Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< November 20	November 22 >

Purge server cache

1 November 21

[edit] November 21

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 -Greg Asche (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liam Challenger

Completely non-notable and unencyclopedic. Article seems to claim notability, so I wasn't sure about CSD A7, but "Liam Challenger" produces 3 Google hits, 2 from Wikipedia and another from a site employing Wikipedia content. Delete. Joel7687 00:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete No evidence of notability. appears to be vanity posting. Also please note that "Liam Challenger - filmmaker" has been added as a famous person to the Bradford page. This should be removed if the vote doesnt go Liam's way. Bwithh 00:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Apparently self-published films for download. I'm sure he's hilarious, but he's not at this point widely discussed in outside sources, so no verification and insufficient notability. Geogre 00:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator's rationale. -- Saikiri 00:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --BorgHunter (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 02:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 04:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable. Also note that the article claims he made most of his listed films at the age of 12. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:50, 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 result of the debate was delete. H e rmione1980 01:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Selli

Hoax; returns no google hits; and vandalism by the same user (for example, [1] ) gives it away. Delete. Antandrus (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --BorgHunter (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. I went to the trouble of looking up the name in connection with Alexander Hamilton and Columbia University. It's a hoax by someone who knows a bit of American revolutionary history. Durova 01:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Not listed in index of either Library of America edition of Hamilton's writings or Ron Chernow's book. -James Howard (talk/web) 01:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, db-g3. PJM 05:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. Moriori 22:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. H e rmione1980 01:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timugo

Hoax. It's been on Wikipedia for a month, but another hoax article (Daniel Selli, probably by the same user, and recently edited by the same user) gave this one away too. No google hits on this. In addition, text search for "timugo" in the enormous online New Grove, which is a vast and deep source for world music, also returns no hits at all. Delete. Antandrus (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --BorgHunter (talk) 01:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Nasty hoax. It has all the hallmarks of a kiddie joke, too, including incorporating some dude's first name. I'm a little disappointed with the New Page patrollers. Geogre 03:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I can only find such things when I'm patrolling. Obivously I wasn't. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per above. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 04:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, db-g3 - of the silly kind. PJM 05:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not even funny. Flapdragon 15:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom Moriori 22:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete both. —Cleared as filed. 04:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Team ahi and Team AHI

This is an advertisement. WAvegetarian 00:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, delete. --BorgHunter (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: The first one is a "see Team AHI" article, and the second one is pretty much spam, as it is an extremely brief blurb that heads to the external link. I suspect page rank boosting is the motive, but delete for advertising and for advertising an organization that is local and niche. Geogre 03:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

actually we just thought it'd be neet to be included on your site and added it more than once because your search engine didn't find it depending on whether CAPS was on or off ... as far as advertising well isn't any entry advertising ... i mean i've seen articles for emmis communications clear channel and millions more should i attempt to get those removed ... I propose maybe removable of the link but not the listing ... its breif because we thought it'd be cool if once we told people that we were on wikipedia they'd add more about teamAHI and as far as niche I think not ... we've had people contact us from germany to japan... well thanks for the thoughts —preceding unsigned comment by 24.115.244.206 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC) who is the author of the article

- Comment: Please note that no insult was intended. If you have seen other articles that have advertising in them, you should nominate them for deletion. The argument here is not that the organization is good or bad, but merely that we are not a web guide, and the organization is a small, state-oriented non-profit. Geogre 10:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete both. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 04:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete both. --Joel7687 07:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete both. Then delete them again to make sure.Herostratus 07:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

yes but teamahi is more than a just a website as wikipedia is more than just a web guide —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.244.206 (talk • contribs) 15:53 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete both - and Wikipedia isn't even a web guide. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, delete, advert. Tempshill 23:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

my god why dont we just rename wikipedia NAZI Germany ... our post is no different from anyone elses —preceding unsigned comment by 24.115.244.206 (talk • contribs)

Comment: I would like to conclude the debate as over and Team AHI's representative as the loser as per Godwin's law about references to Nazis in internet discussions. --WAvegetarian 03:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry that came out so harshly, but I felt it was a valid reference. --WAvegetarian 03:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 04:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quickjohnson

Defunct blog. Looking at archive.org history, seems to have been a run of the mill blog. DMOZ has entry for it, which describes it as "The life and writings of a person growing up in Sacramento, California." Most Google hits are DMOZ mirrors. Username of the article creator suggests the entry may be autobiographical. --Tabor 00:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Expired company that didn't manage to set the wires afire so their effects have not lived longer than they did. Geogre 03:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 04:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN, Eusebeus 12:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non notable. Tempshill 23:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -Greg Asche (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey Day Game

This is non-notable. WAvegetarian 01:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I put it up for Speedy. Non-encyclopedic. --BorgHunter (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete but allow re-creation if anyone wants to write an an actual article on what is a pretty legitimate American cultural universal... rather than one particular instance of it. Including the detail that the traditional Thanksgiving Day local football game is frequently referred to as "Turkey Day" rather than "Thanksgiving." Wait, is this adequately covered in Thanksgiving? No, it is not. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as it stands - but I agree with what's noted above about the concept itself being a notable, American tradition. PJM 03:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Respectfully, Dpbsmith, Turkey Day could be a redirect to Thanksgiving, if there were content there, but Turkey Day Game is another one of those "games" invented by someone with more boredom than propriety and written up as a testament to himself. Geogre 03:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Not a big deal. This article should be deleted. I'm just saying the current content is worthless but the topic is potentially worthy. Turkey Day already redirects to Thanksgiving as it should, being a common nickname for Thanksgiving. What the Thanksgiving article does not presently capture is that Thanksgiving is a traditional day for traditional rival high school football teams to play games of particular local importance. I have no idea how this custom arose, and the article on Thanksgiving doesn't tell me. The second nuance is that "Thanksgiving" has religious or quasireligious or patriotic overtones to it, and "Turkey Day" and variants is not just an alternate name for Thanksgiving, but tends to get attached to less serious events and athletics in particular (witness my home town's "Turkey Trot" 10K road race). Shoot-from-the-hip "common knowledge" should go into any article without more research. I'm just saying, there's something worth documenting that isn't presently in the Thanksgiving article. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree, and especially since the colleges do the same. ESPN has been calling it "rivalry week," and that's typically what the Thanksgiving games are, on the college or high school level. If there were a "cultural observances" or "leisure activities" section to Thanksgiving, we could also mention the Lions and Bears time immemorial NFL game. Geogre 18:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. This certainly is NOT just a game between the two named schools. We played a Turkey Day Game at my high school in Seattle in the early 60s. •DanMS 05:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete agreeing with above. Eusebeus 12:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 19:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nonsense brenneman ^(t)^(c) 03:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lambtalk

non-notable WAvegetarian 01:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 04:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stray Theories

Non-notable musical group, vanity page. Based on Google and own site, does not appear to meet guidelines for WP:MUSIC. Recreation of afd-listed Stray Theories - Ambient Music. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 01:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom WAvegetarian 01:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. PJM 02:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 04:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. Ugh. ♠PMC♠ 05:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete and comment. I had tagged the article for copyright violation, but the creator of the article removed it.--Kross | Talk 22:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete i have removed all info, this is obviously a waste of time. i am the copyrightholder. You guys have a great attitude "Oh its 'non-notable', it must be rubbish" fair enough to have guidelines, but have some respect. Info has been deleted, don't bother. --Straytheories 01:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 04:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Twisted voices of reason

Band vanity. Reyk 01:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete bandity. --TheMidnighters 02:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Clearly doesn't meet WP:NMG. PJM 02:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 04:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: The band has two "albums" done on Myspace.com. No indication that these sixteen year olds are gigging, and they are not signed or distributed. Geogre 18:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 04:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slowlife

doesn't meet WP:MUSIC notability test WAvegetarian 01:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. PJM 02:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 04:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: They have been on an indie label, but there is no indication that they are being written about beyond the very narrow confines of the local scene. Distribution for the indie seems particularly limited, so the act is not yet sufficiently referred to for an encyclopedia article. Geogre 18:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 04:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neuros & Atomic Moonshine

doesn't meet WP:MUSIC notability WAvegetarian 01:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. PJM 02:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Yes, indeed some of these criteria have not been met, but they are "the most prominent representative of a notable style". This style of music does not lead to huge sales wich makes it hard to collect awards and sales notability, even tho there is a large fan-base. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeastMachine (talk • contribs) 2005-11-21 02:21:07 (UTC)
- If there's a large fanbase, there should be plenty of references to this band in the press; if you can get some citations together, you might persuade people to change their votes. As it is, there is no evidence presented that the band is prominent, that the style they represent is notable, or that they have any fanbase at all. The verifiability policy requires such things. — Haeleth Talk
Delete NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 04:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no verifiable assertions of notability and fails to meet WP:MUSIC. — Haeleth Talk 21:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable. Actually goes out of its way to establish the band's obscurity. Tempshill 23:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment Yes, it seems like the band is to non-notable, sad enough. After searching Wikipedia for similar artist and bands I have realized that many of them is not represented, for example Antiseen and Jack off Jill, wich also are very prominate bands. To bad tho, I would have spent some time getting more "missing" articles out there.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BeastMachine (talk • contribs)
delete NN band, article is designed to promote the band rather than document a historically notable instance of a phenomenon. Pete.Hurd 03:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE and REDIRECT to Pita (disambiguation). — JIP | Talk 06:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PITA

Non-encyclopedic. PITA supposedly is an acronym for "Pain In The Ass". It already has a Wiktionary entry. I don't see how anyone could develop an article on PITA. I guess it would be theoretically possible to develop an article on the derivation, use, and cultural repurcussions of the phrase "Pain In The Ass", in which case, any material on PITA could go there. Herostratus 01:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. PJM 02:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Dictdef. If people want to know what pita stands for, they can go to a dictionary. If they want to know the history of PETA, they can look at an encyclopedia. Geogre 03:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete since it's already listed at List of acronyms and initialisms: P#PI HGB 03:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to pita. - squibix 13:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per squibix. Meelar (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I could see people searching for this. Perhaps redirect to Pita (disambiguation), which could include pita, List of acronyms and initialisms: P#PI, wiktionary:PITA, and PETA (this is a likely misspelling, based on the pronounciation). -- Plutor 16:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to ~~pita per Squibix~~ disambig per Plutor. Youngamerican 20:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Agree wholeheartedly with Plutor. Redirect to disambig. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 03:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 04:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alcajazz

doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria for notability WAvegetarian 01:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. PJM 02:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 03:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 04:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of people known by one name

It has no use (unsigned comment by 85.210.57.226)

Weak keep. Looks like some real effort went into creating this. Durova 02:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - listcruft. PJM 02:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep slightly useful, though it needs a bit of a purge. There's a difference between Cher, who is pretty much always called just Cher, and Elvis Presley or Whoopi Goldberg, whose last names are occasionally omitted just for brevity's sake. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep has use. --TheMidnighters 02:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Not useless. Lots of effort went into making this page. DarthVader 02:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Interesting lists make Wikipedia useful. Ashibaka (tock) 03:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. There's something fascinating about a list that includes Cher and Socrates. Jtmichcock 03:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep but rename it to List of people since 1900 known by one name (or some such) since in antiquity, almost everyone had only one name. Aesop isn't on there, just to mention the first name I thought of. Otherwise, it'll be a List of all people who ever lived in ancient times plus a few modern weirdos —Wahoofive (talk) 05:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Lots of people before 1900 were known by more than one name. Agreed that it is more unusual and noteworthy now than it used to be, but no need to change the list, IMO. Turnstep 03:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete listcruft, agreed. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Cleanup: Shaq and Elvis don't belong. Nenê and Bono do. And who added Robert Parish, wtf? The list is encyclopedic, but if the "average joe" knows what somebody's full given name is, he/she doesn't belong on the list. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 05:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Almanac style lists are a proper part of wikipedia. CalJW 06:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep An article should only be deleted if it is a completely unqualified waste of bandwidth. This article is hardly a waste. It provides an interesting look at reactions against the two-name system most cultures prefer. I find any discussion for deletion to be distasteful.
Weak keep and cleanup per Andrew Lenahan, Wahoofive and Freakofnurture. Nobody who commonly uses both a first name and a surname should be on this list, nor should ancient people who predated surnames -- particularly those who are commonly known by an appellation of more than one word, like Attila the Hun or Judas Iscariot. --Metropolitan90 07:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete or total rewrite ultimately unverifiable - at the moment it is the creator and other's anecdotal impressions that form the list. And it is full of inconsistancies and errors. Nicknames (such as Becks) of people who are quite commonly refered to by their full name must go. Boz is much better known a Charles Dickens! I think most people do know that Fidel is better known as Fidel Castro ditto for Osama (who is more often, in my experience, refered to as bin Laden! Why do we have Gandhi but exclude Mozart and Shakesphere? We have Solomon, shall we also have every other monarch? Every second figure in antiquity, and just about every figure in the Bible should be included under current criteria. If this survives, it must delete all ancient names (as above), and include only names where the full name is virtually unknown or never used e.g. Bono, Maddona, - with a heavy prejudice against surnames, and nicknames of people whoose real name is widely used. --Doc ^ask? 09:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep useful list. But tighten inclusion criteria and cleanup. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: I agree with Doc, above. The need for a 100% rewrite makes me wonder what it is that we're keeping. Geogre 10:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Why would it be a 100% rewrite? Surely you can look at the list and see names there that should remain. Factitious 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete List enthusiasts should note Doc's well-made points. This is seriously flawed. Eusebeus 12:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable, overly anecdotal and unmaintainable. No hope of ever being complete. Marskell 13:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Nothing that tightening of inclusion criteria can't fix. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that we need to change both inclusion standards and the title. But I think a lot could be salvaged. Keep and cleanup for now. I think it would be helpful if those of us who think it should be kept began hashing out better inclusion criteria on the talk page. I'll start. Jacqui ^★ 16:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
User:Doc glasgow's reasoning is powerful. I think the list (as a concept) has merit, but the list itself needs a lot of work. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep but tighten criteria. I'd limit it to people who have lived since the year 1000 CE, as this list could theoretically include almost every Mediterranean-area figure from antiquity. Andrew Levine 17:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep with stronger criteria. Should include only situations where it is unusual to be known by one name, given the time and culture. Rules out most traditional monarchs, religious figures, and those modern nations where one name is the norm. CarbonCopy 18:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep w/ strict criteria per above. Youngamerican 20:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per Doc's suggestions for improvement. Factitious 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, assuming those arguing for cleanup are actually going to put in the required work; in its present state it should be deleted, as Doc argues, but a cleaner list under this title would be useful and interesting. — Haeleth Talk 21:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Needs some cleanup, but it's an interesting list. I like it. Jtrost 23:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup. Who said Elvis doesn't belong?! Of course he does. Turnstep 03:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I did. Because everybody knows Elvis' last name ~~is Stojko~~. Seriously, for this to be a useful list, criteria for inclusion must be more than just the presence of a redirect such as "Elvis" → "Elvis Presley" which does in fact exist. Just being the most famous person with a certain uncommon first or last name is not enough. On the other hand, significantly fewer people know the surnames of Cher or Madonna, or who the heck Paul David Hewson is. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
keep useful after cleanup--Kalsermar 17:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep --TimPope 21:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Nickj (t) 14:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete in present form as per Doc and Haeleth, although I confess I've already been sucked into an edit to fix something. The list now contains all sorts of nicknames, which makes it less useful and more arbitrary and unmaintainable. While Cher and Sting obviously fit, Dubya and Slobo do not; George W. Bush is not "known as" Dubya, it's just a minor nickname bestowed by others. Same with Slobo. (Actually, a good rule of thumb is whether the single-name link is an article or a redirect; for example, Slobo by itself links to some comic character.) This remains a probably unsalvageable mess. MCB 19:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Fernandes

Delete hoax. Only claimed credit is an appearance on Arrested Development (TV series) but neither IMDb nor Google have ever heard of him and the article was created by a now blocked user to boot (User:Bob Saget). TheMidnighters 02:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom - I see nothing on him either. PJM 02:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn/hoax NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. Bad-faith nomination. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MegaTokyo

Comment - Fixing orphaned nomination, violation of WP:POINT that I believe was made as "satire" as part of this thread about the AFD for Checkerboard Nightmare. -- Plutor 02:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The webcomic is so totally not worth having. I've never read it and nobody really cares about it. Despite the fact that is has been around, for like, EVER, has like billions of readers (or so they SAY!!, but I doubt its true, sicne its crap!!!!), and gets more traffic then just about all other webcomics combined, it is by no means NOTEWORTHY. TOTALLY non-notable! Now, if you will excuse me, I'm going to go read a REAL webcomic like Garfield! 72.224.218.215 00:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

-Seconded. It's a webcomic, and hence, clearly not notable.

It is more than just a webcomic, so far 3 issues containing 5 chapters out of the current 7 online have been published in print. It also has an extremely large fanbase, and is to a point a cultural icon regarding a relatively large and growing community. Also by the notion that it should be removed as a result implies that entries for www.yahoo.com and www.google.com should be removed since they are "just websites" and regardless of how many people use them they are "crap." Penny Arcade also has an equally large article and fanbase associated with it. Are you implying that it should be removed as well because some may not like it? I would encourage you to take the article process a little more seriously from now on.

No offense, but when articles about webcomics as influential to the webcomic community as Checkerboard Nightmare are put up for deletion, it's extremely hard for the webcomics community to take the "article process" seriously. This post is a reflection of that. Perhaps come up with a general process and criteria that doesn't depend on a site's (habitually inaccurate) Alexa rating and "noteworthiness" as judged by someone who as often as not hasn't read said webcomic, and I might be more inclined to take the "process" seriously. (Note that I'm not the one who put this up for deletion, although I know who did. I think.)--Plaid Phantom 02:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Gear Forever

A fansite on a free host. Not very notable by its own admission (1000 uniques per week isn't a lot, and it might be 1000 hits per week, which is absolutely nothing), and its forum is on a different free host (and closed to registered users only). I can't imagine any reason we need an article about this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. PJM 02:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. --Joel7687 04:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I admit, my site has way less visitors (with some luck 100 hits a day), but this is absurd. Nazgjunk - - Signing is ^{for Whimps} 15:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. My site gets considerably more visitors than that, and I'd still be the first to nominate it for deletion if anyone were silly enough to write an article about it. — Haeleth Talk 21:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] QiSoftware

An obvious company-sponsored marketing blurb. The name gets about 140 distinct hits on Google. This one-man operation doesn't seem anywhere near the notability requirements of WP:CORP. Delete Owen× ☎ 03:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, but I'd say this can be speedied. There is no reason to AfD it. --Pmetzger 03:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- This does allege notability (so it's not an A7, although the one-man-band part of it makes it nearly so) and it does have content other than an external link, so it's not an A1. It doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion; maybe it'll turn out that they've made some wildly-popular program or something.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is adspam. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete --HappyCamper 03:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment How many times is "Blogger Calendar" pointing back [from Google] to QiSoftware WP:CORP? There are also other issues -- related to bigger things, and I get enough promotion elsewhere. This is not a company ad. QiSoftware 05:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 03:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment This was put into the Articles for deletion queue because I incorrectly provided a link when I used "QiSoftware". I corrected that almost immediately. Does one have to specify why an article should be deleted if the original reason is no longer viable? QiSoftware 05:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- The original reason is just as valid as it was before. Unless you can show why your company is notable, this article doesn't belong here. Owen× ☎ 05:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  - I developed the "Blogger Calendar" at the time blogging was gaining momentum --. The calendar is a Java servlet/applet combination and generates a lot of curiousity... It has received very good reviews. The primary difference between my tool and other blog calendars is that it does not refresh pages each time something is clicked. It allows the user to naviagate month to month and only retrieves posts when the user specifically requests a post or month.
    Bloggerforum.com where I first discussed the planned implementation and development... has about 4100 hits on the development topic alone. On my forum, it also receives a lot of attention. The tool is popular, especially in that it can also support Blogger.com blogs which is the largest blog platform to date.
    
    Not only that I have come up with other innovative tools -- I am not a one hit wonder.... I have been dealing in the software arena for a number of years.... "My version of the "Blogger Calendar" is notable..... However, because of issues I have elsewhere my focus is not on promoting this tool, or any of my other software tools. I have other issues elsewhere that supersede my business issues. Truly... QiSoftware 05:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    - If, as you claim, your software has been reviewed, then you should have little trouble demonstrating that it satisfies the WP:CORP criteria. Simply provide (in the article) citations for reviews of your software that have been written by people independent of you and your company, and published by reliable sources such as computer magazines. The same goes for your company. Please provide citations of where people that are independent of you and your company have published works of their own (biographies, histories, in-depth news articles, consumer reports, and suchlike) that are about your company. Uncle G 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Eusebeus 13:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Fox

NN ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Sad that she was murdered, but not noteworthy enough for an article. Jtmichcock 03:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as Wikipedia is not a memorial. If this case turns out to induce sweeping changes in an area of society, I will reconsider. Saberwyn 03:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per above. PJM 05:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Airscreen

Article written by someone with the company [2], incoherent advert right now. Wikipedia is not self promotion. --W.marsh 03:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Eusebeus 13:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Advertising on the verge of spam. Geogre 18:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smoog

this is a neologism, dic def, and unencyclopedic WAvegetarian 03:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per above. PJM 05:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Pmetzger 05:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable. --W.marsh 05:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haileybury Computer Club

2 year old computer club at a college. No attempt to establish notability. Delete as vanity.--InShaneee 03:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Haileybury College, Melbourne with a brief addition to the Extra Curricular section. Capitalistroadster 04:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable, possible vanity. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 12:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.
Delete nn university club. Eusebeus 13:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: There is a great deal of precedent here for deletion. Several Linux clubs, for example, have had articles for deletion in the past, and all were deleted. The reasoning is that any given iteration of a club is going to be inherently minor. Unless that club does something spectacular (cracks 32-byte encryption or something), it's going to remain of local interest. Geogre 18:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Really NN. Agnte 23:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. One of the least notable entries I've seen recently. Roisterer 00:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
keep. I agree that I have been ineffective so far at justifying notability. The article is a "work in progress". If this article should be deleted, consider also Computer Club of Western Michigan University which is also listed under computer clubs. The claim for notability is based on its contribution to educational research. It is referenced in educational research papers at http://www.bris.ac.uk/education/research/networks/gern/gdc05.ppt and http://www.gamelearning.edu.au/conference_sep05.htm

www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/industry/ advice/content_developers_bulletin_mar05.pdf So please judge on its merits in education research rather than by comparison to other computer clubs. Thanks to the Wiki community for your peer review process, page author

Delete as per nom, nn and probable vanity. Sarah Ewart 03:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ambi 04:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep - nomination withdrawn due to article improvement; unanimous consensus to keep. BD2412 T 19:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michelle (disambiguation)

Delete This is silly. There is no ambiguity here - the page Michelle currently describes the Beatles song and the given name. That's fine. But there's no need to have an ambiguation page for a few random people that happen to have "Michelle" as a first name. -- Batkins 03:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep as useful disambiguation page similar to many others on Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 05:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- There's only one thing here that is known as "Michelle". We don't have disambiguation articles where there is no actual ambiguity in the first place. Uncle G 10:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  - And thanks to Plutor, there are now two things. ☺ Excellent. Uncle G 15:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. We do have other such lists. Stephanie for one, and I’m sure there are others. •DanMS 05:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Stephanie did not follow our guidelines on disambiguation articles, and provides false justification for this article, which also did not follow our guidelines. Disambiguation articles are for things which would share (or have a redirect at) the same title. People with the given name Stephanie are not generally known solely as "Stephanie" (in contrast to, say, Madonna), and so would not have redirects there. Uncle G 10:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Standard. Herostratus 07:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete per Uncle G~~ Keep, since there's now something to disambiguate. --Last Malthusian 09:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Added Hurricane Michelle. There's probably more that can be put here. -- Plutor 15:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep with Plutor's addition. Jacqui ^★ 16:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep In light of Plutor's addition, I'll retract my original submission. -- Batkins 18:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: This was more of a content issue than a deletion issue to start with. There are a lot of bad disambigs about and a lot of people not following the dab guidelines, but the clutter tacked onto a valid disambiguation won't really make it a candidate for deletion. Geogre 18:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- It wasn't really. Until Plutor came along there was no content that I knew of that could make this page valid, and its existence wasn't necessary. -- Batkins 01:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep and move to Communism in Peru. —Cleared as filed. 05:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Communist Party of Peru

The article is a hybrid miss-match. It does not deal with parties having the name PCdelP, but rather the concept of being a communist party in that particular country. This doesn't match general usage of article naming at wikipedia. The article could possibly be renamed to "Communism in Peru" or "Communist parties in Peru". --Soman 18:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 03:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Looks reasonable in light of the many Communist parties in that country. Since the Shining Path is known internationally for violence and others may be nonviolent, it seems fair and NPOV to have a stub outlining the situation. Although I'm no specialist on the subject, the presentation meets Wikipedia standards. Durova 04:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Rename Communism in Peru with redirect, per nom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex bartho (talk • contribs)
Weak keep per Durova. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep A disambiguation page would be required in any case, and it is better to have the added clarification. CalJW 06:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Rename as Communism in Peru with redirect, per Alex bartho. Enough content not to be deleted, anyhow. Squiddy 10:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Rename to Communism in Peru as per Alex. Andrew Levine 17:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Rename as recommended above. Jtmichcock 02:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was NO RESULT - improperly formatted afd, no reason given, no nom other than default by bot, no reason given by nominator on article talk page for reasoning as to nom. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Difference Triangles

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning may be seen on the talk page. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 03:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Move to Wikibooks. Text could use improvement but the examples are good. Instructional. Durova 04:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was MOVED to Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University. Owen× ☎ 18:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Ambedkar Law Univesity

Non notable institution. Article is just an advert. Is that really now they spell "Univesity" in India? Gaius Cornelius 20:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 03:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move to the proper title, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University. There has long been a consensus to keep all institutions of tertiary education, so lack of notability probably doesn't apply in this case, or we will have to start deleting hundreds of substubs on obscure American colleges, including all community colleges. As long as that doesn't happen (and it won't, even if somebody nominates them), deleting this is systemic bias. u p p l a n d 07:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move as per Uppland. --TheMidnighters 08:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
keep. Kappa 11:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Rename to The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University. Legit degree granting institution. The author of the article also couldn't be bothered adding the proper external link. Eusebeus 13:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
"The" shouldn't be included in the title, should it? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

According tot he website, that is the official name, like The Johns Hopkins University. Eusebeus 15:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep and properly name. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
'Keep and rename per just about everyone. Jacqui ^★ 03:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep for sure. It will mature gradually. --Bhadani 15:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The present contents may lead anyone to think that the article is an advertisement. Actually, it is not so - it is one of the important educational institutions of India. I am adding few more words to save the article. I am sure that the article has good potential to grow. Re-direction to the full and correct name shall be in order. --Bhadani 15:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep+rename: To Gaius: Please mention why you claim the university is non-notable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 05:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ehud Segev

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 03:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

i put this up for speedy delete, so help! this is compelte self promotion and the guyu even put his name next toi copperfield and blaine in the magic (illusion) page. no backup for most of what is stated. makes wiki look bad Tiksustoo 23:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per aboveTiksustoo 23:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I found enough affirming info [3] & also [4]; meets WP:BIO. PJM 04:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep per PJM. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment 170 google results is still pretty weak so I'm on the fence, but if kept it definitely needs trimming of the POV and promotional tone. --TheMidnighters 08:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. Definitely doesn't belong in magic (illusion) as he's not as world famous as Copperfield or Blaine, but if he performed in Broadway or 42 Street (or worldwide as claimed), that's enough notability for me. Does need a cleanup, though. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete many claims are unverifiable... Only 149 unique google hits out of a total sample of 1000, many of which are seeded directory listings for his mentalist services. His critically acclaimed show has received accolades from national and internation publications such as New York Times, New York Post, Daily News and New York Magazine, to name a few. Segev’s unique approach to mystical entertainment made him the preferred choice of leading brand names like Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Black & White Whiskey, Intel, Chase - the list is endless. The list is not endless. It is tiny and none of these publications or products show up. Hence: Self-promotion and vanity, using WP to create publicity. I am surprised by the votes to keep. Eusebeus 13:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I found 2 write-ups in the NY Daily News [5] but nothing on some of the others. No doubt the article needs to be toned down and improved, as tagged, but he is apparently a headline performer on / off Broadway and thus has name recognition. PJM 13:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I have rewritten this as a stub, stripping it of the Mr Wonderful stuff (precious little left). He's a spoon bender, and I think the NYDN link above may be reprint from his theatre show blurb (which is also what I was able to find in NYT). My vote is still Delete Eusebeus 16:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Minor-league magician. And performing in a second-floor space on West 27th (off 6th) definitely makes him "off-Broadway". --Calton | Talk 04:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 05:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ekspreso

Private project, not spoken by anyone, certainly not worth an entry. Ncik 22:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 03:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, even apparently has articles on other language pedias and has been around quite a while, how's it gone two years like that? I'm assuming it's real. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. One of the better-known examples of post-WW2 auxlangs. --IJzeren Jan 09:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
delete better known, this is as good as it gets? Pete.Hurd 04:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep I'm not a champion of auxlangs, being an artlanger myself, but it's certainly verifiable that this one has generated some interest - somebody's selling t-shirts and mugs with the slogan on! --PeteBleackley 12:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep; not all auxlangs are notable, but I think this one is. MCB 19:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 05:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GNU/kFreeBSD

This page offers no information that isn't in Debian GNU/kFreeBSD or Gentoo/FreeBSD, nor will it ever be able to. Furthermore, there is no such thing as "GNU/kFreeBSD," as no one applies that term to Gentoo/FreeBSD. See also the Talk page for comments by User:Janizary and User:65.94.52.193. -- Karnesky 01:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep: GNU/kFreeBSD is a generic system, not just a Debian port. If we follow your logic, GNU/Linux and GNU/NetBSD should be removed aswell; nothing in there isn't already in Debian GNU/Linux, Ubuntu, Suse etc. Geronimooo 11:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I second Geronimooo. I'm one of the principal parents of this beast, and since I started working on it never considered it a Debian-specific system. You can see a reflection of this in config.guess triplets or uname output, which are totaly distro-agnostic. Also the GNU/kFreeBSD page itself links to an experimental port of the same system (with GNU userland, Glibc, etc) based on Gentoo (not to be confused with Gentoo/FreeBSD. Besides, there's also Ging, which is Debian-based but it's not Debian.

Besides, before saying "nor will it ever be able to", you'd have to check with a crystal ball (and I don't think any of us has one) ;) 62.57.140.216 11:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

GNU/Linux is currently a redirect to Linux, which is a detailed article. Is your preference to keep and expand GNU/kFreeBSD (as you seem to argue), or to redirect (and/or merge), as is done for GNU/Linux (and as Gronky lists as a possible solution both here and on GNU/NetBSD? Thanks for your clarification of Gentoo/kFreeBSD and Gentoo/FreeBSD. If this is kept or merged, this information should explicitly be in the article.-- Karnesky 18:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep: I do think the information in articles about GNU using *BSD kernels could be organised better, but I don't think deleting GNU/kFreeBSD is a solution. Indeed, if there is so much overlap with Debian GNU/kFreeBSD, (for as long as the two articles are both small anyway, if that's the case) it should be the latter that gets merged into the former. Debian may be by far the largest distro of FreeBSD-kernel-based GNU systems but there will be more to say about the system itself than there will be to say about Debian's experience in packaging it (and some or all of that info could go on Debian pages). One possible way to get the GNU/*BSD information into shape - and this is just an idea which can be discussed on Talk pages afterwards - would be to collect the info onto one page (maybe GNU/*BSD) and on that page present the flavours of *BSD kernels that GNU can run on, contrast those systems with GNU and GNU/Linux, and discuss the Distros that package and distribute various *BSD-kernel-based GNU systems. The similarities in these systems, I think, will be more than then differences. If this unified page is too big, or becomes too big, the largest section could always be split of at a later date. I'd be willing to help with the merge. I've never run a GNU/*kBSD system, but I have lurked on related mailing lists, and I have a good knowledge of GNU history and workings. Gronky 13:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why we shouldn't discuss merging now. Merging is one possible outcome of AfD and, in this case, I guess it might be a good one. -- Karnesky 18:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

My main reason for not discussing a merge now is that I don't have the time this week, and probably not next. But I have already done some thinking on this, so here's what's in my head:

The logical way to avoid duplication would be for each operating system to have an article about the operating system, and for each distribution to have an article about the distribution. So there should be an article for GNU, and GNU/Linux, and GNU/kFreeBSD, and GNU/kNetBSD (see later). And Debian GNU/kFreeBSD should be merged into Debian and GNU/kFreeBSD, and Gentoo/FreeBSD should be merged into Gentoo and FreeBSD. The GNU, GNU/Linux, GNU/kFreeBSD, and GNU/kNetBSD pages should have links to distributions of them, and the Distribution pages should say (and link to) what operating systems they publish versions of.

About "(see later)": GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/kNetBSD are a special case for two reasons. First, they share a lot of characteristics - and if I recall correctly, it was even the same person that did the bulk of both ports of GNU (was it Robert Millan?). Second, despite being made of very mature and widely used software, neither operating system itself is widely used (as a side note, this will greatly reduce the pool of Wikipedians' experience that the articles on them can draw from). These two factors suggest to me that the two things should be discussed in a joint article GNU on *BSD kernels, or GNU/*BSD, or something. If this seems unpalatable, keep in mind that nothing's permenant. If that unified article gets so big that it should be split, then Net/Free would be one way to consider splitting the info.

To clarify: the unified article should be written like an article on any other operating system (so it should include the {{Infobox_OS_2}} and should be in the Free software operating systems Category. GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/kNetBSD would then redirect there. Also, the name should not be given too much importance "GNU/kFreeBSD" is just a name invented quickly by the Debian porter after the FreeBSD guys didn't like his original name "GNU/FreeBSD" (since it could be interpretted as implying that the user would get a complete FreeBSD system). The most important thing for the name is accuracy, and since neither "GNU/FreeBSD" or "GNU/kFreeBSD" conveys a clear meaing (without additional explanation), I recommend using a descriptive name (such as GNU on BSD kernels, or the same with an asterisk before BSD). Gronky 20:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 03:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete - There is no such entity. Besides, the specific articles for Gentoo/FreeBSD and Debian GNU/kFreeBSD should be footnotes in their respective articles, not their own ones. GNU/NetBSD doesn't exist either, there is no group doing it, there is Debian GNU/NetBSD, a minor project within the scope of Debian. Gentoo/OpenBSD? Notes in both the OpenBSD and Gentoo articles. Gentoo/ALT should just be a part of Gentoo. Janizary 05:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep ~~helix84 02:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Two users have suggested merging content. This could be a good idea. Can future voters please indicate how they feel about a merge? I have also put in merge suggestions for Gentoo/FreeBSD and Gentoo/OpenBSD to Gentoo/ALT. See (and use) Talk:Gentoo/ALT for discussion on that merge. -- Karnesky 15:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

merge please I want a merge in the way Gronky describes it. Geronimooo 21:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International Anarchy

Delete. This is a non-notable vanity article WAvegetarian 04:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Do not delete. This page should not be deleted just because the world of gamers is not what you are used to yet. We are one of the top clans in the Louisivlle Area and we enjoy what we do. You have a page on Team 3D and no one marked that for deletion! We enjoy what we do and believe that since we are not being rude or being a propaganda machine, that it is fine to have a page on that. —preceding unsigned comment by 12.202.109.176 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC) who is the author of the article
Delete. I agree, this is a non-notable vanity article. The web in general allows for websites to display whatever they want. Wikipedia is for learning. Your chances of people searching google for your article topic are gar greater than that of someone searching wikipedia. Also, another page that has not been marked for deletion is no reason to not delete this one. And please sign your name so we know who we are talking to! Thanks. --Krovisser 05:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity article. Gazpacho 05:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Sorry guys, this vote comes from a major contributor to the role-playing game and history of role-playing games articles. Maybe you'll be worth mentioning within an article if you win a major tournament. You'll earn your own article if you win a string of them like Team 3D or develop a successful game. For now this is Geocities material. Durova 06:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, article is not NPOV. Gaming clans only deserve articles if they won a major tournament. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There's no reason for a clan to have a page, and "enjoy[ing] what [you] do" doesn't make it notable enough to have an encyclopedia page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grande (talk • contribs)
Do Not Delete. Someone said earlier Wikipedia is for learning. If so, I ask why things such as Nsync, South Park, and other various pop culture icons. What does the United State's pop culture have to do with "learning." Sure they may not have won dozens of tournaments like Team 3D but they are part of the US's pop culture as well and if you don't want them to be, please delete it but if you are going to do that, shoot down every other thing on Wikipedia that has nothing to do with learning.Template:K. Wood —preceding unsigned comment by 12.211.11.110 (talk • contribs)
- Comment - I see your concerns, and I agree that Nsync, etc. are not part of learning per se... but we have to draw the line somewhere. There's a large difference between a PC game clan, which can be established merely by typing a few lines into the game, and artists and TV shows that have established themselves by selling thousands of records, and attracting thousands of viewers. Say you were to enter a game show. Which would be more likely to be a question: something about Nsync or South Park, or something about The counter-strike clan, "Internation Anarchy?" Yes, they are to a much lesser degree part of my (the US's) culture, but it would be far more encompassing to make an article about video game clans in general, instead of every individual one.--Krovisser 14:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable clan. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 03:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete. Well, then there are many things such as Highschoool Wikis that are also of the same caliber as our clan. We are known throughout the area just as a highschool. Sure a highschool has educational purposes, but popularity wise we are just about equal.Template:K. Wood
Delete, nn gameclan vanity. MCB 19:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Take Pills Die Records

Non-notable Internet-based record label with no notable artists. Voting delete, but note that there are many places that User:Takepills has listed the label, including a bunch of duplicates of this article that I have turned into redirects. Also note that the article text is copied from here, though I didn't want to {{copyvio}} it, since it would leave almost nothing on the page. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-21 04:50:01Z

Delete per nom. PJM 04:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
(Speedy) Delete copyvio. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree with copyvio speedy: seems to be all the user's own work, which seems to be CreativeCommons ShareAlike licensed (see comments at Image:Takepillsdie.jpg. It looks more like vanity to me, but anyway, delete as non-notable. Kusma (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment, I also disagree. Archive.org seems to have copied from the record label's website, so they'd be the ones violating copyright. Also, speedy delete for copyright violations only applies to commercial content providers (unforunately) and Archive.org is not such a provider. -- Kjkolb 07:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  - I don't see how archiving the entire internet can be a copyvio. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    - Ahem! Internet World Wide Web Uncle G 10:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    - Uncle G, what were those links meant to point out? -- Kjkolb 13:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
      - That if an organization is "archiving the entire internet", copyright concerns aren't its only problem. ☺ Uncle G 16:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
        
        I see. After doing some research on the organization it seems like its high on the list, though. -- Kjkolb 06:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: I don't know if it they are violating copyright laws. It was being suggested that the music label was violating copyright on material they created themselves, but if anybody involved in this nomination was, it "would" be the Internet Archive, which is why I said "they'd" as in "they would". I was not claiming that they were violating copyright. Since they remove material upon request, perhaps no one has bothered to take them to court to find out one way or another. -- Kjkolb 13:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep, with possible merge. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 03:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maya women

Most likely original research. Redirect to Maya civilization. Owen× ☎ 05:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Weak merge. The article does contain in-text citations that are complete enough to construct the missing bibliography. It's a close call between this and redirect. I'm going with merge because Maya civilization has no discussion of gender roles. This seems to be college level writing in need of light grammatical edits. Durova 06:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Maya civilisation. Sources are provided and it is just a matter of wikifying and merging with the Maya civilisation article. Capitalistroadster 09:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment - Owen×, this is Articles for deletion. If you don't believe the article should be deleted, don't bring it here. Be bold and merge and redirect on your own. -- Plutor 16:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly what I would have done had I thought it needed to be merged. However, since I proposed removing all of this article's contents and turning it into a redirect, I wanted to garner the opinions of others who are hopefully more familiar than I am with the subject matter. When it is a topic with which I am familiar, I am plenty bold. :) Owen× ☎ 16:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's plase not get into reprimanding nominators. After all, a nomination is not a vote, and it's possible to think that an article should be redirected but recognize that some other folks (like me) will think it should be deleted. In my case, I think a redirect without merge is better, as I didn't see that much content to merge. However, I am thoroughly content with a judicious merge and redirect. There is a high degree of original research mixed in with the referenced material. Geogre 20:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Geogre. I didn't see Plutor's comments as a reprimand; we often see nominators not voting at all, and there may be a case for using a {{merge}} tag in a situations like this. However, when there is substantial text at risk of being scrapped (either by deletion or redirect), I prefer bringing the issue to a wider audience. BTW, congratulations! Today marks exactly two years since your first edit. Owen× ☎ 21:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh? Poo. Well, there were about 6 months (ok, maybe 3) as an IP before that, when I was sure that getting an account would get me spammed. All that time, and all those articles I did, and all those articles I undid.... 2 on Wikipedia is like 40 in human years. Geogre 14:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, with changes. Agreed that the material, appropriately rewritten, could be merged into Maya civilization article, to this latter's benefit as it does not presently cover this topic. However, I think that the general subject area is notable enough, and one which is seriously studied, so as to warrant (in addition) standing on its own. It would need to be retitled, I'd suggest something like Gender roles in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, to broaden the field of study but still focus on a region and time period with certain unifying characteristics. A restructure to remove OR-type statements, fix references, and a general wiki-styling is also required. I don't have the particular references cited in the text to hand, but I know of a few similar ones; if you allow a day or two I will see if a start can be made on its revision.--cjllw | TALK 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LukeSharp

Delete. This is an article about a software package under development. In other words, it does not exist. •DanMS 05:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Please try to put more effort into your nominations, Dan. This is nothing more than a vote; it's a good vote, I'll admit, but it's not a nomination. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's see now ... version 0.1 doesn't even exist yet, the (Geocities!) website redirects to a homepage (and the specific link to "LukeSharp" 404s, presumably because of something to do with the redirect), and the Wikipedia article is not so much a description as a plan of what the creator may want to do, he hasn't decided yet (predictably, Google also remains silent). WP:NOT a crystal ball, nor is it a place for programmers to post plans for software they're thinking about maybe writing in the future. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 04:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Hartsakoom

this is non-notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia, an admitted total audience of 500 --WAvegetarian 05:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete movie made by boy scouts, no IMDb. --TheMidnighters 08:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fateincidence

Neologism. No Google / Yahoo! hits outside of this page. Ziggurat 05:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Durova 06:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unused neologism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Owen× ☎ 18:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Rann of Kutch

The Rann of Kutch incident (not a battle) has been well documented in Rann of Kutch article. Article is among the other dubious ones initiated by an anon where an incident/skirmish is being labelled "Battle". Idleguy 05:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This stub contains nothing of substance to merge with the larger article (which is quite good already). Durova 06:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, there was a battle at Rann of Kutch preceding the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. This matter has been dealt with in a separate section in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, This battle was a significant battle, preceding the full scale declared war (1965) between India and Pakistan, and had attracted international attention. The contents require massive expansion. In my opinion, the current contents, as rightly pointed out by Idleguy and Durova may be deleted. However, I would suggest that, if contents are not suitably expanded, a redirection to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 may be made for the time being. At some time, some one may expand this page after removing the redirection link. --Bhadani 16:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per Bhadani. utcursch | talk 07:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 05:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Dwarka

"Operation Dwarka" is an insignificant incident that did not even result in the loss of life. Anon's attempt to rewrite history is flawed as in the previous article where everything is termed as "Operation" or "Battle". Next thing we could even see a firefight or shootout being glorified as war! Idleguy 06:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. The stub links to an official Pakistani government website that calls this the most significant naval engagement of the war. The operation's mission was to take out radar installations, to reduce enemy air effectiveness for the ground conflict, and to lower enemy morale. These are noteworthy strategic goals. I think it's rather a good thing when a military operation can achieve its aims without killing. Naval tradition usually targets objects, not people. (I've mentioned before that I'm a war veteran. Care to guess which branch?) Durova 07:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The 1965 war article already explains this incident with proper references and in a neutral tone. It might seem on initial superficial reading like an american military operation which intends to cripple a target area with as little casualties as possible. It couldn't be further from the facts and it's regrettable that official Pakistani version uses the words "most significant". However as Tariq Ali, a Pakistani historian and many pro-Pakistani sources would explain, it barely reduced any air effectiveness in the area or dented morale. In effect it was merely sent to shell a small coastal town called Dwarka and has remained only a footnote in the entire war achieving little significance. Idleguy 07:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Things sometimes get interesting when one does a bit of sleuthing. The only Google hits for pages that mention both Tariq Ali and Operation Dwarka are Wikipedia and its mirror sites, specifically talk:Pakistan Navy and nominator Idleguy's posts. While I couldn't locate Mr. Ali's actual words on the subject it does turn out that he was a Trotskyite with no naval experience. Things look bitter on that talk page. It's been through a POV dispute and mediation. Idleguy deleted two paragraphs about the 1965 war, leaving only one sentence, for much the same reasons he advances this nomination.

Here are three independent sources I located. From an Indian account of the war, "The Dwarka shelling infuriated many Naval Officers and in ways their pride was affected for some days to come." [6] Vice Adm (Retd) Iqbal F. Quadir attributes two myths to the outcome of Operation Dwarka, both of which reflect favorably on Pakistan's naval reputation. [7] Another Indian source attests to the raid's psychological effectiveness. [8]. A cruiser, five destroyers, and a frigate is a significant force.

I'll revise some of what I said about the operation. Faulty intelligence and communications interfered with the primary mission. Yet the Indian navy failed to launch any opposition ships at all. I've lost faith in Idleguy's claims to NPOV on this matter. Durova 09:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read Tariq Ali's books and articles before coming to conclusions. Lack of naval experience is not a valid reason given that in the subcontinent officers of both nations tend to fudge facts and hype things up. A more neutral and civialian source would tell you it's otherwise. Unfortunately googling is not the only way to find out facts. The denting of "pride" for naval officers in the area that you refer to did not affect the battle plans of either nation. Infact the line is under the heading "SIDE SHOW IN THE SOUTH-WESTERN SECTOR" in the website quoted by you. Hardly worth mentioning, but if such psychological operations are to be given separate articles then we'd be filling Wikipedia with many articles of secondary importance given the magnitude of the war.

I also seldom edited articles with POV, it was just that outright claims of Operation Dwarka were being glorified as a great success when tactically / strategically it had achieved nothing of note in the course of the war that claimed thousands of lives. Hope you can read up on the war and prove me wrong. Idleguy 12:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep, since the official Pakistani version uses the words "most significant" and its not our job to decide if that's true or false. Kappa 11:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep this barely ranks as an article, but the fact is that the nominator's behaviour arouses suspicions based on the back and forth harangues at talk:Pakistan Navy. Eusebeus 13:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's a stub about a noteworthy historical event. The fact that there was no loss of life involved doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether or not to delete it. Factitious 21:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Abstain, currently I do not have complete information and significance of the incidence. --Bhadani 16:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. utcursch | talk 07:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 13:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frangipani And The Floating Circus Of Lights

doesn't meet notability test of WP:MUSIC --WAvegetarian 06:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete if WP:MUSIC not met. Harro5 06:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 05:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete only 7 Google hits and no evdience that they meet WP:NMG. [9]. Capitalistroadster 00:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- pfctdayelise 23:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. See also Fabian Cool. They may meet NMG7 for comedy hip-hop, which actually is not explained in the article. They are a comedy band, and do seem to actually be a real band. Their official website is pretty fanciful, lists about a dozen albums all "out of stock". Among Google I found one real gig review and no evidence of any album releases aside from their website. But pretty hard to meet WP:V. pfctdayelise 00:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Just scrapes in, depending on what "prominently" means in WP:MUSIC point 5. They have received reviews in 3D World [10], and on the FBi FM website [11]. Cnwb 00:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Seven Google hits and the fact that none of the editors from their country have ever heard of them is a good sign that they're not in any way prominent. One review from a community radio station, with no other evidence supporting notability, doesn't really cut it for me. Ambi 04:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Roisterer 07:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom and Ambi. Sarah Ewart 12:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 13:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tinklepotty

Article about a band--doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. 278 Google hits on the name, no allmusic. The albums appear to have been self-released, and I can't find evidence of any touring. Meelar (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --TheMidnighters 08:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 05:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 13:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Habbo Discussion

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habbo Paper and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habbos, we decided we don't need articles for individual fansites. Should be deleted as it isn't a useful redirect. 61.69.1.198 07:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable community (I wouldn't be surprised if the statistics were made up). -LichYoshi 12:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment Hello, the statistics are not made up. I am the admin of the community and we are growing very rapidly with now 730 activated members. I can show statistics if you guys would like. Let me know - Duncan - Community Advisor —preceding unsigned comment by 72.146.136.221 (talk • contribs)

Never-the-less, Wikipedia requires that a topic be notable before it has an article. Your statistics have no use until you have over 5000 active members (WP:WEB), which, as User:A Man In Black said, is exceedingly generous. Feel free to create the article when you reach that milestone :) Bornhj 08:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

730 members, huh. Well, since WP:WEB currently requires 5000 (which is exceedingly generous), delete this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perrynoid

Silly non-notable junk about some ordinary pop music singer. Also, is it true? Anthony Appleyard 07:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, might qualify for speedy as nonsense/joke. --TheMidnighters 08:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 05:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolove

This was tagged {{db|The entire article is POV and unverified; looks like spam.}}, which I generally agree with. Not a speedy, though. —Cryptic (talk) 07:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Rich, satisfying Delete. Advertising. Squiddy 10:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Fine, not a speedy. It is, however, still blatant advertizing with few objective facts. Nihiltres 17:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Spam! Jtmichcock 02:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The company is legitimate with trademark on the brand name. If you allow for Cadbury and Hershey, why would you now allow for other chocolate bar companies? We have edited the text to ensure it was less "sales" and more fact. The intention was not advertising or spam. Chocolove 4:21pm ,23 November 2005
Keep, Maybe. This IS a real company. They DO seem to have a somewhat unique product, they WERE in the NYC Chocolate Show and they DID get a rating of best in show from Phil Lempert, food editor for Today (ref:http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9966060/page/3/). According to Lempert, they are high-end gourmet product that uses "single origin", I guess that's like beans from one crop or something -- kind of like a single-malt whiskey I guess. Article also says they will never sell high volume because of this. Question: would a very-high-end but therefore low-volume whiskey, wine, cigar, microbrew beer, etc. make WikiPedia? If not, then this should not; if so, then perhaps this should. Yes the ARTICLE BODY is very poor and is PR, but if the SUBJECT is Wikipedic then the proper solution is to tag the article for improvement rather than delete, at least that is my understanding. If User Chocolove had written a better article with history, picture, more about unique aspects of product etc, then we might not be having this discussion. But he didn't, so it will probably his loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Penney's Law of Gross Weight Tonnage

This article is about a "law" that supposedly has sporadic usage in eastern Nebraska. It get zero Google results, even whe the name of the originator is excluded. A lot of the stuff in Category:Eponymous laws is only slightly better. -- Kjkolb 07:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete neologism. --TheMidnighters 08:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete neologism unless shown otherwise prior to end of AfD. Onus is on creators of articles like these to provide good, verifiable citations showing actual use. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
After reading the definition of neologism, I'm not certain that I agree that this is one. Assuming it is, can someone point me to where they are excluded from Wikipedia by policy? I have searched and found nothing. I'm uncertain how I could go about providing proof of use. Most of the people using the term are the sort who use computers only when they must. I can't think of one person from the Steamfitters union who would have their own webpage, much less register it with google. Anyone have any ideas? DJPhil 07:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Neologisms fall under original research, which is among the criteria for deletion, see WP:NOR. --TheMidnighters 08:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. After reading what I have on that page, I understand the above objections. In attempting to discern whether or not to write this up I didn't run across the above, and I appreciate your patience in pointing it out. DJPhil 10:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete With apologies. Should have more carefully read the manual. DJPhil 10:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, IMHO the most important policies are verifiability and citing sources. To the extent they are followed, they are what make it possible for people who are not authorities to write an encyclopedia that is authoritative. Yes, there is information that is true but unverifiable. Our rules exclude such information, because the only way to insure a reasonable degree of accuracy is either to accept only information that is verifiable or to limit participation to trusted, credentialed contributors. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This is actually a Talmudic law dating back to around 600 AD, which states that "An empty carriage must always yield right-of-way to one which is laden.", which is essentially what the Nebraskans reinvented 1400 years later. Owen× ☎ 18:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 18:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Waygood

A horse. No claims of having won any sporting events or such, and difficult to verify. WP:CSD A7 covers articles about real people, not animals, so I'm bringing it to AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn horse vanity. --TheMidnighters 08:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
~~Indirect vanity on the part of the owners (who have the same name), so Delete. Possibly speedy if WP:CSD applies to non-humans.~~ Winning one very famous race seems a good claim of notability - surely we have human athletes that achieved less - but I can't make up my mind. Given that I probably wouldn't have voted on the article if I'd come across it as it currently stands, I change to Abstain. --Last Malthusian 09:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, being a horse isn't notable. And that's pretty much the extent of his claim to fame. - Bobet 10:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable. Kappa 11:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding a sporting event which it won. That changes things considerably. Keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless notability can be shown. See list of historical horses for examples of reasons why a horse might be considered to deserve an article - and note that we must set the bar considerably higher than "won a sporting event", because there will be literally millions of horses (and greyhounds, and camels, and snails) that have won sporting events through the ages. Was this a particularly historically-signficant sporting event? Was the win given more than a passing mention in the national press? If so, please provide sources; if not, please show this article the stable door. — Haeleth Talk 22:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Depends on the quality of the race that it won. As the Irish Derby has been going for approximately 140 years [12] and our article states that it is Ireland's most important race, I vote to Keep and expand. I suspect that the horse has won others. Capitalistroadster 22:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Sjakkalle. Sam Vimes 23:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless some actual evidence of notability -- and winning ONE famous race ain't it -- historical import, influence, superlative, etc. --Calton | Talk 01:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete winning one notable race sets the bar too low. Eusebeus 08:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geech

Couldn't find any reference to this definition of the term on Google. Several definitions given on Urban Dictionary but none of them match up with content of entry. Sole editor of article is 68.197.91.185, an IP responsible for several acts of vandalism. "Geech" is a common nickname, so the article may be a personal attack, but I didn't think there was enough evidence to speedy it so I figured I'd bring it here. AdelaMae 08:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete, db-g3. PJM 12:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 18:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] South Africa vs Wales at rugby union

The content is non-encyclopaedic and extremely narrow in focus. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If this page is allowed, then ALL pages listing results between Team X and Team Y throughout history should also be allowed. Zunaid 08:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: In order to avoid duplication please vote/comment only in this section for both this article as well as South Africa vs Ireland at rugby union. The merits are exactly the same for both articles. Zunaid

Keep Useful record of international matches between two countries in significant sport. Capitalistroadster 09:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: By extrapolation then, every significant sport between countries could have a listing here? Surely that would be overkill, one article per sport per opposing country is simply too much. If you do want this kept then wouldn't something like "South Africa vs others at rugby union" be better? Zunaid 11:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  - It would become too large and more importantly it can't be categorised under both Wales and South Africa, which would mean we would need to produce each list twice, nearly doubling the amount of server space devoted to the subject. CalJW 13:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    - Call me pedantic, but then the Ireland article should be under "Ireland vs South Africa at rugby union", in keeping with the Wikipedia policy of listing countries in alphabetical order ;) Zunaid 13:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, two major countries in a major sport. Kappa 11:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep An almanac style article. Wikipedia:What is an article states in its first sentence that wikipedia incorporates an almanac. It will be a splendid thing to create the world's first comprehensive collection of major sports results, all ad-free and wikified. CalJW 13:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. In response to Zunaid's comment that one article per sport per combination of countries is too much... I think this is a perfect example of where the much-abused 'WP:NOT paper' guideline comes in handy. That said, we don't need an article on every single combination of countries and sports, just the ones which are... well... interesting. An article saying 'Senegal and Brazil do not have much sporting history in the field of curling' should plainly be deleted, and an article merely listing sports results sans commentary would be borderline at least. --Last Malthusian 13:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, rename the Ireland article per Zunaid. --Last Malthusian 13:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Looks fine to me. I agree that if these pages are kept, we should also allow informative pages for other records of international matches. That's a good thing. Factitious 21:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per CalJW, and rename per Zunaid. Both need a cleanup, though. Sam Vimes 23:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and cleanup, as per CalJW. Carioca 00:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per Capitalistroadster -- Ian ≡ talk 00:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I'll add to Last Malthusian's comments with the fact that until recent years there were only about a dozen countries that played RU, and Wales, Ireland and SA are among the eight top nations tradition-wise (along with England, Scotland, New Zealand, Australia, and France) so we're hardly looking and screeds of articles. Grutness...wha? 03:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 19:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] South Africa vs Ireland at rugby union

Comment: In order to avoid duplication please vote/comment only in the South Africa vs Wales at rugby union section for both this article as well as that one. The merits are exactly the same for both articles. Zunaid

*Keep. Article containing records of international matches between two notable nations in significant international sport. Capitalistroadster 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Struck through by me. (If you don't mind. Is this allowed etiquette?) Comments/votes to carry on in South Africa vs Wales at rugby union section. Zunaid 11:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remi van Trijp

Mr. van Trijp created this page himself on the 31st of August, 2005. There have been no substantial edits since. The contents of the page, while suitable for a user page, appear to only meet the vanity page bar, and not that for an article in Wikipedia. As an inclusionist, it gives me great sorrow to list this page here; perhaps Mr. van Trijp can add more information as to his merits in Wikipedia. Philip ^(Respond?) 08:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, it could probably be speedied as a nn-bio. - Bobet 10:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete, nn-bio, CSD:A7, no assertion of notability. (Nominator, please read WP:CSD.) MCB 19:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Obala.net

Foreign language article about website of dubious notability jet57 (u∴t) 10:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 09:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, since the text is cut and pasted from [13] thus making this an ad. It's a Slovenian site with an alexa rank of 51,102 [14], so it might be pretty notable locally, in case someone wants to rewrite the article. - Bobet 10:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Given the fact Alexa is commonly biased towards English language content, I'm surprised a Slovenian website with such a rank could be called of dubious notability. Therefore, I won't oppose recreation, but still delete for being a copy/paste ad-job. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know Slovenian, but I've pieced together that it's a web/news portal, and it has an registered ISSN number, but I can't get a good feel for how notable it is. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 19:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forkhead Box Audiobooks

I did some searching, and sure enough there are a few sites listing the title in the article being distributed by this audiobook company, but I could find very little on the company itself. May not meet the requirements of WP:CORP. --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 10:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Logan Olson

Cinema-television production student. He's made some short films, but I doubt if any of them have any third-party recognition. See also WP:BIO. Kappa 11:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as a G7 bio. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 11:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 12:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kehkshan School- A project of City School

It pains me to nominate this article about a school in a developing country, but it doesn't provide context and doesn't google. Unverifiable. Kappa 11:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. PJM 12:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not that I particularly care, but if we waive notability criteria for schools, then it seems that requiring a web address creates a systemic bias against schools in developing countries. --Last Malthusian 13:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Unverifiable, full of fluff words and while it says "It is situated in the southern region of the city school systems." it fails to state where the school is actually supposed to be located. Lack of context. We shouldn't require a web address, but we should require some form of verification. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see any other way to verify that the average school exists... short of someone taking a plane to it, coming back and saying "Yeah, it's there". --Last Malthusian 17:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment if Kappa wants to delete it, it must be bad —Wahoofive (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable, unless verified, in which case keep to counter systemic bias. The City School is a notable private school network in Pakistan; see City School System, Pakistan, by the same author as this article. For some reason I can't find an actual list of all The City School schools online; this article could probably be verified by finding such a list? — Haeleth Talk 22:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Kappa, subject appears to be unverifiable. Bahn Mi 05:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 19:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deepend

Design company that went under in 2001 acc to article in The Register, does not seem sufficiently notable. Flapdragon 12:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Eusebeus 13:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, link provided establishes notability. Kappa 01:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say that's debatable. The nearest it comes to WP:CORP is "multiple published works" but that might be stretching it. Flapdragon 13:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 19:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Dawn and Drew Show

This is drivel. A vanity page that is completely biased and basically just an advertisement for the show.

Strong keep The Dawn and Drew Show is one of the most popular podcasts in the world (source: ranking at Podcast Alley, currently at no. 7 out of 10276), and was recently featured on Fox 6 News [15]. The way we deal with biased articles is that we fix the bias, not that we delete articles. Is this AfD nomination a part of the recent GNAA trolling campaign against podcast articles? Haakon 12:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I recently added its importance to the article (the same fact noted above by Haakon) after spotting it on that list that's being kept. (It did lack info about its importance before then, I'll give it that.) I don't think all of the nominations are bad ones, but with Daily Source Code and this one I highly doubt you'll get it through. PS: please sign your noms. (By the way, check out the history of podcasting and you will see that both this podcast and the [{Daily Source Code]] figure heavily in it.) Jacqui ^★ 19:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Very notable podcast, no evidence given that it was created as a vanity page. Factitious 21:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep notable podcast. non-drivel. Jessamyn 01:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment Notability per, for example, the San Francisco Bay Guardian "One of the most popular podcasts nationally is the Dawn and Drew Show" [16]

Strong keep This is relevent information; as noted above "The way we deal with biased articles is that we fix the bias, not that we delete articles." Nonperturbative 04:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 22:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Hairy Nobs

An unsigned band with one self-released album - squibix 13:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete so this nom doesn't get orphaned, it seems pretty cut and dry. Karmafist 17:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This band has a cult following and has influence over a few underground bands i'm awear of. I think it should stay.—preceding unsigned comment by 219.89.129.189 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was regrettably delete. DS 14:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Robert Cooper

Tagged as a speedy as a nn-bio. I'm not quite sure, since Cooper has published some poetry, I think there is an assertion of notability there. I will note that Facets of the Soul was published by Lulu Press, which I think is vanity press. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

From vanity press: A vanity press or vanity publisher is a book printer who acts like a publisher and charges writers a fee in return for publishing their books. Lulu doesn't ask a fee for publishing your book, which means they're not a vanity publisher, btu then again, I'm biased. I have a Lulu account. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete - I originally tagged it as speedy but you're right, it doesn't quite qualify, though it's close. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Being self-published isn't a bad thing, but this author has no Barnes&Noble ranking, an Amazon ranking of 1,985,976 (in Books) and a Lulu sales rank of 6,302. None of them particularly impressive. This book is their only work [17]). I don't think this author has the required audience to get a Wikipedia article, but I'm eagerly awaiting an article on Jeremy Robinson (B&N bestseller, also Lulu author) and Mark Jeffrey. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as nn-bio. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fred buff

Non-notable politician (claimed), nonsense entry, attack entry. Various reasons to speedy but listed here as anon author keeps removing speedy tags. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

attack? who? was not he mayor of James City County? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.230.229.13 (talk • contribs) 14:51 21 November 2005 (UTC)

why delete a us politician? all the links are correct .... support our politicians...a mayor is a mayor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.230.229.13 (talk • contribs) 13:57 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The article on Camp Perry has false and misleading information that is denied by the US government. The Camp Perry article should be set for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.230.229.13 (talk • contribs) 15:46 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes!! State politicians should be included. This helpesd me with researching state and local leaders. Let's keep this one. More local, that's the roots of democracy. Thank You Trent Jones 11/21/5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.236.8 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-21 20:29:28 (UTC)

delete I am an inclusionist when it comes to articles about politicians, because I also like to use wikipedia for research, I see absolutely nothing encyclopedic in this article. I see no indication of what the person has done which makes him notable. Morris 04:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as A7 (bio making no plausible claims of notability). It's a hoax, folks. For example, the article claims Fred Buff is "a leader of the Virginia Democratic Party". Too bad that the Virginia Democratic Party doesn't seem to have noticed... — Haeleth Talk 22:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Alberta

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Bale

Tagged as nn-bio, but I reckon there's enough in there that it deserves an AfD. Note WP:V before claiming notability based simply on the assertions in the article. -Splash^talk 14:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BIO. I initially thought speedy myself - but read it again. :)PJM 14:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable, unverifiable, hoax-like vanity page! mdd4696 04:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Cassini

Tagged as nn-bio, but the stuff in the link in the article, while extremely speculative probably deserves the loving deliberations of AfD. -Splash^talk 14:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 14:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete because he is only notable based on speculation. mdd4696 04:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capricious

Tagged (twice) as speedy as a dicdef. They aren't speedies. It is a dicdef, though. -Splash^talk 14:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as dicdef. PJM 14:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wiktionary already has it, so I don't see the value in transwikiing. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Durova 16:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muster (horse)

Much as it pains me to put any Australia-related article up for deletion, this is pretty much an out-and-out dictionary definition with not much scope (in my appropriately humble opinion) for expansion. "Muster" is the Australian word for an American word we don't have an article on. Hrm ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, likely search term, can be expanded to explain mustering methods and traditions. Kappa 00:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete highly unlikely search term & not encyclopedic. Eusebeus 08:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as dicdef. The necessary information is in Muster anyway, which is a disambiguation page. —Cleared as filed. 22:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suite 305

Joke page about Gonzaga University dorm room Mike Dillon 15:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete Mike Dillon 15:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Flapdragon 16:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prunescape

unimportant slang. Brighterorange 16:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as dicdef with silly POV remark. PJM 17:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per PJM. Sam Vimes 23:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-atheists

Not an established term; article is original research. Brighterorange 16:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. From the sounds of it, an Anti-Atheist is a "real" athiest. -- Grande 18:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV rant against science and atheism. Saikiri 19:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Edwardian 21:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV rant. Gazpacho 09:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Clifton

Autobiographical vanity page. Not notable enough. Girolamo Savonarola 16:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as a stupid hoax/vanity. - Bobet 19:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Not a hoax but a piece of history. See http://www.mi.lp.org/history/clifton.htm A number of Libertarians are mentioned in Wikipedia: Carla Howell, Jo Jorgensen, Art Olivier, and so forth. Be fair, don't discriminate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesClifton (talk • contribs)
Delete. A councilman in a village of less than 800 people is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. By contrast, Howell, Jorgensen, and Olivier all received over 300,000 votes in races for U.S. Senator or for Vice President of the United States. --Metropolitan90 02:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps not but it did make history in one of our most populated, industrious states that has made major contributions to the auto industry and American music. The victory received nationwide coverage (UPI, AP) in addition to being mentioned some state history books used in the classroom. Not notable? Yet a list of female porn stars and a list of erotic actors with entries for every single one from the '70's through the 2000's is notable! What an odd sense of what passes for useful information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesClifton (talk • contribs)
  - Please sign your comments/votes to Articles for Deletion by following them with four tildes like this: ~~~~ You would need to cite sources to back up your claim that the election of a small-town council member made it into state history books which were used in the classroom. --Metropolitan90 05:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

My apologies but I have trouble navigating Wikipedia. Unfortunately I cannot cite sources as several members of the Michigan LP told me this about 15 year's ago and I have lost contact with them. I have lived in Illinois and Indiana since winning the election. Since I cannot prove this at this time, I hereby withdraw this statement. I left the LP for the GOP and have now returned after nearly 15 years.

Again, however, if literally thousands of names of male porn stars, female porn stars, gay porn stars, big-bust models and performers, porn stars who appeared in mainstream films, and Japanese female porn stars can have individual entries, I don't understand why a history-making event cannot.

However, it's your decision, I will respect it, and this will be my last comment on the subject. Thanks for the engagement.-- JamesClifton 10:08, 22 November 2005

Comment:sorry for calling the article 'stupid hoax' before, that was out of line. However, being that it's written by the subject and the external link is from the Libertarian Party of Michigan's page (which would be predisposed to publishing an article like that), it's hard to verify the notability of this. Googling "James Clifton" +libertarian gives 50 results and none of them were related to this event. - Bobet 18:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't comment anymore but feel it would be rude not to publically accept this person's apology. I understand completely.

See http://politicalgraveyard.com/bio/clevenger-clime.html

Headline: THE DAILY TELEGRAM, Adrian, Michigan, March 15, 1988: "Addison seats first Libertarian ever elected in state," written by Dennis Pelham.

The paper was Vol. 178 No. 98.--James Clifton

Happy Thanksgiving to all!

Weak Keep due to relative uniqueness of a Libertarian candidate winning an election for a post that would probably be too minor to include otherwise. On the other hand, it might be possible to merge into Libertarian Party (United States) (i.e., a brief mention) and redirect. MCB 19:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as a minor officeholder with no serious claim to notability. The first libertarian mayor, or state legislator, maybe. But not Addison city councilor. —Cleared as filed. 22:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abandon all

Advert. Not notable. Alexa ranking ~ 4,100,000. DJ Clayworth 17:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Not notable webcomic. - Bobet 19:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. mdd4696 04:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete - as per above. - Hahnchen 04:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete comic only has 20 strips as of this writing, no notable creator. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Padley

Delete: Does not appear to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria, with only a single self-released CD as evidence of notability. Caerwine 17:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:NMG. PJM 17:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. mdd4696 04:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fisticuffs

(Finishing an anonymous user's incomplete AfD nomination.) Band not meeting WP:MUSIC guidelines: no tours, no CDs, gigs only apparently at local schools, unsigned, no discs, and band apparently breaking up due to university pressures. — Haeleth Talk 22:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Although it sound like they could make a comeback as a soap opera. Jtmichcock 02:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. mdd4696 04:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep, as merge and redirect is something that a bold editor can do after the AFD is over. —Cleared as filed. 22:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Babamukuru

Obvious hoax due to ridiculous content and zero google hits for author of supposed book. Indrian 17:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Tsitsi Dangarembga (it was typoed in the article) and Nervous Conditions do exist so it's not a hoax. I'd suggest Merging whatever is salvageable from this article to the Nervous Conditions article. - Bobet 19:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough. A merge is certainly acceptable if this is real, though much of the content borders on incoherent. Indrian 20:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge any useful information into Nervous Conditions mdd4696 04:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect as above. (I edited to remove the unrelated apparent college humor.) MCB 19:33, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 03:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Spaeth

~~Delete~~ Does not appear to meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Caerwine 17:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep and expand. young composing student with self-released album to his credit according to Allmusic.com [18]. Has a Recording Academy (aka Grammy Awards) at the University of Southern California [19] where they only admit four students. Performed at the Emmy Awards in 2001 with Barbra Streisand and a choir. Has already scored several independent films see [20]. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 18:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment A self-released album clearly doesn't meet the guidelines and none of the other stuff you mentioned is in the article or what I dragged up in my admittedly perfunctory search. However, you've found enough to raise him to the edge of notability. I'm withdrawing my delete, but I'm not withdrawing the nomination, nor am I voting to keep. Caerwine 20:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Troisi

Delete - vanity/not encyclopedic - page about author and his supposed prowess. (see also Mr. Barnes Computer Science Class) -Tεx τ urε 18:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ridiculous veiled threat.Bjones 18:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. mdd4696 04:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as nonsense. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Barnes Computer Science Class

Delete - vanity/not encyclopedic - by Rob Troisi -Tεx τ urε 18:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Sherool (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lolita (singer)

Delete spanish-language nonsense. --Ghirlandajo 18:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. This should certainly be deleted if not translated.

However, a search of Allmusic.com shows that she is an actor/singer with several albums to her credit released through Sony see [21]. Further, she has had charting albums and singles on Billboard's Latin Pop charts so she meets WP:NMG. Her IMDb entry indicates notability as well see [22] so I would vote to keep a decent stub on her or better. Capitalistroadster 19:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete The translation doesn't mean anything about a singer, its just nonsnese. So Delete it, it is worthless. Fahrenheit Royale 19:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Tagged for speedy delete as an attempt to communicate. Kappa 00:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as apparent sandboxing, however I do support the creation of a genuine article about the singer. 23skidoo 01:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I speedied under WP:CSD#A4. Go right ahead and create a real article about the singer in it's place though. --Sherool (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep, with possible merge. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 03:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Foreman

This was speedy-deleted once as a biography making no claims of notability, and recreated. I'm tempted to speedy it again on the same grounds, but there are arguably some assertions of notability here - none of which make it anything more than a mid-level tech worker's professional bio. So delete. CDC (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep - seems notable enough with 19,400 Google hits JoJan 19:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I can't think of any problems that would be caused by keeping this page. Can the nominator? Factitious 22:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge and rediret with Helix project, maybe? The google hit counter should be inflated because he's working with tech things, but this seems to indicate that he's held as somewhat of an expert. Sam Vimes 23:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Helix project, non-notable. Jtmichcock 02:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete -- If wikipedians vote to keep this one, or even merge it, then we should all be entitled to post our resumes on wikipedia. Skeezix1000 19:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep now -- Several edits have tightened up the article to focus on the notability rather than the bio. 9:37 24 November 2005

Good Presentation its nice to know that kids but a lot of effort into this project by making a website.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ridgebots

Nice presentation and a fun project, I'm sure, but Wikipedia is not a webhosting site for showcasing of class projects Shanes 18:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. Shanes 18:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. mdd4696 04:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as nn-bio. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nina Rostanski

Delete. I don't know even how to comment this one ;) --Ghirlandajo 19:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I can think of several ways but they are summed up by Delete Dlyons493 Talk 20:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
You misspelt speedy delete (A7). — Haeleth Talk 22:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was that the article doesn't need it's own individual existence. Userfying as per Bobet's suggestion. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 04:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Noyd

Neologism supposedly created in the 1980s. No references provided. 165.189.91.148 19:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Userfy to the creator's User:Noyd420 page. - Bobet 19:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Noid. mdd4696 04:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN term --Rogerd 05:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barghest (Band)

This group doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, no releases etc. feydey 19:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 22:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator. RedWolf 04:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inferno Design

Article about a website. No alexa rank for either of the addresses listed ([23] [24]). Google finds no pages that link to either address. Delete - Bobet 19:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete as promotional, even if the link gives very good Photoshop tutorials (I've added it to my favorites) JoJan 20:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert mdd4696 04:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert --Rogerd 05:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was speedied by User:RHaworth as nn-bio. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Goldie

Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Co-founder of a college prep school in Virginia that doesn't (yet, anyway) have a Wikipedia article. Nothing links to the page which itself is only a single sentence long. 165.189.91.148 19:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as A7 JoJan 19:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. If for some reason not speedy deleted, delete as non-notable. DES ^(talk) 21:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per above. Turnstep 04:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sigmund fraud

An unfunny pun from a single web cartoon. Non-encyclopedic in the extreme. 165.189.91.148 19:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 19:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete , not encyclopedic. mdd4696 04:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-encylopedic. Turnstep 13:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete UE --Rogerd 05:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Www.lazer-es.com

Promotional JoJan 19:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete - promotional JoJan 19:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete no indiaction of notability. However, this was tagged as a speedy delete, but it does not fit any speedy criterion. Promotional pages are not automatically subject to speedy deletes. DES ^(talk) 21:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising. "Please visit our website" = instant delete vote. — Haeleth Talk 22:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete Advertising. Jtmichcock 02:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert --Rogerd 05:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homoaerobic and Homorobic

Delete, protologism. User:Angr/talk 19:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep, This article's name caught my curiousity. It badly needs a rewrite and some pictures to show what it means. I thought it would mean homosexual excercise or more likely a non-sexual-related exercise where you just do the same type of workout like your only excercise is you ride an exercise bike and do no other excercises? Maybe this is what the name actually means, or should mean. The article says "gay figurative gestures used towards" and giving an example of physical sexual harrassment by gay men to straight men, but this should be called another name than aerobic because they don't achieve an aerobic workout. Umm... get a source, too. Funny name, but badly written article. DyslexicEditor 22:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete. "Homoaerobic is a term coined on 21 October 2005." Durova 22:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
As Angr says, this is a protologism. There's no such word attested, let alone a concept attached to it that an encyclopaedia article could discuss. The article tells us that this coinage was made less than a month ago. This is thus yet another attempt by students to get a word into the dictionary by creating an article in the encyclopaedia. The article is unverifiable and original research, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Delete. Uncle G 22:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per previous voters. New + not widely used = no article. — Haeleth Talk 22:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep but rename, When I wrote this article the spelling of this word was unclear after I talked to people I truly thing the word should be changed to Homorobic. This was the word used in the actual conception of the word and was meant to be compared to the word "Homophobic" meaning..."I'm not homophoic, but homorobic, meaning I'm ok with my sexuality and can act how I please towards my friends, not scared of expressing myself due to homophbia." This is my first Wikipedia article and I do think it should be rewritten and I would appreciate help on it. I also firmly believe this is not a Protoligism, but a word that has meaning and can be used to discribe something. I'm not trying to get this word to "catch on" or become a fad, but really do think this word can be the benifit of many people. Now I know the actual break down of Homoaerobic is not meaning the word, and I plan to revise my article and post it under Homorobic. If you want to contact me about my ideas on this word feel free to message me or email me. I just think that it should be given and chance and time for other Wikipedia enthusiasts to see this word and expand on it. Also I wanted to add pictures, but I am in the middle of writing a term paper on "Airport Noise and it's Effect on local Residential Property," which requires a great deal of time. Please message me, support is welcome. Farrelly - talk 23:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sure your professor would be grateful if you learned the difference between "it's" and "its" before turning the paper in. --User:Angr/talk 23:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Even if this is a real thing, making up a new term to describe it is original research which wikipedia doesn't allow. Maybe you can find somewhere else which will take this. Kappa 00:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hey Angr, It's obvious that you have a problem with me and/or my article. Man relax go smoke something calm your nerves or something. Now after i read the Kappa's comment, ok I realize that this might be ordinal research, so I will try to either find some sources to cite or just have to write some articles on some other part of the universe. But Angr man, If you are just gonna over analyze my comments enough to start breakin down my english, ya gotta relax bud. If this shouldn't be on wiki because of the policies thats cool with me, but don't just hate on me or my article. Hope you're havin a beautiful time in Moabit homie, and I see you're first book was published in Somerville, Mass...My friend lived there last summer and they make some good cheap vodka there....anyway I woulda messaged you but I couldn't find out how to message you directly. And if this really has anything at all to do with you being a homosexual thats unfortuanate because I have nothign against gay and lesbians. I have several homosexual guy friends who are gay and relatives that are gay. That would just be immature on your part, but thats cool...Céad míle fáilte romhat...--Farrelly 02:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per original research. Turnstep 04:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Sorry Farrelly, as others have stated, while the article is potentially of interest somewhere else, the no original research policy makes it out of place on Wikipedia. -- JimR 09:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G. feydey 23:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
delete neologism Pete.Hurd 22:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete; protologism/neologism, original research. MCB 19:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Vow

Band doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. 165.189.91.148 19:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. mdd4696 04:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. feydey 19:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 05:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Suspended

Yet Another Non-Notable Band Vanity Page(tm), containing even less information than usual. Fails to assert notability, fails WP:MUSIC, and generally fails to be an article worth keeping. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 19:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. mdd4696 04:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN/vanity --Rogerd 05:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as above Pete.Hurd 22:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rick Chandler

Bio can't be verified and likely fails WP:BIO anyway. Claims to be the author of "Dark Nation", a work I can't find on google, Amazon.com, or IMDB.com. Claims to be "involved with" a couple of forthcoming film projects also not found on IMDB, and the subject himself is also not on IMDB. 165.189.91.148 20:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete NN. Turnstep 04:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 05:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
delete Pete.Hurd 22:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetsoup band

An utterly non-notable band of fourteen-year-olds. —Cryptic (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. mdd4696 04:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nowhere near meeting WP:MUSIC guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN/vanity --Rogerd 05:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as above Pete.Hurd 22:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Indoor-Rules Quiddich

nn even if not made up (see first cited website). Also a copy vio. Just delete this entire mess. Gator (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom.Gator (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as copyvio, speedy delete if appropriate. 82 hits for Australian Indoor-Rules Quidditch and nothing indicating notability as a sport, fictional or not. [25]. Capitalistroadster 22:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 22:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- You do good work, CR, but I'd like to point out that "Australian Indoor-Rules Quiddich" has nothing to do with Australia. It's just that American uni students recognise our sheer awesomeness ;-) — fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It's not even Pottercruft: it's a one-time gag from a single MacHall strip [26]. Oh, and it's a copyvio, of course... — Haeleth Talk 23:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Roisterer 00:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, can't even spell Quidditch; non-notable. Jtmichcock 02:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.Sarah Ewart 02:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey, I like Mac Hall as much as the next red-blooded university-aged geek, but ... no. Unencyclopaedic, not even worth a merge. Maybe a redirect? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Mumford

Kind of sort of asserts notability, but neither he nor his supposed bands has any relevant google hits that I can find, nor AMG entries. —Cryptic (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete NN. mdd4696 04:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN/vanity --Rogerd 05:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
delete as above Pete.Hurd 22:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 22:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pretty Flowers

Band doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. 165.189.91.148 20:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep Article should remain. Meets the following requirements:

3 Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country*. 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. Russjosephs 21:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

- Comment: any verifiable sources to back up those claims? The band's own website isn't a sufficiently credible reference to meet WP:V. 165.189.91.148 21:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

- - Keep “The claims” as you put them, are not astronomical, and I don’t know why you are so pro-deletion. That being said, the band’s website does note that they’ve played cities across North America, and some of their old flyers posted include various cities. You can also follow this link to find all of the band’s tour dates: http://www.sonicbids.com/prettyflowers. Just go to “calendar” and then “past dates.”

I could find no information on the band the Clits or Baba Yaga online, but anyone who wishes can contact the band members directly: milskaysa@yahoo.com and me@randyhamilton.com or their label rep: bananaseatrecords@gmail.com. I will do more research on late 80's/early 90’s UK and Russian bands and see what I come up with. 70.23.237.238 00:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

- - - Comment:Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Please read WP:V and take it to heart. 66.191.124.236 01:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

- - - - Keep: Page has been edited. Plus: WP:MUSIC: 3. Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one large or medium-sized country*

http://www.sonicbids.com/prettyflowers. Go to “calendar” and then “past dates.” Verifies that Pretty Flowers has toured the U.S. and Canada. 70.23.181.202 02:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

delete NN/Vanity, WP:MUSIC is a heuristic for notability. This article has the purpose of promoting the band, rather than explaining, as an encyclopedic would do, what it is that is historically notable about this band. This band is not a specific exemplar of a notable phenomenon. Pete.Hurd 22:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep non-notability not proven. Grue 12:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tardcore

Neologism to support a vanity band page (Pretty Flowers) I also put on AFD. 165.189.91.148 20:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep Tardcore is a real musical movement, with bands taking part across the U.S. (New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.) and the world (Canada, UK, New Zealand). Perhaps the bands should be listed? Just because it's not mainstream doens't mean it's not valid. Russjosephs 21:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- New edit of page should be acceptable Russjosephs 21:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep but I'd like to see how notable this so-called movement is a year from now. Jtmichcock 02:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This is your typical adjectivecore cruft, complete with the single band that uses the term and the (apparently unaware) supposed other practicioners of the genre. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Made up genre. If it isn't, then we need verifiability, preferably someone talking about it in an independent newspaper, magazine or similar. --Last Malthusian 09:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

- Keep This isn't a made up genre. There are bands across the globe who call themselves Tardcore. Are you all emo-lovers or something?

http://www.tardcoreinternational.com/home.html

http://www.angelfire.com/apes/audiosavant/tardcore.html

http://www.archive.org/audio/audiolisting-browse.php?cat=1997

http://www.mylocalbands.com/list.asp?type=genre&id=203

http://www.mp3.com/tracks/20913086/dl_streams.html

http://www.geocities.com/abitterfightagainstnothing/TARDCORE.html

http://www.last.fm/music/Doormouse/_/Tardcore

http://www.villagevoice.com/music/0122,catucci,25128,22.html 70.23.214.62 19:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure whether "emo-lover" is a personal attack or not, but it annoys me anyway, so as yet I refuse to be convinced by a single (apparently) independent article and websites that also list the well-known genre 'Gangsta Polka'. If there are tardcore bands across the globe, please at least point one out that isn't American. --Last Malthusian 09:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

- - KEEP Someone mentioned a verifiable article in a newspaper...the last link is to the Village Voice, where it describes Lightning Bolt, a truly great band, by the way, as Tardcore. Internationally, we have Sudden Infant Dance Syndrome, Porcelain Gods, Wet Spots, (Canada), Knifeyard, The Grates (Australia), Backyard Babies (Sweden), White Sands (Netherlands), Sleazy Cherub, Black Tulips, the Dominoes, Magic Skool Bus (UK), Marmalade, Junkabomb (Japan). In the U.S. there are tons more.

70.23.163.39 19:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Keepthis page was useful for me to find out more about a bunch of canadian artists that go by 'tardcore'. For one example, check out ¤M|c²K[°o°_®]S¤ and his music at http://rave.ca/users.php?id=2368

vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I'm not convinced by any of the above links of this genre's verifiability/notability. —Cleared as filed. 22:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roseview Groups

Advert. Quite awful. 165.189.91.148 20:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. mdd4696 04:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Advert. BD2412 T 19:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert --Rogerd 03:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete as a copyvio without prejudice against a new article written on this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timmy Thomas

Delete per WP:NOR - the subject should make it in per WP:NMG, so rewrite if necessary. PJM 20:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not original research; it's a copyvio from [27]. As the article correctly states, the subject had a #3 pop hit on the Billboard magazine Hot 100 with "Why Can't We Live Together", thus qualifying him for an article under WP:MUSIC. A rewrite would be desirable in accordance with the copyvio procedure. --Metropolitan90 02:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the style in which it was written does violate WP:NOR - a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". But no doubt a copyvio, as you've pointed out. PJM 12:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite Notable artist, but must remove copyvio. mdd4696 04:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete or Stubify copyvio must go --Rogerd 05:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 10thave

Non-notable and advertisement. Google search returns no pertinent hits except for the blog-esque site that the article links to. -D. Wu 20:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Dalbury^(Talk) 03:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. mdd4696 04:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong delete per nom, not worth a witticism. Avalon 22:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'There Once Was an Engine Who Ran Away'

This seems to be a piece of fan fiction set in the "Thomas the Tank Engine" world, and not proeprly so identified. it was tagged for speedy delete, but the use of names from the sereis gices it sufficient context to avoid a speedy, and no other speed criterion applies as far as i can see. But I can not see how this could be a valid and useful articel on wikipedia. Delete. DES ^(talk) 21:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not fan fiction. It is a copyright violation of the lyrics to a sing-along-song that one can find on Percy Saves the Day, and other adventures (ASIN B0007WQGX6). Uncle G 22:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah. well then that is even more reason to delete. if you have an online source, it probably qualifues for a speedy. DES ^(talk) 23:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Speefy Delete as trademark violation and as original work. Jtmichcock 02:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Dalbury^(Talk) 03:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vince costantini

Vanity bio, part of the Roseview Groups spamvertising. 165.189.91.148 21:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. It reads like advertising. I wonder if it was taken off a company brochure. - Dalbury^(Talk) 03:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ad. BD2412 T 19:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dies Irae Word By Word

Original translation of a Latin text; encyclopedic content is limited to comments on Mozart's Requiem and Latin. The article says:

It is the intention of this translation is to demonstrate slavish attention to the layout of the poetry to emphasize the meter, and encourge the English speaker to recite the Latin out loud.

A noble goal, but not Wikipedia's. Were this on a private site, it might be a nice external link for Dies Irae. — Haeleth Talk 21:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete but agree with nominator that once it finds a good home, we should link to it. (P.S. the stuff about Mozart isn't particularly illuminating; seems to be somebody's program notes) —Wahoofive (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikisource maybe? Grutness...wha? 01:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. or Transwiki per Grutness. - Dalbury^(Talk) 02:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete or merge with Dies Irae; as I observed in the discussion, the quality of the translation is not so great. If it were a better translation, it might be nice to have in Dies Irae along with the existing poetic translation there. Schoen 03:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coit Cleaners

Advertising, unless someone can convince me they meet WP:CORP Dalbury^(Talk) 21:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC) - Dalbury^(Talk) 01:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep I'm fairly certain it has more than a million customers as it has been around for 55 years and has franchises on two continents. They hardly need to advertise on Wikipedia. WAvegetarian 22:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment One million customers meets WP:CORP. Do you know of any way that can be verified. - Dalbury^(Talk) 01:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment. They have 85 company owned locations world wide, including I now find in London, England. They have 75 franchises in the U.S., Canada, and Thailand. [28] I find it highly unlikely that they have fewer than 1000 employees between these 160 locations plus upper management. I can have my dad, who works for EEOC in Seattle, check their file to be certain, but I don't think that's necessary. His source wouldn't be available to the Wikipedia community so I'm not sure how much use it would be. Guess that depends on how much my word is worth to the editors reading this. --WAvegetarian 01:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There was also an EEOC sexual harassment claim that was settled recently and given WAVegetarian's testament. Capitalistroadster 23:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep as it likely meets the notoriety test. Jtmichcock 02:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep - WAvegetarian has convinced me the company meets WP:CORP. I am still concerned about the links to Coit Cleaners in Parquetry, Carpet and Curtain, which still look like adverising to me. I'll let someone decide whether to remove those, however. - Dalbury^(Talk) 01:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above --Rogerd 02:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coit Cleaners

created this article as just a modest piece of info on Coit Cleaners, a compnay I am fimiliar with. Since then this has become a place where users have spread insulting lies and falsaifed information on the topic. Every edit, since my opening one has either focused on irelavant sexual harasment cases, or misinformation. I have had to correct this article again and again. Just now I saw that another guy keeps adding sections on a sexual harrasment on Lou Kearn. (Who just happens to be my grandpa) Now let's cut the crap. Just delete this and we won't have anymore junk on sexual harasment or falsaifed information. If people just keep screwing this up there is no point in having it. It's not an important article anyway. Tobyk777 06:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep- I'm not entirely convinced of the notability of this company, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. As for the sexual harrassment, this article seems to indicate that it's not just a spurious claim. Just because something you don't like is in an article does not mean the whole thing should go. Reyk 06:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep as per previous vote. Nominator should make himself familiar with Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. There is verifiable evidence from the EEOC of problems so it should stay. Capitalistroadster 08:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Reyk. I nominated this company for deletion last time, but was convinced otherwise by the discussion. The sexual harassment suit is documented. the only "falsified information" I'm aware of is the mistaken change of the company's headquarters to Arizona, which is easily rectified. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 10:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Here is the sequence of events, which I think might prove instructive to other editors who come here to promote a company.

I found an egregious advertising link to Coit Cleaners in the Parquetry article, which had been inserted by the creator of the Coit Cleaners article.
That led me to Coit Cleaners, which seemed non-notable (and also spammish), so I researched the company.
The led me to the lawsuit information, which I inserted in the article. (My source, listed in the article, is the EEOC report on the settlement.)
Now the original author of the article no longer wants the article to exist. A cautionary tale, I'm sure. I'd never have found the lawsuit info if the person hadn't spammed Parquetry.

BTW, the original author reverted my edits, so you all have not been discussing the article as it actualy is. If anyone goes to the article and doesn't see the info on the lawauit, if you'd be kind enough to revert it back in, that'd be great. Herostratus 12:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

- Comment I went through steps 1 and 2, myself, leading to the original nomination. During the discussion, I was convinvced by others that the company did indeed have some claim to notability. I was still bothered by the spam-like links in other articles, but decided to not remove them because my objectivity might be questioned. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 13:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep under previous AfD. The article history does not support Toby's claims. Gazpacho 18:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep per previous vote. I'm sorry that the creator is upset that a vanity piece turned into an informative article on the company and some of it's affiliates practices. Within the next 24 hours I will add citations for all of the info I have added to this article and specifically tag all non-sourced claims. This should address any claims as to misinformation, which I will note is not a valid cause for wholesale deletion. --WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 19:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I've rewritten the discription section and provided sources for all of that. All of the harassment section is verifiable from the provided links. The only unverifiable claim was that of "world's largest." The company's website claims to be "one of the world's largest," so that's what the article now says. Everything is verifiable. The company is also notable per community consensus in the previous AFD. (As it is a privately held company there is very little information available on employment figures for Coit, but according to this the main headquarters employs 100 people.) There remains no reason for deletion other than the founder's family being upset that the harassment settlement is a matter of public record. --WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 02:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Keep article, and link this AFD to WP:VAIN as a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks they should write a spam article. Them that lives by the sword... Grutness...wha? 00:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep more like a news story though. Stifle 23:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Bredesen

Vanity bio (it appears the subject wrote his own article) for a non-notable crank cosmologist with a website. 165.189.91.148 21:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Also has same content at Eric Arlo Bredesen. 165.189.91.148 22:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Dalbury^(Talk) 02:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN vanity. mdd4696 04:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity --Rogerd 02:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Probability of the universe

Original research; also factually unsound Jheald 21:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. In more detail: it is false that statistical mechanics can only be applied to deterministic systems: it is routinely applied to stochastic systems, for example Brownian motion, Markov processes, Wiener processes, money-market fluctuations, etc. In the form of quantum statistical mechanics, it is also routinely applied to quantum mechanical probabilities. The article also claims that statistical mechanics takes no interest in the probability of individual microstates. This is also false: pretty much every statistical mechancal calculation is an expectation value, calculated by considering the probabilities p_i of each microstate.

These are the two key assertions the article is based on: both are false. Furthermore, the article appears to be entirely original research. The only reference provided is to an open 'speak your brain' forum. Jheald 22:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Jtmichcock 02:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete OR - Dalbury^(Talk) 02:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
delete. Utter nonsense, and OR to boot Robinh 12:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Oddly titled, incoherent, unreferenced original research. Jok2000 16:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

keep. It states it is speculative, and belongs as much as any other speculative. Links should be removed. [[User::toman|tolman]] 12:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.244.209.240 (talk • contribs) - originally had fake sig for Jsmiley, no such user, changed to fake sig for User:toman, nickname tolman, no such users. Majority of previous edits for 64.244.209.240 were in Probability of the universe

keep. The theory is scientific, it includes examples and maths. There are many other speculative theories. It uses scientific induction and deduction. It needs a lot of editing but could become a proper article. [[User::Guille|Guille]] (This is [[User::Guille|Guille]]'s first edit.)
Delete. Fails to cite sources, raising the OR spectre. BD2412 T 19:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This is nonsense. --YVelenik 13:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unsourced original research and crackpottery. MCB 19:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cynikal mind

non-notable --WAvegetarian 21:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Dalbury^(Talk) 02:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 03:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Fancy Lads

~~doesn't meet WP:MUSIC notability test~~ --WAvegetarian 21:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Untrue, featured prominently in Wisconsin State Journal, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel & other major media outlets. Scanned copies can be provided if necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.5.187 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 21 November 2005

Comment. Please read WP:NMG and see why the band does not make the cut. PJM 22:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Good point. Also in the Milwaukee Magazine regarding their social satire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.83.58 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 21 November 2005

Comment That's good for them but irrelevant to this discussion. Pleaseread the notability test linked to in my nomination. I don't believe any of those qualify this group. WAvegetarian 22:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 22:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep based on WP:BIO (Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage/ A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.5.187 (talk • contribs)

That applies to politicians - as it states - not bands. WP:BIO is not meant for bands - WP:NMG is. PJM 14:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep based on adherence to notability test #7: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city" - style in question is musical political satire, in the state capitol of Madison, WI. Verification at: http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=wsj:2001:08:05:60941:SHOWCASE and http://www.madison.com/archives/read.php?ref=wsj:2005:04:06:411335:FRONT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.142.76 (talk • contribs)

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep per 68.117.142.76. I nominated this article, however I feel that sufficient support of notability has been added. I am adding the madison.com links to the article. --WAvegetarian 01:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I have added expand and stub tags to the article. Would someone with more knowledge please expand the article so that it no longer appears as fancruft, as it did to me when I nominated it?--WAvegetarian 01:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I still don't see enough notability or evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. - Dalbury^(Talk) 02:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep per per 68.117.142.76 Everyone involved with WI politics knows about this band.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.124.3 (talk • contribs)

Vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep, but for god's sakes lads, stop sockpuppeting. Your votes won't be counted and a lot of people will assume that if you feel the need to use sockpuppets you can't be notable. --Last Malthusian 09:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment, thanks for the support for keeping. We will appropriately expand the entry. We are new to all this. Your humble servants, the Fancy Lads. 68.117.142.76 13:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete notability not proven. Grue 12:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Article is self-promotion/vanity, does not meet any WP:MUSIC guidelines despite the madison.com link. —Cleared as filed. 22:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stink.inc

not notable WAvegetarian 21:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete, db-g3. PJM 22:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, deleted. Catbar (Brian Rock) 22:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palatium Britannicum

I propose that this article should be deleted. Reasons include:

The building it refers to is now called Santa Pudenziana and a page exists under that name - all verifiable information about the history of this church belongs there.
After considerable discussion no-one has been able to present a verifiable source which suggests that the Santa Pudenziana ever bore the name "Palatium Britannicum".
Palatium is Latin for the Palatine Hill, it doesn't mean "palace", so the name "Palatium Britannicum" is impossible linguistically.
The "Palatium Britannicum" story appears to be derived from a discredited and dishonest source - Jowett's The Drama of the Lost Disciples.

Any opinions? --Nicknack009 22:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to offer a tip of my hat to Nicknack009 for taking the time to present a lucid and compelling argument for deletion. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 00:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete - after reading all of the discussion page for the article, I concur with the nomination. - Dalbury^(Talk) 02:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Replace. A possible alternative is a rewrite that says that it is a fiction that has achieved the status of a myth among a certain fringe group, then giving Nicknack009's four essential reasons why it has no basis in fact. Wiki also has a value in debunking myth, since no paper encylopedia could afford to give them the space to dismiss them. --Red King 23:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

not a valid vote, discounted by closing admin. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] After The Fallen

Band vanity... not on AMG, no evidence that they have a label or otherwise pass WP:MUSIC. --W.marsh 22:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete no evidence of albums on significant labels tours or any other indications of notablity under WP:NMG. Capitalistroadster 23:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Dalbury^(Talk) 02:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN/vanity --Rogerd 02:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harmonie Research Foundation

Delete - non-verifiable (6 real google hits, 2 of which are from Wikipedia, another from a blog); likely not notable in any event. BD2412 T 22:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable new age cruft. Durova 22:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Extremely non-notable. - Dalbury^(Talk) 02:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Edwardian 04:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete UE --Rogerd 02:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harmonie therapy

Delete as original research (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harmonie Research Foundation above). BD2412 T 22:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Dalbury^(Talk) 02:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Edwardian 04:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete OR --Rogerd 02:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wein-O-Rama

Possible junk page. Not notable enough for inclusion CBD ^T _C ^@ 22:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete 1,400 hits on Google, but it looks like an ad, and I sure don't think it meets WP:CORP. - Dalbury^(Talk) 01:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert --Rogerd 02:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rastigan the Eternal

This is a hoax entry, with bogus categories, entered by longterm hardcore vandal User:66.31.169.149 Wetman 22:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It's taken straight from GuildWiki, "a wiki and guide for the game Guild Wars", and we ought to send it right back. - Dalbury^(Talk) 01:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1931 in Swift Current

Looks like a joke page, borderline speedy but another editor thought it was worth expanding. I disagree and think we ought to delete it. ESkog | ^Talk 23:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. For one thing I don't think Swift Current is major enough a centre to justify having a "Year in Place" article. In fact do such articles even exist for the likes of New York City? I concur with Eskog that this looks like a joke page, or at the very least NN. 23skidoo 01:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It does look like a joke. - Dalbury^(Talk) 01:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear Swift Current is an Extremely Small Place, and this article is Meant As Satire. These two conditions, I fear, mean Delete. D e nni ☯ 04:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
If there was anything useful in the article I would suggest merging it to 1931 in Canada, but there really isn't so delete. - SimonP 17:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 02:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unencyclopedic joke. MCB 19:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rupert Smith

non notable, no worthwhile text Jtrost 23:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete no useful content, no claim of notability. - Dalbury^(Talk) 01:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete and a polite message to Rupert about the purpose of the User Pages. Jtmichcock
Speedy Delete as nn-bio. JimR 09:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as nn-bio or empty. (Nominator, please read WP:CSD.) MCB 19:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy in Secondlife

I've nominated this article for deletion because much of it is background information that, with some editing, would probably be more at home in the main Second Life article, and the part that isn't (from the discussion of the Fetid/Feted Inner Core on) is likely to be meaningless or of little interest to those not steeped in the culture or society of Second Life. zztzed 23:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur - Much of the article is useful information, but has nothing at all to do with controversy in Second Life. The parts that do discuss controversy (as described by Zztzed above) are a possible candidate for NPOV dispute. Though they generally adhere to language that is almost neutral (witness the use of "alleged" and a fair amount of passive voice), they are biased against both "successful" content creators in Second Life and against Linden Lab itself.

In addition, there are some factual errors:

Preen, though located centrally in Midnight City, was not the target of one of the beginning player links. Midnight City in its entirety was the target.
Abbotts Aerodrome contains a number of vehicle stores, but it encompasses a wide variety of other activities and services surounding aviation, including but not limited to skydiving, automated aerial tours of Second Life, and various vehicle building classes. Abbotts Aerodrome is by no means "a vehicle store."

Chandra Page 00:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Dalbury^(Talk) 01:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The original article was included in the Second Life page, and was split from it by another author. Originally it was intended to meet NPOV as without it the Second Life page reflected only a positive point of view about Second Life.
Delete, although I'd almost say "Merge with Second Life per the nominator." This isn't speedy cleanup or forced merge so this discussion really should never have started. Next time just be bold: Cook this down to the two paragraphs it should be and make the redirect yourself. But since we are here and this would not make a meaningful re-direct, deletion is a good option. Any useful material will have to be re-sourced and cited by whomever does the not-quite-a-merge-so-we-don't-violate-GFDL. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 21:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Quillan Games

Article is promoting a book that is not yet published, and is written like it's someone's homepage or a forum post or something. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 23:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. - Dalbury^(Talk) 01:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN mdd4696 04:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 02:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't Delete I fixed it up. 209.192.77.79

The result of the debate was merge with List of Star Wars planets (W-Z) (article is a tiny stub anyway). I see that there are two more tiny stubs on Yavin's moons, which I'll boldly merge as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yavin 10

Non-notable moon of the fictional planet Yavin from Star Wars. Content-free fancruft; content is "Yavin 10 is a jail moon orbiting the planet Yavin." Tempshill 23:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep or merge with parent article. Kappa 00:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I would say Merge, but it doesn't even deserve a Redirect. - Dalbury^(Talk) 01:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge all moons of Yavin (except Yavin 4, obviously) into a bulleted list in Yavin's section of the List of Star Wars planets (W-Z). -LtNOWIS 01:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete negligible. Eusebeus 08:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect all per LtNOWIS. -Sean Curtin 02:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] November 21

[edit] Liam Challenger

[edit] Daniel Selli

[edit] Timugo

[edit] Team ahi and Team AHI

[edit] Quickjohnson

[edit] Turkey Day Game

[edit] Lambtalk

[edit] Stray Theories

[edit] Twisted voices of reason

[edit] Slowlife

[edit] Neuros & Atomic Moonshine

[edit] PITA

[edit] Alcajazz

[edit] List of people known by one name

[edit] Chris Fernandes

[edit] MegaTokyo

[edit] Metal Gear Forever

[edit] QiSoftware

[edit] Sarah Fox

[edit] Airscreen

[edit] Smoog

[edit] Haileybury Computer Club

[edit] Michelle (disambiguation)

[edit] Communist Party of Peru

[edit] Difference Triangles

[edit] Dr. Ambedkar Law Univesity

[edit] Ehud Segev

[edit] Ekspreso

[edit] GNU/kFreeBSD

[edit] International Anarchy

[edit] Take Pills Die Records

[edit] Maya women

[edit] LukeSharp

[edit] The Hartsakoom

[edit] Fateincidence

[edit] Battle of Rann of Kutch

[edit] Operation Dwarka

[edit] Frangipani And The Floating Circus Of Lights

[edit] Tinklepotty

[edit] Habbo Discussion

[edit] Perrynoid

[edit] Chocolove

[edit] Penney's Law of Gross Weight Tonnage

[edit] Waygood

[edit] Geech

[edit] South Africa vs Wales at rugby union

[edit] South Africa vs Ireland at rugby union

[edit] Remi van Trijp

[edit] Obala.net

[edit] Forkhead Box Audiobooks

[edit] Joseph Logan Olson

[edit] Kehkshan School- A project of City School

[edit] Deepend

[edit] The Dawn and Drew Show

[edit] The Hairy Nobs

[edit] Justin Robert Cooper

[edit] Fred buff

[edit] Steven Bale

[edit] Dennis Cassini

[edit] Capricious

[edit] Muster (horse)

[edit] Suite 305

[edit] Prunescape

[edit] Anti-atheists

[edit] James Clifton

[edit] Abandon all

[edit] Patrick Padley

[edit] Fisticuffs

[edit] Babamukuru

[edit] Paul Spaeth

[edit] Rob Troisi

[edit] Mr. Barnes Computer Science Class

[edit] Lolita (singer)

[edit] Kevin Foreman

[edit] Ridgebots

[edit] Nina Rostanski