notable single from album. By author's own words, the song does not get airplay. ERcheck 20:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. ERcheck 20:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - "The song gets no play on the radio." Nuff said. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
As the page presently stands I say Delete. It does not offer any more info than what's already mentioned in Olivia (singer) and Behind Closed Doors other than an unsubstantiated remark. However, because the singer and album are apparently notable the single is too. PJM 21:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete delete delete delete. wikipediatrix 21:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - didn't make the charts according to Allmusic.com [34]. There is nothing much else that can be usefully said about it so it will remain a one sentence substub. Nothing worth merging with the album. Capitalistroadster 23:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Single released from a notable album. - N (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom & Capitalistroadster Pete.Hurd 07:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge in Behind Closed Doors album article. The isn't much to merge, though. -Hapsiainen 21:29, 25 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of nonagenarians

listcruft. The encyclopaedic content of this article is covered in nonagenarian, and the rest is an arbitrary list. I can just about live with the list of people who hadn't died by the time they reached a hundred (which gets you a telegram from the Queen, so must be notable) but why 90? Is that even very unusual these days? Why leave them in when they die? Nonegenarians usually means living nonegenarians. It's pointless, I'd say. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

To whoever sees this Afd, does anyone remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who are nearly centenarians?? Any difference between this article's reason for Afd and that one's?? Georgia guy 21:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL! That's a classic, that one! And yet, in a very real sense, you are absolutely spot on. That is, in effect, what this article is. And I nominated it for all the same reasons cited there. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 22:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete-I worked on this and have voted in favor of many lists so this might be a surprise. However even while working on it it struck me as kind of pointless. Living to 90 is increasingly not that odd, even for a celebrity. In my own family many of the people who lived to be elderly lived over 90 years. Passing a hundred is still interesting, but anyway delete.--T. Anthony 00:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That said if it could be limited to those rare cases where being a nonagenarian is remarkable I might, but probably would not, consider a keep. For example nonagenarians born with an often fatal disability or who were heroin addicts.--T. Anthony 00:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh! When Stephen Hawking hits 90, I'll help you write it :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 00:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Listcruft

'delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 19:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. MCB 02:00, 24 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 Blightsoot 13:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Þórir Jökull Steinfinnsson

~~Mostly Non English Page. Isn't useful in the encyclopedia. Blightsoot 21:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)~~

Delete due mainly to the lack of any contextual clue as to what the hell it's supposed to be about. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep link comes from Skald. I'll try to add some info on this poet. --24.31.29.171 22:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: couldn't find much, which for the subject, probably isn't surprising.. but it seems to be legit [35]. --Halal 23:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, skaldic poets could probably be excused for lacking a large web presence, but the article does nothing to assert notability (beyond the fact that someone has heard of him 800 years later). - Bobet 00:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep at least for now, and see if Halal or someone can find some information on the poet to see how notable he is. Being (probably) Icelandic, it’s not going to be easy finding information on him, and he could be very notable in Iceland but not well known outside of Iceland. Any contributions from Icelanders would be welcome here. •DanMS 00:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

~~Full disclosure: I have a soft spot for Iceland, having lived there for two years and loved the country. •DanMS 01:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)~~

Ok I Withdraw this nomination. I agree it could be of use now someone managed to get one source and the page is properly formatted up. (Far from how it was earlier) Interestingly, the guy could pass WP:BIO on the basis of being of relative importance in his field of Skald poetry. Keep Blightsoot 00:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand, as he seems to be notable. Carioca 01:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment-I asked about this at the talk page of four of the ten people in Category:Wikipedians in Iceland. I worry that was obnoxious, but maybe you'll get a taker.--T. Anthony 11:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep This is notable, half the Icelandic nation knows the poem quoted on his page. I'll see if I can expand some more and establish notability and context better. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep-Now that we've heard from someone from Iceland.--T. Anthony 12:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

KEEP - I'm off to see my Icelandic Connection over turkey time and hope to have some more for the article at [after] that time. Carptrash 16:30, 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 delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)~~

~~[edit] Kingdom of Infinia'~~

~~Not strictly encyclopedic. Entertaining at best, wilfully false at worst. Nach0king 21:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)~~

Delete. Silly legal arguments are not in themselves encyclopedic; when they are intentionally misleading - essentially a lie from beginning to end - and self-promotional, we don't need them here. - Nunh-huh 21:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as largely unverifiable, and some of what can be verified is clearly WP:Complete Bollocks. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 22:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as original research. --Metropolitan90 02:56, 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 no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 01:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)~~

~~[edit] 4000 (band)~~

~~non-notable, vanity wikipediatrix 21:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)~~

Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless proven to meet WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 23:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep [36] [37] [38] and plenty of other hits on google --Halal 00:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

~~updated it a bit --Halal 09:41, 21 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. 05:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)~~

~~[edit] Protamdim~~

~~Advert. Misspelling of Protandim (which has been deleted 6 times). mdd4696 21:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)~~

Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

~~I wonder if the spammer will like the new, NPOV'd version?~~

Delete There is some attraction in keeping the NPOV'd version. But on balance it's mis-spelled and even the existence of an article may lend spurious credibility. Dlyons493 Talk 22:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Protandim and Lock As current NPOV'd version. It will stop the spam.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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, once again, no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 03:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)~~

~~[edit] Endor Holocaust~~

Renominated; this article previously survived an AfD through no consensus here. This is original research / speculation / hypothesizing about non-canon parts of Star Wars, and as per Wikipedia:Cite sources, no reputable sources can be provided to verify any of the guesswork in the article. Reputable sources (a requirement for verifiability in Wikipedia) include newspaper articles, book citations, academic papers; they do not include one website's technical commentaries on the films/books/etc., which this article is derived from. Some quotes from the source website:

~~"There is an emphasis on topics inadequately covered by offline references."~~

~~"All original contributions are acknowledged." (c.f. acknowledgements on the Endor Holocaust page)~~

"Also note that these pages have no relation to real physics work; the project intends to rationalise a fantasy. This hobby simply uses the methods and language of science to consider the question: 'If the STAR WARS universe were real, how would its phenomena be understood?'"

~~The subject matter is already covered in the correct place for it: the Endorian Holocaust on Wookieepedia, so it shouldn't be here. Ziggurat 21:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)~~

Delete fancruft. Something that is unproven even within the fictional context? Give me strength! Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Forest moon of Endor. I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, but I found this one interesting. The fact that the Star Wars franchise (a comic) has referenced it makes it worthy of mention, in my mind. Not as its own article, though- it would really help the forest moon's article. CanadianCaesar 22:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

~~Verifiability refers to both inclusion of a topic and inclusion of content - and none of the content here is mentioned in said comic. Ziggurat 22:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)~~

I'd suggest severely condensing (no more than a few sentences) and merging into Endor. Pretty obvious that the holocaust theory wasn't the intent of Lucas (in fact the article even states that several canonical sources have debunked it). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

~~...and that's still my vote now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)~~

Keep. The article was merged into the forest moon's article last time around and wound up being a disproportionately large section on that page. It got split back out again as a result. Nothing much has changed since then, so re-merging will probably result in re-splitting again. As for the "cruftiness" of the article, we've got something just as extensive on the Star Trek versus Star Wars debate, so why not? It's not original research in that it's an article describing other people's original research, as referenced in the external links. Those are secondary sources. Bryan 00:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

And they are not legitimate sources according to Wikipedia:Cite sources, therefore it is original research (OR: "it introduces an argument without citing a reputable source, which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position"). Ziggurat 00:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

There was question raised about this on the article's talk page a while back, here: Talk:Endor Holocaust#Original research?. Here are the references I counted back then:

The second Death Star was a sphere of machinery somewhere between 180 and 900 kilometers in diameter (depending on the sources one holds to be authoritative)... (these sources are discussed in detail in the Death Star article)

it has been established in Star Wars comics and novels that some Ewoks had been removed from Endor in the past for use as pets or slaves... (Source needs to be made explicit, but this at least suggests that one exists)

Some Expanded Universe sources maintain that Endor was not significantly affected by the destruction of the Death Star and life continues there as normal. One other suggested it was destroyed, but the author had taken pains to paint it as Imperial propaganda... (These sources also need to be made explicit)

~~In one of the Star Wars Tales comics, an Imperial veteran of Endor makes an apparent reference to the holocaust theory... (Again, it'd be nice to get a reference for exactly which comic)~~

~~In the 'Jedi Academy Trilogy', by Kevin J. Anderson... (this source is very explicit)~~

~~"Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy" describes how the Rebels... (same here)~~

~~The two Ewok telefilms are set on a non-devastated Endor... (these are The Ewok Adventure and Ewoks: Battle for Endor)~~

The sources I noted as needing to be made more specific don't appear to have been filled in yet, but that's an argument for improving the article rather than deleting it. Bryan 00:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Almost all of those sources do not refer to the Endor Holocaust at all; the inclusion of facts related to the speculation is irrelevant to a discussion of the speculation itself. Of the sources listed:

1. The information about the size of the Death Star is not in contention, the OR discussion of how those facts are interpreted is; the unverified weasel phrases like "are speculated" need to be verified, and no sources do that.

~~2. The comics and novels talk about Ewoks being removed from Endor, a fact which is completely unrelated to the verifiability of the Endor Holocaust.~~

3. The sources alluded to flatly contradict the Endor Holocaust, and again it is not mentioned by those sources, with the exception of 4. below. More weasel phrases and unverified worded misdirection: "Pro-Holocaust debaters speculate that".

4. This is the only legitimate source that actually talks about the Endor Holocaust, and it is only mentioned in passing. Using only this source - as Wikipedia is supposed to - would produce a one-paragraph article.

5. This source again flatly contradicts the possibility of the Holocaust but *does not mention it*. Again, facts are being used as Original Research - the facts are not in contention, what they are being used for is.

~~6. Weasel words again: "by possible implication"? Again, no mention of an Endor Holocaust.~~

~~7. Another flat contradiction of the Holocaust, without the Holocaust being mentioned.~~

In summary (sorry for the long post; gosh it's fun being an Endor Holocaust denier!) the facts are verified, but their relationship to the original research that is this article is almost entirely negative. So the argument to keep it is based on all the verified evidence in the fiction that contradicts it?

~~Ziggurat 10:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)~~

I think you're misunderstanding the point of a Wikipedia article on something like this. The point is not to prove that the Holocaust "happened". The point is to describe the arguments that have been had about it. This distinction is demanded by the NPOV policy. All those sources that "contradict" the Holocaust are still quite relevant to the argument itself, as are the sources that only address background issues that are frequently used by people who are participating in the argument (size of Death Star, extinction of Ewoks, etc).

All these issues about references and original research had been raised on the article's talk page long ago and had been left there without argument or comment. It would have been nice if you'd tried addressing them there rather than diving straight into an AfD nomination where these sorts of extensive discussions tend to clutter the process. Bryan 19:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I understand what it's trying to do; I'm contending that there is no demonstration that the discussion has existed anywhere but in the realms of fanboards, and that it therefore fails verifiability requirements. Bryan provided some sources for the facts in the article, but none of these demonstrate that the *discussion* has existed in a verifiable source. I'm pointing out that all the sources listed (bar one, as mentioned) don't even mention the Endor Holocaust, so they do not contribute anything to the verifiability of the topic. I've listed this as an AfD rather than aim to improve the article because my research suggests that the premise of the article is itself unverifiable. Ziggurat 21:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

But now we're back to those external links at the bottom, whose mere existence is evidence showing that the discussion is ongoing in the SW community and reasonably extensive. Googling "Endor Holocaust" comes up with a great many more, including a mention on the "Howstuffworks" site (which is relatively "mainstream" as these things go). Again I draw analogy to the Star Trek versus Star Wars debate, which is exclusively an online phenomenon like this one. Bryan 22:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

~~That debate *does* have legitimate sources, e.g. Forbes on Trek vs. Wars; Salon on Trek vs. Wars. Ziggurat 00:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)~~

Weak keep per Bryan's points. Jtmichcock 01:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep, as notable, because of the mention in the book Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy. Carioca 01:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Part of SW fandom. --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep. My explanation for it is a bit long, so enjoy it User:Kazuaki_Shimazaki here. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The discussion of the legitimacy of the SWTC source is the most convincing part of this argument (I'm using OR in its technical sense, as an article lacking legitimate sources; perhaps verifiability would have been a better use of the terminology?), however the description of the site as a personal hobby of the author, and one unaffiliated and unsupported by Lucasfilm, in my opinion undermines that legitimacy. In any case, Wikipedia dictates *multiple* legitimate sources to prevent overly hypothetical irrelevancies like this appearing. As esoterica, it belongs in Wookieepedia, not Wikipedia. Ziggurat 21:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, it's fan fiction and we don't keep fan fiction. Gazpacho 06:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

KEEP. This has been a major debate among the fan community for years, and has generated multiple technical documents and commentaries on both sides of the debate. The debate does have some official involvement and legitimacy, in that physicist, Dr. Curtis Saxton, who once did an in-depth article (which is in the external links in the wikipedia Endor Holocaust article) about and explaining why he supports this issue, is the author of the Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith incredible cross-sections, which are official works from Lucasfilm that give technical analysis for parts of the Star Wars universe. Gary M. Sarli, another physicist has even written an entire paper (which is also linked to on the Endor Holocaust wikipedia page) on the issue, explaining, using mathematical models, why the holocaust couldn't have happened. And the fact that Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy mentions the issue and Howstuffworks.com elaqborates on it, should be enough to show the legitimacy of the debate. This issue has proven to notable. This article is of a similar nature to Star Trek versus Star Wars in that the subject may be rediculous, but at the same time is notable. Even the canonocity of the destruction of the Endor moon has been disputed. The Wookieepedian 09:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Fan fiction and speculation. This can be handled in a condensed form in the Endor article. We don't need to mention every thing any fan has ever said about this. Gamaliel 09:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, this is not merely some random thing a fan speculated. This has been going on for years and is well-known throughout the fan community. It is not original research, it is explaining someone elses original research, and gives the two sides of the debate, while giving reputable sources inthe external links. It is just as notable as Star Trek versus Star Wars. The Wookieepedian 09:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This lengthy, verbose discussion of a relatively insignificant topic does not need its own article. We can take the bits that aren't speculation or original research and put it in Endor in about a single paragrah. The rest is just fanwanking. And I say that as a fanboy who has done more than my share of wanking. Gamaliel 09:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As another user stated, if you attempt to combine this with the Endor article, it will end up being slit off again into this article. The Wookieepedian 11:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you might be missing the point. This is not just speculation, it's speculation about something which isn't even in the real world, having its roots in fanfic. It is unencyclopaedic, and its significance outside of a small subset of Star Wars fans is precisely zero. FIJAGH! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm VERY aware of that. But, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, as Star Wars seems to hold a certain place of notability of wikipedia, as far as what is allowed. The Wookieepedian 17:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars is notable. Elements of the fictional Star Wars universe are arguably notable. Arguments between fans about the past "history" of these fictional elements have no obvious place in a general encyclopaedia. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

~~It won't be split off again if it is significantly condensed, which can be easily done. Gamaliel 18:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)~~

Delete. Speculation not suitable for a general-purpose encyclopedia that Wikipedia is. - Sikon 10:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

~~Once again, this article isn't speculation. It's about speculation. An article that's about speculation can be perfectly factual in describing it. Bryan 01:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)~~

Keep, it's notable enough. Thanos6 04:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep per Bryan. This is a very real debate among fans, so much so that it's addressed in official sources. -LtNOWIS 10:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

How many fans, and to what extent would any user of a general encyclopaedia give a toss? You make a great case for this being covered on a fansite, but WP:ISNOT a fan site. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep: it's a direct consequence of the movie. Quite possibly cut down and merge with the Endor page, but definitely keep the content. Neocapitalist 21:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, technically, direct consequences of the movie are things like George Lucas's immense wealth. I think what you're saying is that if you imagine what goes on after the movie's over, this is one thing a lot of people might imagine. Is that really sufficient justification for a keep? I can imagine a lot of things that might be further fictional consequences of fictional events, but I don't see why an encyclopedia should document them all. --William Pietri 04:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; the onus is on deleters to prove why an article should be deleted, not on anybody else to constantly prove an article's worth. Sources have been cited, and the article has survived this once already; the second in particular is heavily in favor of it staying in my book. Repeated VfDs are just pointless. Rogue 9 01:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You are asking for proof of a negative. I can't find anywhere in the various criteria for inclusion which states that speculative fan fiction is either included or excluded. FIJAGH, but WP:ISNOT a fanzine. You say repeated VfDs are pointless, I'd say arguing over the supposed "history" of a fictional construct is pretty pointless too! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

~~Possibly, but arguing over the history of a fictional construct is at least enjoyable for those concerned; (personal attack removed). 216.49.117.88 14:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)~~

~~Let's keep it civil please. Gamaliel 21:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)~~

You know, he had a point, which is more than you can say for this VfD. Anyway, my vote stays as is. You've had your shot at deleting this, you failed. I refuse to participate in double jeopardy. Now, to quote Willy Wonka, you LOSE. Good DAY, sir! Rogue 9 15:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not about 'winning' and 'losing', it's about what's appropriate for Wikipedia. The last AfD listed this as 'no consensus', which means just that: there was no consensus about whether the article should be kept or not, and that in cases of no consensus Wikipedia errs on the side of keeping things, as it should. It appears that there still isn't consensus (unfortunately), but that's a good reason to keep debating it, not stop. Ziggurat 22:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete; fancruft is bad enough; speculative fancruft about what might have occurred outside the canon of a popular work is not encyclopedic. MCB 02:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

But in this case, the fan fiction is notable, and has been discussed VERY frequently and in great depth for years. Plu it's been covered by several physicists who are also fans. The Wookieepedian 04:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I could possibly buy a short general-audience article about the fan controversy over this, something similar to Star Trek versus Star Wars. But most of this isn't documenting the debate; it is the debate. We recently deleted another piece of literary criticism, List of factual inaccuracies of the book Angels and Demons, and this seems even less plausibly part of an encyclopedia. I'd vote Transwiki if there weren't already a better article on Wookiepedia. --William Pietri 04:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

~~There is, but we must keep an article here about it as well. The Wookieepedian 05:38, 28 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)~~

~~[edit] Darth havock~~

~~Fancruft.--Shanel 21:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)~~

Delete absolutely 100% of all fanfic characters ever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, from the article:'This is all for now but up dates will be made when further information is discovered or thought up!', it's not very encyclopaedic if you can just think up new things to add. And fanfiction characters are inherently non-notable outside of their specific fanfic context. - Bobet 00:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete this fan-fiction character article. Carioca 01:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

De-freakin-lete per nom. BD2412 T 03:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination. Blightsoot 13:41, 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 redir to Jerrod. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)~~

~~[edit] Jerrod (Mortal Kombat character)~~

~~Completely identical to Jerrod- it's far more likely someone would search for "Jerrod" alone than add "(Mortal Kombat character)" on the end.--L T Dangerous 00:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)~~

Speedy redirect to Jerrod. No need for a lengthy AfD. Pburka 00:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy redirect to Jerrod. Carioca 01:13, 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 closing as entry is already deleted. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)~~

~~[edit] TIE Experimental 4 TIE Guided Space Bomb~~

~~Looks either to be a hoax or simply a useless article provideing almost no information. In addition, If all information is classified how do we know it exists?Banana04131 23:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)~~

Speedy delete as a very short article with little or no context. Pburka 00:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete, agreed: db-empty. PJM 07:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination Banana04131 02:40, 21 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)~~

~~[edit] OffCenter Group~~

Small company that has existed only since June and is not known to have done anything noteworthy, that for the record scores 26 google hits. Nominated for deletion in september here, where it got only two votes, both to delete. The closer made it a redirect. Then on WP:DRV it was argued that it should be kept. The result was to put it back here. Abstain. R adiant _>|< 23:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as an advertisement. Joyous | Talk 00:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

delete as above Pete.Hurd 07:01, 22 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)~~

~~[edit] Yarg~~

~~neologism ERcheck 23:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)~~

Delete per nomination ERcheck 23:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete, db-g3 of the silly variety. PJM 07:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as nonsense JimR 10:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Jogloran 10:21, 25 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 redirect to Communication skill. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)~~

~~[edit] Communication_skills~~

Vanity. Commercial links to a website apparently owned by the author of the article. I am ignorant about the subject and do not dispute any of the contents. In the context of a large article with an 'External links' section (eg. Problem solving) a link to such a site is appropriate. But a small article linking almost exclusively to one commercial enterprise presents a conflict of interest. I suggest deletion. oliverkroll 23:40, 19 November 2005

Redirect to ~~Communication~~Communication skill. (I've removed the linkspam from the article.) Pburka 00:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

redirect as above Pete.Hurd 07:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to communication. Edwardian 21:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Communication skill. It's the closest to the original topic, and it represents a much fuller discussion of the topic. ThirteenthGreg 00:17, 25 November 2005 (GMT)

Delete who is going to type "communication_skills"?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)~~

~~[edit] NightMist~~

~~not enogh info Melaen 23:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)~~

Delete, not notable. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-20 01:00:40Z

delete NN (also, note this page blanked and replaced with copy of article by 66.170.8.8, which I've now reverted). Pete.Hurd 07:04, 22 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 userfied. BD2412 T 03:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darren Bowles

vanity page written in first person, non-notable wikipediatrix 23:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy userfy. Appears to be a mistake by a new user. Pburka 00:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Userfy per Pburka. The only edits (aside from the AfD nom) have been by User:Darren.bowles. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-20 00:59:01Z

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 19

[edit] MuggleNet

[edit] Spazz

[edit] Gary Bajaj

[edit] Eric J. Lindblom PhD

[edit] Coffee Comic

[edit] St. Blog's Parish

[edit] Aaron Kaplansky

[edit] Levi Connolly

[edit] LifeSongs Radio

[edit] Jeremy Weate

[edit] Phil Austin

[edit] La Shawn Barber

[edit] The Superman

[edit] Scott W. Johnson

[edit] Notmyrealdomain

[edit] Unsafe sexual practices

[edit] King Sandy's Castle

[edit] List of well known mathematical formulas

[edit] Ionian School

[edit] /pizza

[edit] Ryan Samsel

[edit] Temperance organizations

[edit] Cody Cox

[edit] List of African musicians

[edit] List of Punjabi musicians

[edit] Spacker

[edit] Trexing

[edit] Loxian

[edit] Jack Bouboushian

[edit] Dungalized

[edit] DWWE

[edit] Blogroll

[edit] Warblog

[edit] Experimedia

[edit] Ghetto_Slime

[edit] Jason Robert Bell

[edit] Professor Ronald Thatchwald

[edit] Hurley Expressions

[edit] Yyrt

[edit] Jhandugiri

[edit] Rich Gallup

[edit] List of poser bands

[edit] Big Timers

[edit] Dave kayani

[edit] Fukitol

[edit] Clan Oo

[edit] Libcom

[edit] Fleep

[edit] Rugby league in Argentina

[edit] Misfit

[edit] Rugby league in Japan

[edit] Colt Records

[edit] Rugby league in Kenya

[edit] Rugby league in Morocco

[edit] Rugby league in Canada

[edit] rugby league in Canada

[edit] Rugby league in Ireland

[edit] Rugby league in Lebanon

[edit] Rugby league in Singapore

[edit] The Portrayal of German Society during 1918 to 1933

[edit] Karl Svozil

[edit] Sigmund Freud University Vienna

[edit] Fingerjade

[edit] Peter Hollas

[edit] Senpai systems

[edit] Kate Richards

[edit] Alice ever falling

[edit] Ripple, Kent

[edit] Adventurer-Many Worlds

[edit] List of Jewish chess players

[edit] Newsonomy

[edit] Pergola lodge

[edit] Opening credits history of Smallville

[edit] Tabernacle Bar & Grill

[edit] DR. Alexander J. Hammond

[edit] Los angeles web design