Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 28

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 (18/6).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 01:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whopperbuzz

This is a small, local (Dublin, Ireland) message board. They claim only about 500 members. Alexa shows no traffic data. Joyous | Talk 00:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Mere vanity... 9cds 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Ahem, but did you check out the actual web site? Here it is if you haven't bothered: http://s7.invisionfree.com/Whopper_Buzzes/index.php? You've got sections with 700 topics and 20,000 replies and you are saying that it's not notable? If you add up all the replies total, you are up to 91,606 posts. Now, if you were to compare this with, say, Encyclopaedia Dramatica, the comparisons would be favourable. It also has a second claim to notoriety besides mere popularity. Its also a word to mean a heightened state of bliss. I don't think we have any choice here. Zordrac 01:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Why, yes. As a matter of fact, I did visit the site. Whatever made you think I wouldn't go look for myself? Yes, they do have lots of conversations and replies, but they only have about 500 registered members, which seems small for forum to rate inclusion here. As for the second "claim to notoriety," why would the name they chose have any effect on the importance of the forum? What source says it means "a heightened state of bliss"? Joyous | Talk 02:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Message boards on the Web are a dime a dozen; this one needs some reason for notability beyond a narrow community to keep. (And "Whopperbuzz" sounds like it ought to be the feeling you get when you eat a Burger King Whopper!) *Dan T.* 02:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Whopper Buzz is a slang word in common useage in Dublin Ireland. Not only as its described on this page i.e. that was a whopper Buzz, meaning that was a good time, but also just as an exclamation of pleasure (for example... Jim: Here's the keys to my new Porsche Bob: WhopperBuzz!) I hear it all the time I dont think you can delete it its a real thing. As for the forum definition I'd make it a secondary meaning. What can I say... its a Dublin thing essentially. I never knew its origin so this page has done exactly what wikipedia's supposed to do. Share the knowledge! Llogic 03:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; but add to Wiktionary if it's really in common usage. Peyna 04:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable... that is all. (Notorious4life 05:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Delete lacks notability.MONGO 07:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete not even close to WP:WEB. ∴ here…♠ 07:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

wiktionary indeed if common slang.. ∴ here…♠ 07:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

changing to vanity / neologism, the article is not about the message board (anymore). Apparently, the message board exists to promote the term, though this is mentioned nowhere at the site. ∴ here…♠ 19:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete forum entry based on WP:WEB. Include dic def in wiktionary if it can be sourced. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is one of a small number of slang words where the first instance of use can be traced to a specific time and place. It would be a shame if this information was not recorded. Blue jumper 12:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgm as ever. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Zordrac. Stifle 14:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: It's really of no consequence that the board is active or not, at least to me. What's at the heart of the matter is whether this site is discussed by outsiders, such as regular newspapers and magazines (in print). Some things, like Match.com, get press because they become the example of online dating, but, other than sites that either cause mass effects or get outside notice, Wikipedia ought not be covering them, as it is not a web guide. Geogre 15:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Zordrac. --Aleron235 20:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Zordrac. Trollderella 21:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and common sense. No notability at all.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notability is not part of deletion policy. Trollderella 21:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment: From WP:GD "* Non-notable, nn or vanity mean that the user thinks the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines either due to its obscurity or lack of differentiation from others of its type." --hydnjo talk 22:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • • I know what they mean by it, it's just not part of deletion policy. Trollderella 22:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I know that you know, but it's better than saying "This article is a piece of crap."  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 00:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, and that isn't a reason to delete either. Improve it if you don't like it. Trollderella 01:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
            • It can be improved by nuking it from orbit. --Calton | Talk 01:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
              • Actually, fun as it seems to be for deletionists to try to remove their least favourite articles, it is an abuse. Improve articles, don't destroy things. Trollderella 01:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
                • There's more point to improving articles that have at least an outside chance of becoming relevant. Even though I say I'm a deletionist I don't vote delete every time. I'd have thought you'd be immune to trolling. :P  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 03:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • Well said, I suppose I should be immune! ;) Trollderella 06:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:WEB is a proposed policy, please mention this when using it as grounds for a vote. Peyna 22:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn - vanity. --hydnjo talk 21:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There's already a perfectly good article for the college at Ardscoil Rís, surely that's the place to mention this if anywhere. Flowerparty■ 23:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • • Surely that is not a viable argument. Just because the students that claim have begun the use of this expression were from a certain school does not mean this subject should be mentioned on that school's page. Surely, by that logic, everything on wikipedia should be on the school page of whatever person/people is/are involved.Blue jumper 11:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. And before the aptly named Trollderella speaks up with the claim that "Notability is not part of deletion policy", it's called Deductive reasoning:
  • notable says that articles are obscure, unverifiable, or lack differentiation from others of its type should not be included.
  • This article's subject is obscure, unverifiable, and lacks differentiation from others of its type.
  • Therefore it should not be included; i.e, deleted.

--Calton | Talk 01:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • Erm? My claim that notability is not part of deletion policy is based on the fact that notability is not part of deletion policy. It's just not. You know it's not. You link to Wikipedia:Importance, piping it to make it look like 'notability', when, in fact, 'importance' is proposed policy (it's first paragraph says that it may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.) Not, in fact, policy at all. Not even a guideline, and not, frankly, likely to become one. Your comments are abusive and deceptive. Trollderella 01:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Your claim is based on the false assumption that there is an exhaustive list of valid grounds for deletion. Radiant_>|< 18:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
        • And yours on the false assumption that you can delete anything you like anytime you like for any reason, even one that the community has specifically asked you not to. Trollderella 19:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Very well. Delete, neologism, WP:NOT a publisher of original thought with direct reference to neologisms, as per WP:GD. oh, and non-notable too.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 03:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neither the neologism nor the message board warrants a Wikipedia entry. --Metropolitan90 05:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability --redstucco 10:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. WP:WEB. Radiant_>|< 18:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice link to a proposal to make it look like it's polciy! ;) Trollderella 19:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Linking to a proposal does not mean "I am sneakily trying to claim that this is policy", it means "the reason I think this should be deleted is that it does not meet these proposed guidelines for inclusion, which I support". The fact that WP:WEB is not policy is amply obvious to anyone who reads the disclaimer at the top of it. Here's another page that isn't policy, but may be relevant: WP:FAITH. — Haeleth Talk 12:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The message board has no Alexa taffic rank. *drew 08:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You would do well to note that the message board is not the subject of the article. Blue jumper 13:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Early versions of the article did focus on the message board, but it has been changed since. As an article on the term itself, it probably belongs on Wiktionary, if it's in large enough usage not to be a neologism, but should only be on Wikipedia if there's enough cultural history and background behind it to deserve a full encyclopedia article. *Dan T.* 01:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as follows:
  1. The section on the slang term fails the policy WP:V. It does not really belong here anyway, since WP:NOT a dictionary; if the word can be verified and citations provided, it should be transwiki'd to Wiktionary.
  2. This leaves a very short stub about a web forum. Since there is a consensus that WP:NOT a web directory, a precedent exists for deleting web forums of dubious notability. The proposed inclusion criteria, at WP:WEB, suggest that a forum should have "5,000 or more apparently unique members" before it is considered for an article: that is, they should be a full order of magnitude larger than this one. While this is not policy, there is a precedent for using this guideline as a rule of thumb when considering articles on websites. — Haeleth Talk 12:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Htmleet

Neologism. I get about 5 unique pages googling for "htmleet" and 2 for "html337". None of the pages use it in text, just filenames or the like. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete- Wikipedia is not a lexicon of leetspeak. Reyk 00:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I've never seen it used in my life.. looks to me like a concept a group of friends thought up, and think is cool. 9cds 00:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: As I suspected, its correct name is different. It should be Html Leet: Google returns 450,000 matches for Html Leet. Some of the links: Used in a fellow named Adam's diaryland entry, Some message board post, "HTML Leet and other sense of stump have, this language is probably the hirnrissigste form of elite:d.". However, in saying that, of the 450,000, unless google is acting up and not displaying things properly, it seems like the majority of them are just ending in .html with leet the next word. But those two references that I did find seemed to back up the article. So perhaps move to Html Leet. But then again, I can imagine leet speakers using this term more, so maybe keep it here. I am not sure at this stage. Zordrac 02:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The first link you have there ([1]) says "(and this also provides a welcome opportunity to try out my newfound html leet skills)" -- in other words, his newfound elite html skills. He's not referring to "html leet" as an entity in of itself. Your second reference [2] is a machine translation of a German message; it's just garbled gook. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be a non-notable neologism. <comment class="historical">The use of bogus pseudo-HTML, often sarcastically, in messages is about as old as HTML itself, anyway.</comment> *Dan T.* 02:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and put whatever is salvageable into Leet_speak. Peyna 04:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - thanks, Zorrdrac and Bunchofgrapes, good spadework. If this is a notable neologism, this is not the right spelling, and if it is notable it should be in Leet speak not here. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Enochlau 01:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] cdfreaks

vanity / not noteable

• Delete - vanity. 9cds 00:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - if nothing else, the place has its own wikicity just for it. Look no further. CD Freaks Wikicity. As far as I know, that's an automatic keep. (mind you, it only seems to have about 10 articles). Zordrac 02:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The "automatic keep due to wikicity entry" is new to me. HackJandy 03:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That is not a Wikicity. That's just a MediaWiki wiki that they set up themselves. Absolutely anyone can set up a MediaWiki wiki: it means absolutely nothing, and certainly does not make this an automatic keep. — Haeleth Talk 12:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The site appears to be well-established and well-trafficked. Its Alexa ranking is 7,342, well within the suggested guidelines at WP:WEB. Joyous | Talk 02:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Wikicity and Alexa rank together seem sufficient. Superm401 | Talk 04:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that Zordrac is mistaken - there is no Wikicity. Your argument falls back on the Alexa ranking alone. — Haeleth Talk 12:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. (Notorious4life 05:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• keep, obvious by alexa 7k. ∴ here…♠ 07:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep has sufficient traffic. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Google for link -site gets only about 650 hits, which is small for a supposedly notable site. Alexa ranking is up and down around the magic 10,000, and Wikipedia seems to be a major source of inbound traffic (mainly from DVD, where there is this link: How to identify the real manufacturer of your recordable DVD by DVD Identifier) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not a huge fan of inclusion in cases like this, but.. if we use traffic as a guideline, this site passes with flying colors. The forum alone has 1mil posts, 100k threads and 10k users. 2 year alexa graph shows fairly reliable traffic over the long haul with 3 month averages easily above 10k. That link at DVD sounds like spam and should be removed. Keep, even if horribly boring and commercial. ∴ here…♠ 22:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: I have to agree with Zat Guy that the site's main business is one-off usage (like, for example, the top listed site for temperature conversions from C to F would be), rather than its main business of freaking out over compact disks. I should also point out that the article is mistitled. Further, the article is now written like advertising, so clean-up is a must if it's kept (which I suspect it will be). Geogre 15:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid reason for deletion given, plus, see above. Trollderella 21:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn & vanity. hydnjo talk 22:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. From WP:GD: "* Non-notable, nn or vanity mean that the user thinks the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines either due to its obscurity or lack of differentiation from others of its type." hydnjo talk 22:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • , Importance is proposed policy, vanity a guideline. Neither are part of deletion policy. Trollderella 23:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• keep please it has a really good alexa rating so erasing this does not make any sense at all Yuckfoo 01:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, passes the inclusion criteria of the WP:WEB guidelines with flying colors. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability

--redstucco 11:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This site has very detailed information for a very specific subject area. It is well known for what it does. SchmuckyTheCat 00:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Removing the link from DVD appears to have caused a not insignificant drop in Alexa traffic rank. What do we do about sites which are included partly because of traffic generated by their inclusion? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Delete them? Seems like the site took about a 2k hit on alexa ranking, daily down to 9k+. Hard to say if this was primarily due to DVD link removal. Good question though, perhaps take it up at WP:WEB. I'm going to stick on keep here based on the forum stats in addition to the traffic stats. (1mil posts, 100k threads, 10k users.) I think this is a good example of a page which may be borderline improperly included based on WP:WEB, but I'll go keep on borderline. ∴ here…♠ 18:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Borderline keep, since it does currently seem to meet the proposal at WP:WEB. Cleanup is needed, though; if it doesn't get cleaned up, and its Alexa rank continues to fall, bring it back and we can reconsider. — Haeleth Talk 12:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 23:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of ethnic conflicts involving the Dutch Colonialists

hopelessly POV kenasuta 00:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I think the article could be of use, but needs to be cleaned up to be less POV. 9cds 00:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per Talk:List_of_ethnic_conflicts_involving_the_Dutch_Colonialists to Ethnic Conflicts involving Dutch Colonies. Seems to be notable enough to keep.Zordrac 02:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep just because it will be a contentious page that might end up full of POV doesn't make it worthy of deletion. Peyna 03:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rename/de-listify. Having a prose article would be much more helpful. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rename, prose-ify per Zordrac and Mgm. Youngamerican 13:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rename, prose-ify as stated above. This is better treated in article, not list, format. KillerChihuahua 14:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Trollderella 21:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep this as above please Yuckfoo 01:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Slap an NPOV notice on it if you think it's a problem. Should be prose-ified prosaicized prosidized rewritten as prose. Now, everyone please dig out your old Kingston Trio LP and drop the needle on "A Merry Minuet:" "The whole world is festering with unhappy souls/The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles/Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch/And I don't like anybody very much." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability --redstucco 11:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • In cases like this where it's likely that credible sources will exist for many of the claims in the article, the appropriate remedy is an {{unreferenced}} tag, not deletion. — Haeleth Talk 13:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep The Dutch were important in many countries. I know that all you out there will think that England discovered everything, as this is an English Encyclopedia, but they didn't. (sorry) Wallie 15:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, I'll have you know that we English are perfectly aware that the Dutch were also a colonial power: how could we have won the Anglo-Dutch wars and the Boer Wars if there'd been nobody to fight?  :) — Haeleth Talk 13:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I respect the rich, important Dutch tradition. Why, where would we be without "Dutch treat," "to Dutch uncle," and "Dutch courage?" Plus all the little burgs in New York with names Fishkill, Catskill, Roadkill, etc. Now, personally I can do without salty licorice, that that's an entirely 'nother matter. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, an important aspect of history, though some cleanup may be needed - I'm not sure the ethnic conflicts in New York have much to do with the fact that it was once a Dutch colony. Also convert to prose and rename per Zordrac, Mgm, etc. — Haeleth Talk 13:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as nonsense -- well, it's nonsense in English anyway) --Nlu 00:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lee sang-hee

Vanity article in Korean:

• delete - it's somebody's personal love story. --Reuben 00:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete - It's Korean. 9cds 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monroe Ice Hawks

This is a youth hockey team or youth hockey league (not sure which—the article does not make it clear) in Monroe, Michigan (Detroit area). I got 817 Google hits on Monroe "Ice Hawks" -dallas (apparently there is also an Ice Hawks team in Dallas). I am not sure about this so I will abstain. I don’t know what are the Wikipedia guidelines on articles about amateur/youth sports teams. Let’s hear from some editors more knowledgeable in this area than I am. I added the external link to the team/league’s web page. •DanMS 00:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment : I'm not sure either, as the whole deletion process seems to be in a mess, especially with regards to deletionists pushing through far too many delete votes. My question to you is why put it up for Vfd if you weren't sure? I suggest you should remove the Vfd until someone with some knowledge about it can make a more informed decision, especially given that most Vfds end with articles being deleted. Zordrac 02:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment to DanMS and Zordrac. I spend a substantial amount of time on Vfd, and I can tell you that this article is definitely worth its nomination. I live in Monroe, and it's nice to know that someone's trying to get our city out there, but this article fails to accomplish anything and it offers no information in itself. (Notorious4life 05:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
  • Nominating something on AFD and admitting you don't know should attract experts. Anyway, if you're not sure and Googling doesn't help, the creator didn't do their job in starting the article properly with definition and useful sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Whoa, I think you're jumping to conclusions there. The fact that most AfDs result in deletions does not automatically mean that the deletion process is broken! It might, on the contrary, mean that most articles that are nominated for deletion do actually fail to meet official policies. — Haeleth Talk 13:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I live in Monroe; in fact, I live a mile from the complex mentioned in the article. If I don't care about it, what are the chances someone who doesn't even know where Monroe is will care about it? The way the article is written in first-person makes it sound like a self-promotion. (Notorious4life 05:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Delete. It tells a bit about the Monroe Hockey Association, but only lists trainers for the actual team. Not an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: 1) It's not an article, per MGM. 2) It's a purely local matter of purely local concern and therefore below the radar of an encyclopedia. 3) It's a bit of trivia and could conceivably be mentioned (in prose, discursively) in Monroe, Michigan. Thus, if it were an article, it could be merged and redirected. However, it isn't. Geogre 15:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is far from encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 05:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Mgm. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge with Luke 3. —Cleared as filed. 22:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Addi

Delete. Non-notable person, and a dicdef - CloudedIce 03:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Luke 3. Ice, please put more effort into your nominations: this is nothing more than a vote. A good nomination is an argument for why the article should be deleted; a bad nomination is a vote: "delete, non-notable". Good nominations are preferred. Help make AfD work better! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Jesus genealogy page Sethie 06:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

RELISTED NOVEMBER 28, 2005, PLEASE ADD NEW VOTES BELOW THIS NOTICE' Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

comment relisted due to having only 3 votes at time of close. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. --Nlu 00:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I think I have a suggestion for why there's been so few votes. The whole thing is confusing! All I got out of it was that Addi was someone's son and someone's father. I think he is probably a part of that whole section where they talk about people begatting each other. But I don't understand it enough to know whether to keep it outright or merge it. Zordrac 02:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Luke 3, as suggested in earlier voting. Joyous | Talk 02:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per all the above. At least the resulting redirect will provide anyone searching for this person with context. Biblical people with only one mention, don't deserve their own article. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Am I the only one to think that this really doesn't provide any information, whether put with another article or not? It's a Who's Who in the Bible entry, and any Bible one reads with any apparatus at all will identify the proper nouns. What on earth is someone doing looking for this little information in an encyclopedia? Geogre 15:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Black

Appears to be non-notable, but want to get others' opinions on this. Speedy delete if people agree that it is speedy deletable. --Nlu 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete, because I'm not sure what the current thinking is on being the headmaster of a school. None of the drama entries suggest notability within that field, so headmastering is the only thing that might set him apart from others. Joyous | Talk 02:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: It has a photo of him: Image:ColinBlack.jpg (oops, didn't mean to put a photo in the Vfd), has 7 named contributors, and google returns 14,500 google hits. Whilst I struggled to find the bits that refer to the right Colin Black (after all, the Colin Black from http://www.colinblack.com/ is not this one, yet seems to be more notable than this one), the suggestion that he directed Andrew Denton in and of itself asserts notoriety. What we need now is some references to back it up. I am sorry, but I am too tired to wade through 14,500 links to find which one refers to this guy. Does look to be notable though. Zordrac 02:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Googling for "Colin Black" "Andrew Denton" returns precisely 6 hits: the only one which actually appears to relate to this claim of notability is, guess what, the Wikipedia article! So I'm afraid it fails WP:V. — Haeleth Talk 13:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't qualify for speedy delete, Keep. per Zordac (Notorious4life 05:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 06:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any claims to notability in this article are completely unverified. Ambi 06:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So why don't we ask them to verify it? If you can wade through the 14,500 google hits then you might be able to do it yourself. If it is true, then its notable. Zordrac 07:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ask whom to verify it? And the AfD notice should be sufficient call for verification of notability. --Nlu 07:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The authors, of course. Zordrac 08:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As I noted, the AfD notice should be sufficient. --Nlu 08:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: He's just a person doing his job. There are tens of thousands of headmasters. They all are esteemed by their student bodies and boards of trustees, but being a headmaster by itself does not give one a platform or profile above the school's own community. Therefore, again and again, the person is not referred to in a context other than his own job and therefore does not need explication in an encyclopedia. (We're not judging the person. We're judging whether the information needs to be present to help explain the world.) Geogre 15:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid reason for deletion given. Verifiable. Trollderella 21:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, while I began opposing this deletion because no valid reason for deletion was given, it is, in fact, a really valuable article. I would urge folks to taka another look at it. Trollderella 23:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet biography criteria.--nixie 23:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Which, after all, are guidelines, not part of deletion criteria. Trollderella 02:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Verifiability is also relvant--nixie 02:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't see why we need to include headmasters on wikipedia. --Roisterer 02:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't see why we need to include chemistry, but, somehow, I live with it. Trollderella 02:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep,He's more than just a headmaster!! He is a "prominent educator" that influenced the statewide policies on prevention of bullying and also notable for his dramatic nature!!
• Delete on the basis that someone called him a "prominent educator". (Petty, yes, but oddly reliable.) Deltabeignet 04:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete CSD:A7 is policy. Denni ☯ 04:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

But this isn't speedy deletion... Trollderella 06:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say, if an article should be speedy deleted, then that is also good ground to garden-variety delete it. --Nlu 07:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability--redstucco 11:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I read the article, and followed up the links (yes, Trollderella, I generally do unless the article itself makes a clear case either way). The subject is clearly as stated (no major problem with verifiability), but I can't for the life of me see which criteria he meets in WP:BIO. I have performed in three cathedrals, two concert halls and King's College Chapel, and worked with people like Humphrey Lyttleton, Richard Stilgoe, Yehudi Menuhin, Timothy West and Evelyn Glennie. I've been featured in the Times Educational Supplement and interviewed on BBC Radio 4 as well, but I would laugh out loud if anybody suggested I should have an article on WP. I know I set the bar higher than many others, but for me this chap falls below it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the bar is actually set by policy, not individual whimsey. As far as I can see, you agree that there is no policy reason to delete this, but feel like it anyway. Trollderella 17:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That is not true. I cannot see which parts of WP:BIO he meets. Which criteria do you think he meets? From my personal perspective I measure his claims to notoriety against my own (as a person I know particularly well, and feel falls well short of inclusion), but in the end I take WP:BIO as a guide. Why is that wrong? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As you know, WP:BIO is a guideline. It is not part of deletion policy. Claiming that something should be deleted because of it in the face of people who want to keep it is irresponsible. Trollderella 21:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Alternative view: voting to keep content which clearly does not meet the guidelines, which are backed by strong consensus, is iresponsible.

Alternative alternative view: we vote according to our interpretation of guidelines and policy, and sometimes differ. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Replace by an article on the guy from colinblack.com. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I happen to know the Colin Black that this article refers to. In all honesty though, his "story" is not dissimilar to many other headmasters etc that exist and would probably be of little benefit to anyone.

Careful with this guy's comment, he is the guy continuously vandalizing the Colin Black and Camberwell Grammar School articles. See 138.217.27.205 (talk • contribs). I wouldn't really trust any of his comments at the moment... --DWZ 09:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nothing special.  Grue  16:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, precedent and consensus say that articles like this one that fail the WP:BIO guideline should be deleted. The one claim for notability is non-verifiable. — Haeleth Talk 13:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 14:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avalon (album by Kamelot)

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. This is about a possible album/DVD by the band Kamelot, based on something they said in an interview apparently. I can't verify (checked their official site and AMG page) that this album is even for real... no mention of it in any of those places. --W.marsh 23:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and note that "merge and delete" are not compatible. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge then delete into Kamelot -- SGBailey 23:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

RELISTED NOVEMBER 28, 2005, PLEASE ADD NEW VOTES BELOW THIS NOTICE' Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

comment relisted due to having only 1 vote at time of close. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Nlu 00:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as crystal ball. Saberwyn 01:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge then delete per SGBailey. Peyna 03:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Avalon (Kamelot album) (to distinguish it from Avalon (album) and then merge so the redirect can remain per GFDL requirement mentioned in the Guide to deletion I mentioned above. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Too much to ask, IMO, to try to salvage this tiny amount of information. When the album is out, we can and should have the information in the Kamelot article. At present, though, we're talking about rumors and plans. Plans are wonderful. I plan to lose 50 lbs. and run a marathon tomorrow. Geogre 15:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, add the one statement about confirmation of the DVD's existence to the Kamelot article. --Aleron235 20:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. The fifty pounds will be down the back of the sofa. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and create Geogre's record-breaking weight loss and marathon too... I mean Delete per Geogre. — Haeleth Talk 13:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. —Cleared as filed. 14:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heruka Buddhist Centre

Vanity article for a Buddhist Centre in London. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Can't really see a claim to notability, and while it does seem to be a vanity page I'm not sure if it might have some local significance (which I wouldn't know not being from london.) Fallsend 19:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with New_Kadampa_Tradition. Bikeable 19:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

RELISTED NOVEMBER 28, 2005, PLEASE ADD NEW VOTES BELOW THIS NOTICE' Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

comment relisted due to having only 2 votes at time of close. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Nlu 00:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep or merge per Bikeable. Peyna 03:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with New_Kadampa_Tradition HackJandy 06:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Provides a coverage of Buddhism within the London category. CalJW 10:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I just cleaned the article up a little bit (fixing the Wikilinks and the like). The NKT movement is quite notable among Western Buddhists. This particular center seems to be fairly popular (their website claims that they have ~20 resident students, which is fairly high for organizations of this sort), is located in a major urban area, has been around for 15 years, serves a number of locations throughout London, a number of travel sites have profiled them as a destination for visitors to London interested in Buddhism or meditation, etc. --Clay Collier 12:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with New_Kadampa_Tradition. A popular centre may indeed merit a mention and even a section; this one is not significant enough to carry its own article. KillerChihuahua 14:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it is a good article now Yuckfoo 01:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a verifiable and apparently significant religious centre. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak merge - only just over 500 Google hits, suggesting that this centre isn't actually all that significant outside its local area. But I wouldn't object to a keep, or to expanding this into a broader article on "Buddhism in London", or anything of that sort; to avoid bias, the bar for inclusion should naturally be set a bit lower for minority religions like Buddhism. — Haeleth Talk 13:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (should have been deleted as non-notable bio but for the original author's vandalistic actions). --Nlu 01:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Maxwell Hobbs

When newly created, was a CV/vanity page. I speedied it but the speedy was removed by the original author, so I am AfDing it. The article reads a bit better now though -- SGBailey 23:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain, I don't know enough about this to vote meaningfully. However the fact that the author removed the speedy without due process weighs slightly in favour of delete IMO. -- SGBailey 23:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Here's his website award [3]. FRS 03:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but note that the page author has only edited this page and one other and has a use name starting jmax wghich seems close to john maxwell, and the original text for this page has now parked itself on his user page - so I conclude it is a self-edit. The award appears genuine - is it notable? -- SGBailey 09:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

RELISTED NOVEMBER 28, 2005, PLEASE ADD NEW VOTES BELOW THIS NOTICE' Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

comment relisted due to having no votes at time of close. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elephant (band)

Non-notable band that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 01:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn band vanity. Allmusic only returns results for a 70s prog rock band which also doesn't meet WP:MUSIC by the looks of it. --TheMidnighters 03:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. Superm401 | Talk 04:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Croat Canuck 04:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and TheMidnighters Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete by community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] McKeever's Restaurant

Advertising StoatBringer 01:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Nlu 01:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely biased advertising, One of many merciless attacks of the IP. Croat Canuck 04:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. I wonder if they're related to Shane McKeever who did some line dancing on Steps to the Stars in the UK a few years back. -- Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not indicate any claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Note: I have not checked to see if this is a genuinely notable place, no such claim is made and as far as I can see the article as written is an advert, and if anyone cares they will come along and create a proper article, in which case we can judge that on its merits. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, untill there is more notable information about the place it should be removed. Perhaps some historical significance and a well thought out entry would be fit to stay.--Ognit Ice 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Please calm down. The restaurant exists and is verifiable. Last time I checked, there are no "restaurant inclusion guidelines" in Wikipedia. The text needs POV-cleanup, stubbing and categorising. If you don't want to do it, then just put {{advertisement}}{{importance}} tags and move on. -- Perfecto 01:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. Yes, Perfecto, there are no "restaurant inclusion guidelines", but Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages, and while notability is not a criterion for inclusion, there is nonetheless a consensus of sorts that institutions of extremely local interest, such as single restaurants serving only a tiny district, are not actually encyclopedic. There are also no "limb inclusion guidelines", but that doesn't mean that I could write an article on my left elbow (it's verifiable, and it has appeared on television and in newspapers on numerous occasions!) — Haeleth Talk 13:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Why can't you, if it's verifiable and received mention in reliable sources? Haeleth, a "consensus of sorts" is not a guideline or policy. The above shows that none of you are familiar with the topic to say the restaurant is unimportant — that's what the {{importance}} tag asks for. I've put the tags in. I hope someone with more sense can expand the topic before the AfD deadline. -- Perfecto 14:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • How many verifiable restaurants do you propose that Wikipedia includes, Perfecto? --Nlu 18:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't feel that Wikipedia needs to put every single verifiable restaurant in the world in, but I guess thats not up to me.Ognit Ice 18:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • All of them, until a WikiProject Restaurant comes together to put a "restaurant inclusion guidelines" in place. The only established limit I see today is "Wikipedia is not a travel guide". -- Perfecto 18:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn restarant and a ad --Aranda ⁵⁶) 23:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedy delete as G4 (Recreation of deleted material) --RoySmith 01:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Church of reality

This article was soundly deleted a few months ago as vanity/not notable. Since it was recently re-created by its founder and apparently sole member, I thought putting it up again on AfD made sense, since it doesn't seem to have gotten any more notable. Non-notable parody religion whose membership seems to be a single person. Has some web presence but mostly through blogs and open directories. On top of that, is currently a vanity article, and one which was re-created by the same user who previously created the version which was pretty soundly deleted. --Fastfission 01:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holy Roaming Empire

Non-notable blog StoatBringer 01:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Peyna 03:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-noteable blog. HackJandy 04:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Advertising for what amounts to an attempted wiki in blog format. The password is samsonite. Geogre 16:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mark K. Bilbo 17:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bay800

Blatant advertisement for some shopping site... even if rewritten, the site/business in question has no Alexa rank, little google coverage, etc. and would fail WP:WEB and WP:CORP. --W.marsh 01:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as advertising, and for failing the proposed guidelies of WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Saberwyn 01:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious spam. Superm401 | Talk 04:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam HackJandy 06:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. B.Wind 10:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. Since it focuses on Asian stuff, I would expect it to fail based on Alexa rankings, but I can't find anyone linking to it on Google either. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Mark K. Bilbo 17:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising with pointy sticks.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. *drew 08:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internal Heatwave

This article qualifies for speedy, but the author keeps removing tags so I have to bring here. --202.156.6.54 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete- I've put the tag back. Reyk 01:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep as even the nominator wanted it kept and cleaned up and all the subsequent votes were to keep. Capitalistroadster 09:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Camp Lazlo

This is a bit of a strange one for AfD, but who knows where else to put it? This article starts off well enough, but then turns into a list of the episodes of this show, with each one on its way to being created. So, is that a good idea? But worse follows with a section on "Episode ideas", again with each one in the process of being created. This is Not Good. I guess I'm saying Keep the main article but Delete the listcruft and fancruft surrounding it. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 01:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment An example from the article... Episode Ideas For All Guys Who Wants To Keep Camp Lazlo Alive For Many Years. If You Agree With Me Send More Episode Ideas/Synopsis! Note: There has been several deletions on this page, and please DO NOT DELETE THIS PAGE. This only a page for episode ideas. Moral:"You Can Smash Machines, But You Can't Smash Ideas." By Frederick Douglass. Movie Midnight / The Electric Blight Orchestra... and so on. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep well known animated show, I don't personally watch it, but it is in the main lineup on CArtoon Network. If it needs cleanup, then either add the tag or do it. As for the episodes, I was gonna suggest tagging them for merging, similar to the Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes lists. «»Who?¿?^meta 01:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. AfD is not the place to suggest a cleanup or improvement of an article, there are various templates for that. The animated series itself is listed in IMDB and is certainly notable enough. -- Curps 01:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real animated series. The crap the nominator was complaining about has since been removed. Saberwyn 01:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Speedy Keep per new, shiny Wikipedia:Speedy keep guideline, second bullet point, as nominator had no intention of completely deleting the article Saberwyn 05:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article should have been listed on cleanup with the nomination appearing on the article's talk page. Thanks to whoever removed the original research. Capitalistroadster 01:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Any need for article cleanup is irrelevant to the notability of the subject itself. *Dan T.* 02:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if you think the main article should be kept you shouldn't have nominated it for deletion, just edited it or started a discussion on the talk page. --TheMidnighters 03:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously notable animated series. Carioca 03:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all that is needed is a bit of cleaning up. --JB Adder | [[User talk:Jb-adder|Talk]] 04:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: You may wish to open an RfC on the content of the article, as that would be an appropriate way of establishing consensus for and against certain directions that the authors want to go. Geogre 16:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Opening Credits of America's Funniest Home Videos

User 69.181.82.102 put the AfD tag on this page, but did not enter text here, so I am doing so. Herostratus 01:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Do we really need a breakdown of the opening sequence for any television shows? Saberwyn 02:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete immaterial, even by wikipedia's standards. - DavidWBrooks 02:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft; perhaps some small summary belongs on the main article for the show, but not in such excruciating detail; leave that for fansites, not a general encyclopedia. *Dan T.* 02:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge at an absolute minimum, but I am happy with a delete. Zordrac 04:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Utterly worthless unencyclopedic rubbish. Kill it. Now. Reyk 04:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivia. Gamaliel 04:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. There have been 16 years of America's Funniest Home Videos? Can the Apocolypse be far off? -- Nunh-huh 04:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I know I am discrediting myself by saying this, but it was a funny show with Bob Saget at the helm. I also get the Red, White and Blue song stuck in my head on occasion, but the opening credits definitely do not warrant a Wikipedia article. If we accept this, then articles on Napoleon's measuring tape will have to be allowed. Croat Canuck 04:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per MacGyverMagic, Dtobias, et al. KillerChihuahua 14:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivial to the extreme. 23skidoo 15:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Hit this article in the gonads with a basketball while Bob Saget makes a dumb comment or delete. per above. Youngamerican 16:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if not beat page repeatedly with ballpeen hammer. Mark K. Bilbo 17:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- though I did enjoy the clip of Eric Cartman talking to dolls. No, wait, that wasn't really AFHV??? Never mind. --Christofurio 20:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge some of this with America's Funniest Home Videos. Crypticfirefly 04:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• LOL. You know, for some sick reason, I greatly cleaned up this article before I posted it here (someone had put the AfD tag on the page but not followed through -- maybe his head exploded). You should see the original article -- imagine the current article, but all run together in one paragraph and very much less grammatical. I say Keep the original version of the article somewhere as an example of what drugs can do to a person's brain. Herostratus 09:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • We do have a place for those kinds of things. Peyna 17:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP by community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Londonderry railway station

Non-notable railway station StoatBringer 01:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, important to citizens of the city. Kappa 02:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So is the supermarket. --Last Malthusian 09:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Which supermarket? and so what? Kappa 00:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there's room to expand; give it a chance to live. Peyna 03:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Week Delete. Offers no real information. It does have potential to be a useful article, but simply having potential to be a good article shouldn't be enough reason to have it stay. (Notorious4life 05:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Delete, no encyclopaedic information. Wikipedia is not a yellow pages or a transport planner. --Last Malthusian 09:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There is a long established policy that railway stations are kept. This is the station in the second largest city in Northern Ireland. There are many articles about less significant stations in England and elsewhere, so deleting it would be inconsistent. CalJW 09:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Main railway stations in cities are notable. And as it stands there are zillions of station articles less notable than this one. - Randwicked 10:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the article gives a alternative name, says which company runs it and says where its services run to. It's a valid stub. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable railway station in significant city.Capitalistroadster 15:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Trollderella 21:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep railroad stations. Wikipedia even has an entire Category:Disused London Underground stations. In other words, London deleted the stations, but Wikipedia has articles on them. Of course we should keep articles on presently operating railroad stations. (forgot to sign! Fg2 11:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC))
• Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability --redstucco 11:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The article does not violate that policy. That policy requires that it be verifiable, not that it be verified. Wikipedia does not require editors to cite sources. (It does say that they "should" but does not require it.) The existence of a source, whether cited in the article or not, is enough to meet the verifiability requirement. Fg2 12:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Articles in Wikipedia should refer to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have been published by a reputable or credible publisher. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

What is the credible publisher that has certified the facts in this article? If there is one, I am happy for this article to exist, if there is not, it should be removed as original research. --redstucco 10:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Seems more notable than most railway stations already on Wikipedia. Should expand. JPD 11:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, railway stations are notable. Stifle 21:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, with keep or merge tendencies. Roll 2d20, and the article makes its saving throw vs. a Magical Merge spell. Keep. --RoySmith 01:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dzoo-noo-qua

Delete as nonsense or possibly merge with appropriate article. It sounds like a monster from Dungeons And Dragons (or similar RPG) StoatBringer 01:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless somebody edits it to give some relevant information, like just what game this is from. *Dan T.* 02:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC) -- (later addition): OK, keep or merge, depending on just how notable it is, now that the game it's in has been identified. *Dan T.* 04:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I believe it's from a game called Shadowrun. There's a mention of it in our article under the "races" heading. Joyous | Talk 03:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I found it here:[4]. PJM 03:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. If its already part of Shadowrun (confirmed) and also in the wikicity dumpshock, the only question should be whether it is notable enough for its own article. It shouldn't be deleted. Zordrac 04:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge. per nom. (Notorious4life 05:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Weak keep. The Shadowrun article is a bit long. If the numbers can be cleaned up it should be fine. Looks like a common enemy. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Trollderella 21:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barefoot soldiers

Short bio of a band gives no evidence they pass WP:MUSIC. Nothing on AMG, not much on Google to try to find information. --W.marsh 01:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 03:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --TheMidnighters 03:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 183 hits on Google and even that is being generous. HackJandy 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Makes no claim of notability -LtNOWIS 00:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Samus vs. Master Chief

Delete. An article created for the sake of showing both sides of the argument. Wikipedia is not for people to place just anything on it. A Link to the Past (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete perfect example of fancruft. --TheMidnighters 03:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is a non-encyclopedic article. Carioca 03:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep - its a stub, and has been stubbed, on two areas. Why delete it? Its assertions for notoriety seem legitimate. It just needs to be expanded, and verified. If this can't be done, then delete it. Zordrac 04:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - as I didn't know what it was sorry. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can kill anything with the Master Chief, I can't with Samus, what's to argue? But I do agree, save it for the forums and keep it away from Wikipedia. Croat Canuck 04:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Absolutely 100% delete: this is an article about articles on GameFAQs! Give me a break and don't make me accuse folks of sniffing glue again. If this is a monumental meme on GameFAQs, then give unto GameFAQs that which belongs to GameFAQs, and give unto Wikipedia that which belongs to Wikipedia. Geogre 16:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: You can condense the whole idea of the article to a couple of sentences, and the weight of those sentences definitely won't bring down Samus Aran and Master Chef articles. Individual "character battles" sure aren't notable enough to have their own articles! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• For the love of Mario, delete this.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per all Delete votes above. --Metropolitan90 05:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rabbit Film Company

Delete this outdated account of some high school students' hobby - DavidWBrooks 02:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Its already in 2 encyclopedias already: FreeDictionary and Nationmaster. Doesn't seem to have any other assertions to notoriety though, other than the fact that it exists. Google returns only 40 hits. More research needed before a decision. And nominator is wrong, its not outdated - founded 2004, last production September 2005. Also not high school students. DOB 1985 makes them 20. Could very well be legit. Zordrac 04:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Both of those encyclopedias are Wikimirrors echoing our content so it is not surprising that this article is listed there nor does it act as verifiability for our purposes. Capitalistroadster 09:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I didn't know that. Anyway I am not voting at this stage, until I know more. Always good to learn more though. Zordrac 17:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. (Notorious4life 05:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Delete - seems like advertising to me, but is there an independent source discussing the enterprise? They need to build up some notoriety first before meriting such an article. B.Wind 10:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Vanity/fantasy/hobby testimonial. I had a couple of middle school students proclaim that they had formed a corporation, too. Unverified, otiose, and non-encyclopedic, and our mirrors are no doubt spreading it thick over the e-world. Geogre 16:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that their previous efforts have been reverted (their supposed garage band). Geogre 16:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you link to this please? Zordrac 17:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Actually, I was wrong: all the authors of Rabbit Film Company have only contributed to that article, with no other contributions whatsoever. I had thought that they had attempted to make Visions of Cody refer to their garage band. They hadn't. Geogre 18:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this too. I haven't found anything independently mentioning anything notable.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It seems to me that the article's only problem is a Point of View issue, because of some of the writing in the main body paragraph being a bit too 'positively' biased. This however, according to Wiki rules, is not a problem that requires deletion. Moreover, if the group was advertising with wiki then we would find many links through search engines pointing to the wiki page; however we do not, and as stated previously the page has only had 40 hits. This to me does not represent an active attempt on the part of the film persons, (or whomever created the Rabbit Film Company article), to actively advertise the wiki article. Additionally, I also believe wikipedia in particular is supposed to be encompassing enough for even potential 'upstart' companies. Also, if the company truly had notieriety, then we wouldn't need Wikipedia to inform persons about that which they already know. Those are just my thoughts on the matter. So, in summary, this is all why I believe that the page, not breaking any of the cardinal rules, should stand relatively as is, except with a comment or a message somehow to fix the main paragraph bias.--Millermz 02:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It is very much a suprise to me that Wikipedia is supposed to be "encompassing enough for even potential 'upstart' companies". My understanding is that this is compendium of notable subjects, not a listing of two-guys-and-dog companies... and then, "Also, if the company truly had notieriety, then we wouldn't need Wikipedia to inform persons about that which they already know." I THINK you're saying that Wikipedia should NOT have articles on, say, IBM, because people already know about IBM? I don't think most users will agree... Herostratus 06:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Forty Google hits says this company is not notable. Denni ☯ 04:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Their website is on MySpace, for $DEITY's sake. — Haeleth Talk 13:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Excellent article, well organized, well written, illustrated. Not notable. I hope the editors turn their skills to some other subjects. Herostratus 06:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ethionx studios

non-notable --Bachrach44 02:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Bachrach44 02:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 03:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the history has 3 unique contributors, suggesting it is a good faith article. Its notability is not established though. It is a bit confusing to me what the hell it is. Google gives 309 hits, which isn't too bad. Their official website should have been included in the article. It says on the website, though, that it was written by Raven Ryan, the same guy who first contributed to the article. That, combined with the huge number of duplicates on google (309 hits but only 8 displayed) suggests that this is advertising. Zordrac 05:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. HackJandy 06:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutional Action Party

A search of the archives of 1500+ newspapers using the Newsbank database finds one mention for this party. The article was on obscure third parties and expended no more effort than quoting from party websites--should be noted that this party no longer even has a website. The "party" probably has one member and is not involved in any visible political activity. By its own admission: "has had virtually no success since its 1995 founding. It has no local chapters anywhere, no candidates for office, and no prospect of running a presidential candidate. . . . There is little to no prospect that we [sic] will be able to hold a convention anytime soon. . . . Only some sort of economic or other catastrophe will produce conditions favorable to the emergence of a new party." delete Lotsofissues 02:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• According to the summary, this Party has had one candidate its founder Frank Creel who ran for Congress in Virginia in 2002 see [5]. Apparently, his campaign had so much impact that the Washington Post thought his opponent had run unopposed see [6]. No evidence that it has many other members outside Creel's family. Delete unless there is some evidence that it has influence outside Creel's family. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity +/- delusions of grandeur. Ifnord 03:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as vanity. PJM 03:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral for now. The statesman's website [7] indicates that he received endorsement of several other third parties with some significance, if only historical interest, including the Independent American Party (a Western offshoot of George Wallace's third party) and the Constitution Party (United States), founded by Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Coalition. These might speak more to the notability of the candidate than his chosen vehicle. Not convinced, at least, that this is vanity. Is there somewhere it could be merged? Smerdis of Tlön 05:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure of the qualifications for deletion for this kind of thing. If these were well established, then this would be an easy vote. If it says, for example, that every legitimate political party should be included, then this is an automatic keep. However, if it says that there is a certain membership requirement, then this would be an automatic delete. This kind of thing makes me think of Wikipedia: Deletion reform and perhaps we should clean up how we do this. In my mind, personally, all political parties are legitimate, so long as they have ever stood for office, which this party has. But that doesn't mean it meets wikipedia requirements. Zordrac 05:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that the only policy that really applies in such cases is that Wikipedia is not paper. AFAIK there are no criteria for noteworthiness of minor political parties like there are for minor bands. A political party that actually fields a candidate has met the basic good-faith test. Any political party, however quixotic, is inherently worthier than a garage band. (And if popular appeal measured by sales and chart success are the criteria, would Milton Babbitt make the cut?) Smerdis of Tlön 05:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep if that's the criteria, its pretty clear. Zordrac 07:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've nothing against obscure political parties (even Jesus-worriers), but we delete bands that haven't had a certain amount of success because they're a form of vanity-by-proxy for their members. Same for books published on vanity presses. Self-confessedly tiny political parties shouldn't be treated differently. And no, political parties aren't 'worthier' than bands. Quite apart from the POV issues which that value judgement implies, a few guys (if it's more than one) that rant about Jesus clearly aren't worthier than a few students abusing a guitar and singing about how cheerleaders won't go out with them. --Last Malthusian 09:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Good points there. But there is a thing that in Australia we have 2 very obscure parties, both with basically 1 member each, that are probably the 2 most well known parties in Australia - because everyone hates them. One is the Fred Nile party and the other is One Nation, which is basically just a dummy spit for Pauline Hanson. Nobody ever votes for either of them. Fred Nile is a jesus warrior who says some of the most ridiculous things ever heard of, while Pauline Hanson is a racist who thinks that aborigines should be "sent home" (they are the natives of Australia). So I don't think that we can absolutely say that 1 member parties are not relevant. Oh, and that's not to mention our little 1-person greenie, Bob Brown, who is seen as probably the most ethical politician in Australia. However, Bob Brown, unlike the other 2, actually got elected (and keeps getting elected). I know, this is probably different (slightly) but I don't know if we can say such things absolutely. Zordrac 10:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Um, Zordrac, we're talking about one member (as in regular party member), not one elected parliamentarian. That's a completely different kettle of fish. Ambi 11:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Rule of thumb: if a political party has been covered by the major media, it's noteworthy, even if it has only one member. If Australia Today gives you the nod, you're in. Denni ☯ 04:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Ambi 11:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. This party is listed on the Guide to American Political Parties at Politics1.com. However, what the guide says about the party doesn't lead me to think that the party is viable: "CAP founder Frank Creel wrote Politics1 in January 1999 that the CAP 'has had virtually no success since its 1995 founding. It has no local chapters anywhere, no candidates for office and no prospect of running a presidential candidate in 2000. There is little to no prospect that we will be able to hold a convention anytime soon. ... Only some sort of economic or other catastrophe will produce conditions favorable to the emergence of a new party.'" That's the party founder's own assessment of his own party, albeit some years out of date. --Metropolitan90 18:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Virtually no success, virtually no candidates, virtually no article.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Can't Decide. I do think that tiny political parties should get a lot more slack than tiny bands. I hate to delete any political party article written in good faith. This party is so tiny, though... maybe it should go. But then maybe some researcher sometime somewhere might find info on this party useful... Herostratus 08:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No picnic

Non notable band. εγκυκλοπαίδεια * (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nnbv. --TheMidnighters 03:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - if this is the same band, then its hardly non-notable. Not if they made a movie about them. If its a different band, well, fine, but they've got the same name. So do we make the article about something different then? Needs a bit of verification and expansion. Vfds are just the wrong tag for this kind of thing. Zordrac 05:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The link above is a MOVIE (with Steve Buscemi playing "Dead Pimp", no less[8]), not a band, and was made 16 years before the band article claims the band formed. No allmusic listing (for ANY band named "No picnic"), no claim of albums or substantial tours in article--doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. From article "...practiced/played a few shows, bought an 8-track, spent some time in a basement and now we share the results here..." seems clearly unencyclopedic. Only relevant hit for "No picnic" matt andy gina dan looks like a myspace.com vanity-press type page. 24.17.48.241 07:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete indeed. per nom, does not meet WP:MUSIC. ∴ here…♠ 08:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - changing vote. Sorry, got lazy. Zordrac 08:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per TheMidnighters. Stifle 16:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrolicide

Band vanity stub that appears to significantly fail the WP:MUSIC policy on all counts. No 'All Music Guide' entry. No indication of any charting songs or tours, although their MySpace page says they'll be playing at a local festival in early 2006. Saberwyn 03:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as I do with all non notable band articles. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 03:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - says in own article that it's not notable. Download for free or add to myspace. lol. Zordrac 05:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Hydrolize (delete). Bands that share their songs for free are usually not notable. (Don't forget to delete the image along with the article). - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 21:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 00:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jaqueline Priestman

Delete. Name misspelled as mentioned below and the subject's factuality is questionable. PJM 02:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable; I thought it was a hoax too, but it turns out it's just a misspelling. [9] Peyna 04:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting; thanks for the link. PJM 04:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Rename to Jacqueline Priestman - its very interesting. Here are the links: [10], [11], [12], [13]. Of course, we could alternatively rename it to High Voltage Syndrome (I would have suggested a merge, but there is no such article). It is an interesting article. Expand a fair bit though, and consider the rename. Zordrac 05:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. per Zordac. (Notorious4life 05:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Keep and rename -- (Blue520 20:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Keep and rename. Trollderella 21:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence that any Oxford professor had anything to say about her (though I'm sure some did and I'm sure it wasn't comlimentary). This is tinfoil hattery at its finest. Moreover, only seven Google hits for "Jacqueline Priestman" electricity, which says that even among those who have seen Elvis, she is not well-known. Denni ☯ 05:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable (I can find no evidence that supports the actual claims in the actual article, like the "oxford professor" stuff). An article on High Voltage Syndrome would be interesting, and I encourage someone to create it - but I don't think this is very useful as a starting point, as about 80% of it needs to be deleted anyway, which would leave the new article with one dubious sentence and a redirect from a misspelt name. — Haeleth Talk 13:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: note that we have only one source, since all Zordrac's links are copies of the exact same text. This source is a column in a single newspaper that is exclusively dedicated to repeating remarkable and unverifiable claims. I do not believe this is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the verifiablity policy, so without other actual soruces, I'm not convinced that our official policies permit us to keep this material. — Haeleth Talk 13:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Up yours

Not worthy of a sub stub in my opinion. Could easily be merged as well. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Created by a vandal, all of whose edits were creation of vandalism and personal attack articles (now mostly deleted). -- Curps 03:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

All? I can count only 1 previous article, 3 edits total on 2 articles. Hardly qualifies as a vandal. Oh, and considering the other one was a user talk, its really an incorrect assertion. Just the same, it's already in wiktionary, so delete. Zordrac 05:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Curps. PJM 03:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Up Yours, Vandal! Croat Canuck 04:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Definition belongs on Wiktionary and is indeed already there. --TantalumTelluride 05:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Mine's already full up there. Duplicate material and a dictdef. Geogre 17:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though I would really like to know what "other uses" it has. Denni ☯ 05:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Propulsion method. Owen× ☎ 00:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Propel

• I didn't know about Wiktionary. Please delete. User:Jaculis

We already have an entry in Wiktionary. Delete dictdef. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 03:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Propulsion method. Kappa 04:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment a good example of where the new deletion policy to allow blanking of pages could be used. Speedy delete it as author has blanked page. Zordrac 05:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "New deletion policy?" What new deletion policy? User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Experimental_deletion - its funny that you wrote that in my talk page right below the comment which links to it. Look before you leap! Zordrac 05:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• • That's silly. Author-blanked pages have been speedy delete candidates for ages and ages. It's not part of the experimental deletion procedure at all. I'll do the speedy delete. Geogre 17:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genevieve LeBaron

Delete nn vanity/hoax. A poet who returns 6 unique google hits, none of which mention any sort of publishing or public readings to support claims made in the article. TheMidnighters 03:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete. I know her-- she is published in Chapbooks,and reads locally in Olympia, Wa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:130.63.100.118 (talk • contribs)

• Can you prove that she's been published? --TheMidnighters 03:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless there is proof of substantial publication or something else to establish more notability. Peyna 04:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this seems to be her web page, and its off a university web site and asserts no suggestions that anything has been published. In spite of Google returning 111 hits, only 6 non-duplicates were displayed, and the above link was the only one that led to anything. Zordrac 05:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh and this says she only graduated in 2003. Not really enough time to get terribly notable. Even if she was recently published, and did read to a couple of famous people, is that in and of itself enough to warrant notoriety? Zordrac 05:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Chapbooks are not publications in the classic sense. Good luck to all poets -- may some of them even find readers -- but doing local readings and having limited edition chaps is not notable for an author. Geogre 17:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Mark K. Bilbo 17:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I'd say keep, if the article actually provided details of all of these medals and trophies she'd won, not to mention the circumstances in which she read some of this poetry to her esteemed audiences, but as it stands now it's just unsubstantiated vanity. Skeezix1000 18:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 00:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Planemo

Neologism. Okay, it may be a neologism created by a scientiest, but it's still a neologism. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I appreciate that most neologisms aren't suitable for wikipedia. But this is a term that has been formally proposed and may well be implemented by the IAU due to the current debate and controversy over the definition of planet, an important ongoing event in the world of astronomy. 130.126.76.27 08:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism and dicdef; if adopted it might be worthy of an article if it can get beyond a dicdef; maybe merge with Planet or Definition of Planet Peyna 04:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, could someone explain what a "dicdef" is?

That means "dictionary definition". In other words its useful for a dictionary rather than an encyclopaedia, and belongs in wiktionary rather than wikipedia. Sorry if shorthand confused you. Zordrac 10:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep- in the same boat as mesoplanet, which is definitely OK. Reyk 04:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Until a name is formally adopted its a speculative dic def at best. Probably should also include its partner in the effort, Fusor (astronomy). 24.17.48.241 06:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs to be explained. Kappa 06:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this is describing the planets that are not really planets! Highly topical scientific debate right now! [14]. Hasn't anyone here heard about the so-called 10th planet and the possible re-classification of Pluto? That's not really just for scientists. Also, google gives 1,300 hits, but I think for such a topical area the area itself is important to note. It's about as relevant as talking about the different theories of what a black hole is. Zordrac 07:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, there is no possible reclassification of Pluto in the works. While armchair astronomers like to go on about it, there is no move by the IAU or any other sanctioning body to reconsider Pluto's designation as a planet. And until this term is approved by the IAU, it is nothing more than speculation, so I vote delete for now, and recreate the article at such time as approval is granted. Denni ☯ 05:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I'm afraid you're incorrect. After the TNOs started turning up in the 90s, the IAU set up a working group headed by Alan Stern in 1999 to come up with a definition of a planet but so far it hasnt reached a conclusion. When it does there is certainly a chance Pluto could be reclassified. 130.126.76.27 21:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have no interest in the subject but I've heard about this issue. CalJW 10:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete in its present form and include the information (which is not to say merge) in Planet. We can cover the debate and the proposed terminology, but "Planemo" isn't widespread enough to, without acceptance, be sought. Geogre 17:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge into definition of planet if Mesoplanet goes with it - Planemo gets 719 google hits vs 194 for mesoplanet. Josh Parris 01:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Used with permission

Not encyclopedic or notable enough to be on Wikipedia. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per reason above. --Spring Rubber 03:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You don't have to put yourself in twice. It's not a vote, so unless your nomination is ambiguous in the extreme, a reasonable admin will count that as a "delete" recomendation.
    brenneman^(t)(c) 06:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NMG. PJM 03:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - looking this one up in google is hard, because of course the phrase is very common. Even adding band still gave 371,000 hits, which somehow I don't think is realistic. Their band page says quite clearly that they are not notable, "this 4 part band has been around since january of 2005. and thats about it with them.". If they don't think they are notable, why should we? Zordrac 07:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Aranda ⁵⁶) 03:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sandy Point, Victoria

Not written in encyclopedic form. Should be rewritten at the least, and given a cleanup if this town really exists. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Real place near Wilsons Promontory in Victoria. A Google search for "Sandy Point" Victoria gets 181,000 results see [15] Protected for its natural values and also used as a naval training area as HMAS Cerberus is nearby. Capitalistroadster 03:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If you haven't bothered to see if the place exists, you shouldn't be putting it on AfD. Additionally, cleanup does not belong on AfD. Peyna 04:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as per Capitalistroadster abakharev 04:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "if this town really exists" - I'm not sure why you even doubt it. I agree with Peyna. Cnwb 04:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Sarah Ewart 04:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. Don't forget to add an {{unreferenced}} tag; this article has no cited sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real place, apparently... no need for deletion, but a mass-clean up will need to be done. (Notorious4life 05:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Speedy Keep - we've established that it exists. Close Vfd. It should have tags to cleanup and perhaps verify, but that shouldn't be a reason for deletion. Zordrac 07:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. For reasons above, plus the article is really quite good now. --kingboyk 10:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Article cleaned up, expanded and referenced. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 09:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is actually much more encyclopedic than those uncountable articles on U.S. hamlets that are nothing but lists of demographic minutiae. - Randwicked 10:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Unresearched nomination. Afd is not cleanup. CalJW 10:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Emphatic keep - it didn't/doesn't deserve deletion, just a good cleanup (which it got, thanks to Capitalistroadster). Does this qualify as consensus? B.Wind 10:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well damn! I am sorry, I made a mistake, gee....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BY THE WAY: I underlined where I said cleanup I really didn't research this to see if it existed or not, and for that I am really sorry...however, I did suggest a cleanup, which it needed at the time. Thanks Capitalist Roadster, for cleaning the article up. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone meant any of their comments to be directed perosnally towards you, but just at the nomination in general. I apologize if my comment came off as any kind of personal attack, the tone was perhaps a little negative. Peyna 20:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Dude, I know you weren't attacking me. If anything, I feel bad for posting this. :) Smile! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep please maybe this can be closed now we all agree right Yuckfoo 01:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled Live DVD

I'm a Rammstein fan myself, but the title is completely ambiguous and the information is of a completely speculatory nature.--Aleron235 03:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Rammstein if it is more than speculation. Peyna 04:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I merged the information already. Only one statement in that article is a definite. --Aleron235 04:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is one item of fact already in the band's article. The rest is unverifiable at the moment. Capitalistroadster 04:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless speculation. Wait for the release. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - at a bare minimum, it would be called Untitled Live DVD (Rammstein) or Rammstein Untitled Live DVD, but having an article just because we don't know the name of it yet is silly. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball after all, and this article demonstrates it. Zordrac 07:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" is not part of the criteria for speedy deletion. -- Kjkolb 12:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. A close call numerically, but I don't see anything to make me think this is anything but bandcruft. --RoySmith 02:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quad 5 Trio

Self described non-notable band, does not meet WP:MUSIC. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A band that has been around for 5 years and continues to thrive is notable in itself. They claim to have 4 releases, and are currently working on a new one. WP:MUSIC is not policy and should not be treated as such. However, the article does need heavy cleanup to remove what seems to be mostly self-promotion. I'll volunteer to do this. --Aleron235 03:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While it's not policy, WP:NMG is a sensible way to determine if a band is worthy of inclusion. This band is not. PJM 04:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, 4 albums + 1 greatest hits. Kappa 04:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Please note that these albums are self-made: [16]. The band is apparently unsigned.PJM 04:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

See my comment below. Shackrock has produced other bands as well. [17]

Zordrac 07:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but I'm not convinced that Shackrock is a notable enough label. PJM 12:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Self-produced recordings don't meet WP:MUSIC--apparently unsigned and very local. 24.17.48.241 05:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderline WP:NMG due to the albums. However, the lack of an Allmusic.com article and less than 600 Google results [18]indicate that they are just on the wrong side of the notability divide for mine. Capitalistroadster 05:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Add to the evidence against, the lack of Amazon presence, which includes some rather obscure bands and albums. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment can we settle on one shortcut to use in this discussion between WP:MUSIC and WP:NMG. I didn't know until a second ago that they were the same thing!!!--Alhutch 06:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Since the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines page offers both shortcuts, people will tend to use their freedom of choice. PJM 12:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - 5 albums, signed artist through ShackRock [19], 595 google hits. That seems enough to assert notoriety to me. Zordrac 07:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Wikipedia is not AMG, is not Ultimate Band List, and this act is generally unsigned. The single release on a small indie is insufficient for what is, essentially, a gigging band. Nothing against them, but fan-generated and vanity band articles are all but worthless: establish that this is a band that is referred to that it is a topic that needs explication, and forget niggling over X copies or Y "records" (there are CD presses in most for-hire recording studios now, folks: you can go in and have a CD made of your jam session). Geogre 17:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per Geogre. Pete.Hurd 21:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC --Aranda ⁵⁶) 03:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 14:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SpongeBob SquarePants: The Complete First Season

Not deserving of an article. We are not a DVD repository. --Apostrophe 03:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 04:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• I dunno, maybe we can get the creator of the show to GPL it and then upload it? Voyager640 06:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - 13 unique contributors to article, well written article, lots of pictures. Spongebob Squarepants is a very notable show. Whilst we perhaps can't justify individual episodes, I don't see what's wrong with having 1 article for a whole season. Zordrac 07:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This is not an article for the first season of SpongBob SquarePants. It is an article about a DVD set that contains the first season of SpongeBob SquarePants. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to season articles; they're better than the countless junk articles on SpongeBob episodes we have now. --Apostrophe 17:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge with spongebob squarepants after seeing 10+ other articles on other seasons. Someone is trying to flood us with articles that should be merged. Zordrac 07:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. SpongeBob SquarePants and episode articles are quite sufficient. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and pre-empt "special bonus disk" and "Japanese rare vinyl release" and "director's cut" and "unrated." Geogre 17:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Spongebob Squarepants: Don't Delete: A real DVD, a product of the Show, with special features that can't be put in the episode articles on the Spongebob article.Lima bean of the north
  • DVD special features are hardly worthy of inclusion to Wikipedia. --Apostrophe 04:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: WP is not a catalogue for DVDs or any other type of recording. --Ryano 15:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SpongeBob SquarePants: The Complete Second Season

Not deserving of an article. We are not a DVD repository. --Apostrophe 03:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 04:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. SpongeBob SquarePants and episode articles are quite sufficient. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: As above, a packaging, not an artifact. Geogre 17:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge with Spongebob Squarepants: A real DVD, a product of the Show, with special features that can't be put in the episode articles on the Spongebob article. Not all articles in Wikipedia have to be artifacts.Lima bean of the north

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SpongeBob SquarePants: The Complete Third Season

Not deserving of an article. We are not a DVD repository. --Apostrophe 03:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 04:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. SpongeBob SquarePants and episode articles are quite sufficient. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: A packaging option, not a show. Geogre 17:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete: A real DVD, a product of the Show, with special features that can't be put in the episode articles on the Spongebob article.Lima bean of the north

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SpongeBob SquarePants: The Complete Fourth Season

1. Doesn't exist.
2. Little more than a list already found at SpongeBob SquarePants.
3. We are not a DVD repository.
--Apostrophe 03:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, and also delete the ridiculous [[Category:SpongeBob SquarePants DVDs‬]]. Firebug 03:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 04:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. SpongeBob SquarePants and episode articles are quite sufficient. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Possibly a speedy delete as vandalism, since this is an effort to chalk up an article where none can exist. Geogre 17:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE: It's just vandalism. caldorwards4 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It didnt' come out yet and half the episodes didn't come out yet and might be fake. Lima bean of the north

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SpongeBob SquarePants: The Complete Fifth Season

1. Doesn't exist.
2. Little more than a list already found at SpongeBob SquarePants.
3. We are not a DVD repository.
--Apostrophe 03:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 03:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. SpongeBob SquarePants and episode articles are quite sufficient. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fifth season didn't even start and these are most likely all fake. Lima bean of the north

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SpongeBob SquarePants: The Complete First Season - Volume 1

Not deserving of an article. --Apostrophe 03:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Firebug 03:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - superfluous. PJM 03:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We already have a main article and episode articles for this show, which pushes the limit of Wikipedia's mood of inclusion. We hardly need an encyclopedia entry on individual DVDs that provide nothing more than links to the episodes and that is rife with needless (and hopefully fair-use!) images. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: This is a portion of a packaging option. We don't want an article on the first page of the included booklet, on the second page of the included booklet, and on the back cover of the jewel case, etc., either. Geogre 17:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete all. Enochlau 05:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SpongeBob SquarePants DVDs

[edit] Absorbing Favorites, Fear of a Krabby Patty, Home Sweet Pineapple (DVD), Lost In Time, Lost at Sea (DVD), Nautical Nonsense and Sponge Buddies, SpongeBob SquarePants Halloween, SpongeGuard on Duty (DVD), The Seascape Capers and Where's Gary? (DVD)

All hopeless garbage. Burn with God's holy wrath. --Apostrophe 03:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. SpongeBob SquarePants and episode articles are quite sufficient. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete the lot of them. I am amazed that someone loves Spongebob that much to do all of that, but you know they are not really giving us new information. Consider my vote to be delete for all of them. Zordrac 07:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: These are, of course, DVD releases and not episodes or movies. As such, this can serve only for page rank boosting. Geogre 17:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: This is all covered by SpongeBob_SquarePants#Episodes. I fail to see what is new here. Move the dvd covers to that article.--Ewok Slayer 23:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Oh and sponge-bob is retarded.

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. Enochlau 05:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Faint

Non-notable. By the birthday, this son is 12 years old, and so it's unlikely he's a well-known hockey player. I could find no trace of information regarding him on the web. A notable father does not, by itself, make a person notable. Deco 04:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as non-notable biography. 12 year old hockey goalie and son of a photographer Dad who doesn't have an article himself. Capitalistroadster 04:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn bio D-Rock 05:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Sleepy delete lol. And to think I went to all the trouble of researching this with a google search. At least we know the name is fairly common, with 1,010 articles. But it doesn't even assert any notoriety, let alone references. I dare say it was probably written by Peter Faint. Out of interest, the creator's contributions suggest just 1 other article edit: Jordin_Tootoo, where his was far from the only other editor. Also a pro-hockey player. The edit to the talk page was vandalism [20], and so were both of the edits to the main page [21] and [22]. Ergo, that user probably needs someone to go over and have a "chat" to them as well. Zordrac 07:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete no discernible claim to significance, so WP:CSD A7 applies. I put a {{db-bio}} on the article. Sliggy 18:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn-bio, as above.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 22:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Madshrimps

Vanity, not noteable. Does not meet any of the suggestions of WP:WEB -- as even noted in the text. Alexa not even in top 50,000 ([url]) —preceding unsigned comment by HackJandy (talk • contribs)

• Delete per nom. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - 4,000 members [23] in the forum meets WP:WEB. It is verified, so there should be no issue. Also if they were mentioned in Slashdot as claimed, then they are notable. Remember, Alexa is the last resort to justify notability. It is not the only way to be considered notable. Zordrac 07:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I beg to differ, but 4,000 members, even if verified, does not meet WP:WEB's criterion #2 of 5,000. This is a low threshhold, since one expects most notable websites to have far more participation. And the first resort is criterion #1, "having been the subject of national or international media attention within the last 2 years", with "particular weight given to off-line sources of news". Slashdot, as its WP article points out, is a dubious source of accurate information, although it does have credibility in Madshrimps' domain. It would help establish this article's notability if other sources (especially print sources) were cited. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment WP:WEB is still a proposal, and satisfying the criteron only assures an automatic keep; the inverse is not implied. However, I did nominate this and I still agree that the website is note noteable enough for an entry. HackJandy 06:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: First, what does a forum have to do with anything? The article concerns the site, which is a hardware site. They tell you how to overclock (woo-hoo! I have a molten pile of silicone, but I got an extra 2 hz!) and just do the regular advice thing. The site has a poor Alexa rank, and, again, Wikipedia is still not a web guide. This isn't about good websites and bad websites: it's about whether a site is so astoundingly famous that it's mentioned outside of the web, as things like Slashdot are. Geogre 17:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. My own forums have almost 1000 users and over 58,000 posts and we don't belong on Wiki either.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 22:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this is an article the same as that one available for HardOCP and Anandtech. Alexa rating should NEVER be used to measure sites popularity as it can easily be cheated, the rating is based on users who use the Alexa banner, and visit your site. If you load up Alexa banner on ~12 PC's and keep a site open & refreshed every 5 minutes then their Alexa rating will BOOM from 60.000 -> 12.000 within a few weeks time. The article is about the WEBSITE, not necessarily the forums; they are but a part of the equation. It's not about size, but about quality and content. This IS the web, and not a webguide but an information collection, WIKI. Still have to see the first PC which became a (molten pile of silicone) just from overclocking, the guides are there to PREVENT you from doing damage, and to do it in a safe and controlled manner. For that alone the Overclocking guide on A64 is worth a spot in the wiki as being the most complete and step by step explanation on the subject. 14:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC) 204.124.198.28 13:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Gamer

• Comment Several things.... First of all I noticed you are a major contributor to the wiki page (Special:Contributions/204.124.198.28), but the fact that the majority of the work you've done is add the Madshrimps URL to other articles raises some red flags to me. Furthermore, their Alexa rating will BOOM from 60.000 -> 12.000 within a few weeks time. -- that is why the suggested recommended guideline is 10,000 ranking, not 12,000. Finally, are you sure you meant Silicone and not Silicon? I still fail to see why this is noteable even with your arguments. HackJandy 17:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the Alexa example I gave can be found here and it was just that, an example of how easy it is to "cheat" Alexa ranking, take 20 persons who can get 100-150 PC's visiting your site every day and your ranking will be above 10.000, sadly, it's as easy as that, and with more people becoming SPYWARE/MALWARE aware, the Alexa banner is only installed by PC novists. The website discussed here is one where the average reader uses Firefox or a spyware free Internet explorer, in the eyes of Alexa those people don't count. While in fact, they do. 204.124.198.28 11:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Gamer

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anton Hoenderkamp

NN, seems to describe a poster to www.psyclops.com messageboards, judging from a google search [24]. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity.--Aleron235 04:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Nonsense. Gamaliel 04:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity - 3 hits on Google. HackJandy 04:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Extreme vanity (bordering on megalomania), given article content. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete nn-bio.--Alhutch 06:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and move to bad jokes. This is obviously a hoax. He refers to Anton as Christ. Zordrac 07:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mannerking

Does not seem sufficiently notable. Only a few hundred Google hits, which is a pretty good indication for something game-related. Superm401 | Talk 04:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Article content suggests vanity. If this extremely brief material is encyclopedic, could in not be included in Warcraft III? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity, HackJandy 05:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Don't waste time on it. It says itself its vanity. Can we use WP:XD on it? Zordrac 08:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article being used for personal messages.Bjones 13:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Did someone other than the authors actually edit it and add the stub notice? I'm sorry: I should applaud such wikilove, but this is graffiti: personal boasts and slams. Geogre 18:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 22:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 00:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Florida State Road 678

I've been driving that particular stretch of road for something like a decade, and I never knew it was a numbered state road. Now I know and I still don't care. Seriously, this is half a mile! Half a mile of a road that doesn't even have it's own article and probably doesn't deserve one. Gamaliel 04:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's pretty hard to imagine many half-mile rural roads that do deserve their own article. I have no difficulty accepting Gamaliel's judgement that this doesn't. The article does nothing to convince otherwise. Superm401 | Talk 04:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Well, we do have an article on Vermont State Highway 26, which beats Florida State Road 678 hands-down. VT-26 is 53 feet (0.01 mi.) in total length! •DanMS 05:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow. -TimL 19:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I'm not against state road articles if there's something to say about them besides their location and size. This article seems more like an excuse for a picture. Can it at least lay claim to being the shortest Florida state route (like Highway 26 in Vermont)? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; lacking notability; see Roads and streets and B_roads_in_the_United_Kingdom ; recurring problem not likely to go away, especially since there are so many road pages and projects out there. Peyna 05:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I noticed a large number of Florida State Roads that are in the same league as this one: small, not notable, and provide no real information. So, I think many more need to follow FSR-678. (Notorious4life 06:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC))

• Perhaps we could encourage the editors creating them to merge them all into one single list. Gamaliel 06:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a part of the Florida State Roads project, which in itself is notable. Currently the project is less than one-third complete. B.Wind 06:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The Florida State Roads Project is notable? News to me. --Calton | Talk 02:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Apparently so, per the discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida State Road 300 three months ago. The arguments haven't changed, but the road has. B.Wind 04:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because "size doesn't matter" :). Seriously, give it the benefit of the doubt as per B.Wind. Someone also went to the trouble of taking a picture, which is a lot more than can be said for other stubs. Turnstep 07:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Same reasoning as JeffQ HackJandy 07:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents. All highways should be mentioned. Zordrac 08:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Does a Florida State Road really meet the precedent as a highway? I would take that precedent as referring to limited access highways since the other qualifying word is "Interstates". Peyna 13:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The precedent states "Highways and interstates." State signed and maintained roads are "highways." The word "highway" long predates the Interstate system. See Lincoln Highway. FCYTravis 05:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Articles on numbered highways are OK. This article isn't all that bad, with a picture and a fair description of why the road was built. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If there are enough people interested in roads to produce a complete guide to roads there is no harm in incorporating one into wikipedia. CalJW 10:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A stretch of tarmac. Doesn't get any more non-notable than that. --Last Malthusian 10:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real, numbered state highway. Youngamerican 13:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: It's a half a mile. If I can walk it in 15 minutes, it's probably not much of a road. Having a description of the road in a larger article is fine, but having individual articles on what are actually segments seems wasteful and useless. Geogre 17:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • One can run the one famous block of Lombard Street, San Francisco in a minute. FCYTravis 05:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • True, but as you say, it's famous. Used to be that was one of the criteria for being included in an encyclopaedia. And cat food cost 50p a tin too. --Last Malthusian 09:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • "Famous" hasn't been a requirement since every elementary school this side of Pokemon started getting a consensus to keep. I'm a general deletionist but I won't allow state highways (even minor state highways) to be seen as less noteworthy or important or encyclopedic than the private K-8 school I attended a decade ago. Yes, I'm biased, I like roads and highways and I think their impact on our culture is underrated. This half-mile state highway has as much claim to encyclopedicity as Addison Elementary School. The fact that Florida State Road 678 was built as a connector route between other major highways is at least as interesting as the fact that Addison Elementary School holds a Harvest Hoedown and has a Book Fair. FCYTravis 10:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's ample precedent that if a road in the U.S. is a state highway and is numbered in a statewide (rather than merely countywide) system, it deserves its own article. Doctor Whom 18:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, part of an ongoing project. - SimonP 19:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's make an article on every road in Spain too, eh? It would just take a couple of GB of wikipedia's space. That was sarcasm, by the way. FFS.

• Delete. The only reason I wrote this was because there is a table on another page that lists every Florida State Road. It is completely stupid that they even have signs. It's just beuraucratic. -TimL Article creator.

• Delete. Even the author doesn't think it's worth keeping; I agree with other arguments brought forward against the article. Also, I don't see how being part of a noteable project justifies an extra article. Kreydon 21:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: It doesn't bother me that this will never be a particularly long or informational article. It's relatively verifiable, and it exists, and the article doesn't cause any noticable harm (namespace collisions, etc.), so as long as it's been written, I think it should stay. -- Creidieki

• Delete. Am I going to have to drag out the Borges quote again? --Calton | Talk 02:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• If it's relevant to your argument about why this article should be deleted, then it would be helpful, yes. Comments on AfD should contain a rationale. -- Creidieki 03:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Shorter than some driveways. No notable locations along it. If this can be merged someplace, great. But it does not merit its own article. Delete. Denni ☯ 05:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all numbered state, U.S. and Interstate highways. FCYTravis 05:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've done articles on state highways that are shorter than this one. (Yep, I'm just inviting that they get AfD'd, too...) -- Grev 06:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep roads numbered at the state level. --SPUI (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: The precident is long set that all numbered roads at a state and national level are useful. --Analogdemon (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Darn it, I knew I shouldn't have taken that picture, tips the scales doesn't it? Makes this article seem 50% worthwhile and 50% worthless. If you delete this article the 5 seconds it took me to snap the picture with my cell phone camera well be rendered meaningless! (just trying to inject some humor here, carry on) TimL 02:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - That's a cell phone camera pic? Wow, nice job! I didn't know they were putting DSLRs on cell phones now :p FCYTravis 06:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability--redstucco 11:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It's certainly verifiable; the Florida Department of Transportation has GIS data (effectively maps) online that show the road as described. --SPUI (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Great. Please cite your sources in the article. (hence the UNLESS in my vote) --redstucco 09:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a highway by legal technicality only. People should not forfeit their judgement based on a nonexistent school consensus. Gazpacho 23:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Nonexistent? Wikipedia:Watch/schoolwatch/Votes for_deletion archive suggests otherwise. FCYTravis 03:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. State road+shortest=encylopedic. Vegaswikian 07:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• 'Comment': I dutifully added a reference to the 'article'. TimL 15:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • That reference is a joke. All you have proved is that there exists a road with a number in Florida. This is not seriously worth an article. Read this email about Notability --redstucco 09:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Then you will be equally dispeased with the other two references that I added to it. 147.70.242.21 19:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I would point out, Red stucco, that your deletion argument above was based solely on the fact that the article, as it was, was not verified with reliable sources. That argument has been answered. If you wish to argue that the article should be deleted on "notability" grounds, by all means feel free to make your case, but the article no longer violates Wikipedia:Verifiability. FCYTravis 01:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki. Ral315 (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goft-o-gou

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm not exactly sure what the best course of action would be, but I'm fairly certain it doesn't belong here. --Spring Rubber 04:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wiktionary. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki, assuming it is accurate; unencyclopedic and not notable in the English speaking world. Smerdis of Tlön 05:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Move to wiktionary --Bachrach44 21:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seppel Bruyere

The 3 google hits are guitar-related by don't seem to back up the assertion of notability. Kappa 04:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, provided the article's claims are accurate. If they're false, delete. Superm401 | Talk 04:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article claims he wrote (not co-wrote) "Smells Like Teen Spirit", but All-Music Guide doesn't list him as a composer (Kurt Cobain/Dave Grohl/Krist Novoselic are listed). In fact, Bruyere doesn't even show up in AMG at all. Also, he is not mentioned in the song article. We'd need some reliable evidence even to consider keeping this article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sounds made up to me. If he wrote Smells Like Teen Spirit, how come he's not even recognized by Google. (Notorious4life 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Delete possibly speedy as silly vandalism. Probably a hoax in any case and no verifiable evidence of any connection with Nirvana let alone writing two of their most notable songs. Capitalistroadster 06:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I wish that the US Copyright Office's search was working right now, since it would be easily verifiable, but the only music related hit I found was the posting of a random guitar tab on a tab website. Peyna 06:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyright Search working this morning, the author for Smells Like Teen Spirit is listed as " words & music: Virgin Songs, Inc., employer for hire of Kurt Cobain, Chris Novoselic & David Grohl. Which means Virgin owns the copyright and the guys were the authors. Copyright law requires the actual authors be listed, regardless of who owns the copyright, so we have to assume it is correct unless there is some evidence of a conspiracy. For musicians that have others write their works, you will find the actual author's name listed in the copyright. Peyna 14:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete although I can recall seeing a documentary about Nirvana which suggested that they did not write a lot of their own songs - just wrote lyrics and such. There was apparently a group of people behind them, helping them out. Zordrac 08:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Patent nonsense. --kingboyk 10:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and a 24 hour block for the author for vandalism (if he or she has been warned, but a test3 warning, if not): vicious hallucinations. Geogre 17:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and block the author for vandalism: in a separate edit, he/she also claimed (falsely, of course) that Seppel Bruyere was a member of Marilyn Manson. --keepsleeping say what 21:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as nonsense.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 22:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SydLexia.com

This is a pop-culture website that apparently has an Alexa rating of 65,000 and no cited print references, suggesting it hasn't risen to an adequate notability level based on our draft Wikipedia:Websites policy. I suspect at least one of the participants in the site content (User:Valdronius) is also editing its corresponding Wikiquote article, which isn't strictly against policy but further makes me suspect its true notoriety. Its other uses in Wikipedia include external links to reviews for albums from Poison and Mötley Crüe, which make sense if it's a bona fide cultural reference. I'd like to get the community's opinions on whether we should Keep or Delete this article. (I'll hold off on my opinion pending further research.) Thank you. Jeff Q (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nothing about this would hold for the WP:WEB criteria in my opinion. HackJandy 07:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable mostly vanity. the corresponding wikiquote article is up for deletion too, by the way.--Alhutch 07:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry. I should have made the WQ VFD entry explicit. I nominated the WP article in part to measure the collective wisdom of WP in helping WQ judge notability for its article as well. Of course, each project must decide the fate of its own article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - The web site exists, Floyddorz is the only contributor to the article. It doesn't say how many members in the forums [25], but I am counting under 2,000 articles, and hence definitely under 5,000 users. Since it makes no claims to notoriety other than popularity, that's all we can judge it on. And, sadly for it, it isn't popular enough. Zordrac 08:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable vanity article for a small site.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 22:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Other, There is a somewhat interesting issue here. While the site does not conform to the Wikipedia Website guidelines, it does conform to the Wikipedia Webcomic Guidlines. There is interesting because the site does maintain a webcomic: http://www.sydlexia.com/nesdrinkingsaga.htm

Should that save the WP article from deletion? Perhaps not. But it's something to consider.  FloydDoorz  _{talk contribs} 04 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holypal

advertising for an nn website with an alexa ranking of 5,146,995. Has only been online since April 26, 2005. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Along with Http://www.holypal.com and Holypal.com. 24.17.48.241 04:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly spam. Superm401 | Talk 05:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement, however well-intentioned. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as advertising/spam. Web site is down anyway, makes no claims to notoriety other than popularity, and isn't popular. Zordrac 08:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buckwas

Dicdef, possibly nonsense. Candidate for speedy. Klaw Talk 04:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dicdef. HackJandy 06:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Sp Delete. (Notorious4life 06:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Delete unless verified as accurate, in which case transwiki to Wiktionary. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as bad joke/hoax. From the article, "The word is often used in times of abuse rubbishing people.". I laughed at that. Lighten up guys! Put this one on that page for silly stuff. Zordrac 08:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete unless verified. If verified and if no Wiktionary definition exists Transwiki. Capitalistroadster 10:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Owen× ☎ 00:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Absolute Boyfriend

Obviously advertising--Superm401 | Talk 04:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete candidate. (Notorious4life 06:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Speedy Delete no context.--Alhutch 06:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete clearly advertising and non-encyclopaedic --Drno007 07:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I agree with all of the above. --ParkerHiggins 07:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm not sure if it's advertising or if it's merely badly written. B.Wind 07:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that it's been rewritten so that readers can understand, keep. B.Wind 09:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - per 19,600 google hits. Is a popular anime series with its own product range [26]. Amazed that this was considered for deletion at all. Zordrac 08:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment i had no idea what it was from the way the article was written. there is no context in the article for any reader to figure out what it means. If you know something about it, i suggest you rewrite the article.--Alhutch 08:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't know anything about it. I just always check things before voting. I think too many people make ill informed votes and it upsets the voting process. I did re-write the article a little though. But it does appear to be a very popular anime series. All of the google hits are about it. It has its own product range, at least 20 fan sites, is well and truly published. Rather than a speedy delete, it should be the opposite, a speedy keep. Zordrac 08:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - Just going to make another comment here. This article is a perfect example of the difference between a poorly written article and a topic that is of no encyclopaedic value. The article was terribly written (still is, really, its just a stub after my partial rewrite). But people voted on it because they didn't check. Simply google search finds it. Rather than a Vfd, it should have been asked for a cleanup and some stubs. Yet the first 4 votes were all for speedy delete. This says to me that we have to rethink how we go about the voting process, if this was nearly speedied. Zordrac 08:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think it was entirely wrong to want to speedy it since it qualifies under the no context category, and it was hard to figure out what to do a google search on when the article was almost complete nonsense. If people don't want their articles speedied, then they should write them according to Wikipedia guidelines. By the way, good job with the cleanup. :-)--Alhutch 08:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Well, just out of interest here, the article in its original form, was describing the latest episode, from what I could gather from the references. It was saying the latest thing that happened. Anyway, but the thing is that the topic is encyclopaedic. If it had been speedied, and then someone later on had created it, as a valid article, then it'd be deleted as vandalism (assuming that nobody thought to make a request for undeletion). IMO that's the problem. Zordrac 10:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Not so. If an article is recreated afteer a deletion, and it is substantially the same, ie, a recreation, it will simply be re-deleted. If the article is substantially different, it counts as a new article. Denni ☯ 05:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, just to comment on this. I created an article on Mediacrat a while ago, not realising that it had previously been deleted, and the content was entirely factual, something which was patently not the case in its original creation by a person who was trying to smear his name. The article was speedy deleted with no vote and I was warned for vandalism - in spite of not realising it had previously been deleted, and secondly creating an entirely different article, and one that was sourced. So its not actually true then. If I can be warned for vandalism for recreating an article that I didn't realise was deleted, for creating it in an accurate manner, and for creating it in a manner 100% different to the original article, then ergo what you say is plainly not true in practise. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    • comment What Denni says is true. that's why you're not supposed to use the db-repost CSD tag on a previously deleted article unless the content is exactly the same.--Alhutch 20:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep changing my vote after changes made by Zordrac to the article. This appears to be a notable anime series, and the article now makes sense.--Alhutch 08:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewritten version. I don't care a hoot about Manga myself but this seems to be notable enough. Personally, I prefer Viz instead of VIZ. — JIP | Talk 08:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Trollderella 21:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after rewrite, manga series by notable publisher. -- Creidieki 00:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep please now that it is rewritten erasing does not make any sense Yuckfoo 01:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multifunctional display (Orbiter sim)

This is a long article on how to setup and play a video game, including a lengthy list of all the keystrokes necessary to use the functions of the game. Wikipedia is not a video game guide. Delete •DanMS 04:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Orbiter is not a video game but a space flight simulator with a relatively steep learning curve. Please refer to Orbiter (sim) and related before making a claim like this0.39 19:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, it’s not a “video game.” It’s “computer entertainment.” •DanMS 04:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is also not a how-to guide in general. Superm401 | Talk 05:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed. It is rather a review of Orbiter add-ons available.
• Delete per nom. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but not per nomination: This is not a how-to on the sim but a product review of a feature of the sim. This is not encyclopedic content. Concepts central to computing are different from software available for computers, and Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.org (yes, I know: closed source...still). Geogre 02:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HEXUS

Vanity. Does not fullfill any of the suggestions for WP:WEB. Alexa ranks it [17,000] HackJandy 05:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB, unless more substantial evidence of notability provided. (Any print references?) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - so am I to understand that we are limiting ourselves, definitively, to a maximum possible of 10,000 articles about the internet? That seems a bit harsh. Remember, Alexa is the LAST RESORT to justify notoriety. It is not the only method. Its claims to being UK's largest technology news and reviews website assert notoriety. If its true, then keep. Needs verification to determine that. If that's true, its an auto. And this seems to be our verification. Zordrac 08:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, Alexa is the LAST RESORT to justify notoriety... Absolutely. Unfortunately, the other two guidelines are nowhere to be seen with this website. I had to default onto Alexa, and the article does not even satisfy that requirement. HackJandy 15:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Oh, and I forgot this snippet (same page): HEXUS reaches more than half a million unique visitors each month, who read more than four million pages of content.. Now, I will assume that it quoting these companies, with their logos asserts that what they are saying is the truth. If it wasn't, then they'd be sued. Ergo, verified. And half a million (500,000) meets the WP:WEB requirement of 5,000 unique visitors. And to think, this was a direct link off the article site... Zordrac 08:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No comment on the nomination, but the WP:WEB requirement is members, not visitors. -- Kjkolb 12:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment As with Kjkolb's comment, the 5,000 user requirement is for active forum members, not unique visitors. The information you pulled about unique visitors was from the HEXUS website as well, which does not really strengthen its case. I have not voted yet since I nominated, but I am moving twoards strong delete now. Furthermore... If it wasn't, then they'd be sued. Ergo, verified. If this was really true, we wouldn't be deleting 10 websites a day from WP. HackJandy 15:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. per Zordac (Notorious4life 18:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Delete. Does not hold any of the statistics mentioned in WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Let's go through them real quick for those voting to keep this vanity:

1. Having been the subject of national or international media attention within the last 2 years; -- From the Google Search, all of the 33 links provided are either from HEXUS themselves or from press releases.

2. Having a forum with 5,000 or more apparently unique members; -- Right from their webpage: Currently Active Users: 391 (84 members and 307 guests)

3. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better. This is only to be brought into consideration if no other means of justifying a website's article can be found. Alexa says 17,000.

The entire article reads like a press release anyway. For example: 'HEXUS has featured on Slashdot on several occasions and has been referred to by some as "The UK's answer to Anandtech".' Original research much? Of the four entries to the article, two are from me when I was adding the AFD tag. This is blatent vanity and non-noteable. HackJandy 19:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Love the malapropism "notoriety" used in this AFD. I'm sure we do list some notorious websites, though. Drudge Report, for example.—Wahoofive (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Trollderella 21:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per HackJandy. Non-notable site that doesn't meet the recommended guidelines.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 22:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn, per the above. Radiant_>|< 00:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad Kulmakhanov

Zero Google hits, appears to be either a completely non-notable politician or a hoax Delete abakharev 05:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. seems like a perfectly reasonable article. (Notorious4life 06:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Keep. Fantasy, hoax, whatever. I believe every word of it. keep the pictures too. •DanMS 06:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• See also the nonsense article below: Kazakh Societist Party. Same topic, same author Pinkspikes. •DanMS 06:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article and pictures unless reliable sources establishing notability (not just accuracy!) are provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Reliable article; not a prank. --Clay Collier 11:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dlyons493 13:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write it, I only cleaned up the pages. Pinkspikes 23:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• To the contrary, Pinkspikes. Read the history. You were the initial creator. •DanMS 04:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• This article is in serious need of references. If they cannot be provided by the time voting and discussion closes, delete. 147.70.242.21 01:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Dont delete, Muhammad is a good guy and just wants the world to know about him. He is strong as well as his wife. They are both strong and just want to be known. You people think you will achieve something by deleting there legacy and way of speaking to the world. That ladies and gentelmen is wrong (anonymous comment by 24.1.75.37, 06:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC))

• User 24.1.75.37, who made the unsigned comment above, was one of two contributors to this article and also was the author of Kazakh Societist Party, a related article which also up for AFD. This user is almost certainly Pinkspikes himself. Can an admin verify this? •DanMS 16:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• References definitely needed if that's the case. Frankly, I am skeptical of the legitimacy of the article, but Pinkspikes/24.1.75.37/etc. should take advantage of the lull and document every assertion along the way. If such documentation cannot be provided, speedy delete as a hoax. B.Wind 06:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kazakh Societist Party

This is complete nonsense and is absurd on the face of it. See also Muhammad Kulmakhanov on the same topic, also up for AFD and written by the same contributor, Pinkspikes. Speedy if possible. •DanMS 06:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete article unless reliable sources establishing notability (not just accuracy!) are provided. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Verifiability problems given no references provided and 0 Google hits. [27]. Capitalistroadster 10:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's very difficult to get online information in this area and there have been a lot of short-lived parties in the country. There's a fairly complete list in Azat party though and this doesn't appear. Dlyons493 13:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per DanMS abakharev 05:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

because it wasnt official sheesh we werent running for president (preceding unsigned comment by 24.1.75.37, 05:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC))

• User 24.1.75.37, who made the comment above, was the author of this article and is almost certainly one and the same as Pinkspikes. See this article’s history. The user’s only contributions have been to this article, the related article Muhammad Kulmakhanov, and associated images. •DanMS 16:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Northern League of Professional Hockey

This article appears to be outdated crystal ball stuff that seems to have never been fulfilled. Google search only reveals wikipedia mirrors and press release type articles dated 2004. —preceding unsigned comment by D-Rock (talk • contribs)

• comment definitely seems like the whole thing fell through, but I'm not confident enough in my efforts to vote delete. Peyna 06:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Not much on Google. If it really was a league that is now defunct, maybe a cleanup of the article saying that the league went belly up is more suitable. HackJandy 19:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I cleaned it up a little bit and added some information, none of which I have any sources for, so I disclaimed it with an {{unreferenced}}. If we can't source that or find out more about it, I say Delete. Also, their website [28] is defunct and no whois entry found. Peyna 20:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monkey jacket

No claims of fulfilling WP:MUSIC. Couldn't resist cleaning up article while nominating. brenneman^(t)(c) 06:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete garage band article unless and until they emerge on the national level and appear in print publications. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 21:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted content. Capitalistroadster 06:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nuggeting

A repost of NUGGET, which was deleted and changed to a redirect to Nugget. The talk page says "every time it is deleted it will be reposted". Then we simply have to make the article into a protected deleted page. Delete, non-notable neologism. — JIP | Talk 06:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's a simple Speedy Delete, isn't it? --Calton | Talk 06:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and in case you missed the last vote: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NUGGET Peyna 06:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as non-notable) --Nlu 08:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lamar White

For a "social critic, writer, and real estate mogul", he doesn't seem to get much in the way of Google hits, especially if you exclude those of the Lamar (Colorado) White Pages. Could it be...vanity? Delete. Calton | Talk 06:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as biography of 23 year old student. Non notable biography with no real assertions of notability. Capitalistroadster 06:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per Capitalistroadster.--Alhutch 07:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy - appears to be vanity, and vague vanity at that. B.Wind 07:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Capitalistroadster. Where are the citations from "numerous journals and webzines" that Lamar's work has supposedly appeared in, to establish notability? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as non-notable) --Nlu 08:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Shooman

Appears to be nonsense, no notability.--MONGO 07:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable bio. Possible speedy under CSD A7., but probably too much info. Harro5 07:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - appears to be a poorly-written "joke." B.Wind 07:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete likely hoax. Unsourced; the only link to any specific info doesn't work. Even if accurate, appears to be "unremarkable person" under SD criteria. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Roses

if this movie deserves an article we might as well start from scratch becuase this is hopeless. BL kiss the lizard 07:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless edited into at least a decent stub. This article for an actual film (Bienvenue chez les Rozes) is currently completely worthless, more of a blogger's complaint than an encyclopedia article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as above Pete.Hurd 21:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. (barring massive rewrite - there is nothing salvageable here, no reason to keep). --Bachrach44 21:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Enochlau 05:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Perloff

looks ike a vanity article. someones even added {{vanity}} to the bottom of it. BL kiss the lizard 07:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC) ok ill withdraw it. i was fooled by the vanity tag. he seems legit after all. BL kiss the lizard 11:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as vanity. B.Wind 07:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC) Article didn't indicate noteworthiness; additional evidence does...Keep. B.Wind 11:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not appear to pass the average professor test. Does not appear in Marquis Who's Who or the standard biographical databases. Gamaliel 08:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Apparently there was a database hiccup, as it appears Perloff is actually in Who's Who, and has been as often as Robert Novak. My apologies. Gamaliel 09:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The former President of the American Psychological Association is non-notable? I started this entry after finding a red link in an article, probably on intelligence. I have no connection to him, and I believe this guy passes all sorts of notability tests as described Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies/Academics here. This stub seems to need expansion, not deletion. I'm a little baffled by the deletionist zeal in this category. Jokestress 08:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The library here (Sydney University) has three copies of his book, which suggests that that publication alone is notable enough to warrant an article. -- Danny Yee 09:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I moved the inappropriate vanity tag to the user's talk page, which is where it's supposed to go. By the way, what is the "average professor test"? I tried a Google search limited to www.marquiswhoswho.com and a direct attempt at http://www.marquiswhoswho.net/robertperloff and got nothing either way, but neither could I find Robert Novak in this manner, and he's certainly notable. What other standard bio DBs do we use? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• As per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies#Alternative_tests: "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor...they can and should be included."
• I've never been to the Who's Who website, I access Who's Who online through my library. Robert Novak has appeared at least the last fifteen editions of Who's Who.
• My personal standard search is to run a search through the databases offered by my library, which searches dozens of standard reference works and directories. A full list can be found here. Gamaliel 09:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I just added references and links to two of the most significant collective statements put out by the field of psychology regarding race and intelligence. Perloff was involved in both and is widely considered one of the foremost experts on intelligence research. I remain puzzled that there is even a debate about Perloff's inclusion. Seems like a no-brainer. Jokestress 09:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I am puzzled that if he is one of the foremost experts on intelligence research, why isn't it a simple matter to find a reference to him that says "Perloff is considered one of the foremost experts in intelligence research"? Gamaliel 09:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The guy was one of 11 experts chosen by his peers to write one of the key consensus statements in the field, and one of only three people to sign both this and the Gottfredson summary. [29] [30] [31] Jokestress 09:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm convinced, but I still think the article should do a better job of reflecting his importance. Gamaliel 10:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Notability established. CalJW 10:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep APA presidents are notable enough. Grutness...wha? 10:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as per Jokestress. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 10:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. He's 1 of 11 APA 1996 Intelligence Task Force members and turns out to be in Who's Who after all (both good), but every other thing about him seems to be damning with faint praise (2 Amazon academic publications [32] [33] with no sales rank; 1 of 113 past APA presidents, which change each year; 1 of 50 signatories to "Mainstream Science on Intelligence"; web-posted articles in letters to the editor and local newspapers; interviewing Kenneth B. Clark on racism; etc.) I've voted down articles on websites, music groups, and other people with better evidence, but I concede that we can favor academics because Wikipedia values published information, and Perloff clearly has been a source of significant published information. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. C'mon, a president of the APA!? What's wrong with the nominator? (and generally with this anti-academic bias in nominations). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason to make this personal. Gamaliel 20:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I was being rhetorical in my question. But OK, I'll strike out the part you might think is personal. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. -- DS1953 05:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What is marketing

A nonsense article wanting people to buy a book. A hoax, or a copyvio, or a scam, or just spam. Whatever you want to call it, this is a certain delete (but unfortunately not really a speedy delete). Harro5 08:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete really long article which is probably a copyvio, but even if it isn't, still violates no original research policy. I say get rid of it!--Alhutch 08:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I would also say this looks a lot like a copyvio. --Spring Rubber 08:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. — JIP | Talk 08:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably copyvio of The Entrepreneur Network's "Marketing Basics" page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - even disregarding the copyvio issue, Wikipedia is not a "do-it-yourself" guide. B.Wind 09:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MSR Group

This is a self-acknowledged vanity page created by author User:Victorgrigas / User:Victor Grigas. [34] As the article says, "The group has not been prolific, and has not yet released a single album." The organization fails to meet any of the criteria set by WP:MUSIC. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If I could find a speedy deletion criterion to fit under, I would have speedy deleted it, but I can't find one. --Nlu 08:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - I can: vanity. See the next two entries, which were by the same author and have been speedily deleted. B.Wind 09:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • However, the current definition of vanity still refers only to individuals. (This might change; if you want it changed, please contribute further on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.) Since this isn't an individual, it doesn't quite fit. --Nlu 10:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I contend that (based on the User Page) because the author is a member of the outfit in question, it still fits the definition of vanity. It is certainly a solid argument for a speedy delete in this context. B.Wind 06:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete no releases, article portrays group as being obscure and unproductive. Pete.Hurd 21:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• do not delete! the group is obsscure and unproductive, but HAS been published in a magazine, all this is available at www.diabolical.org. If what is needed to keep it up is more content about the group, and about the other members of the group so as to eliminate vanity, then that can be written. (preceding comment by 206.222.35.101 23:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC))

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (as non-notable) --Nlu 08:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bubblegum Shitface

Part of a series of non-encyclopedic articles created by User:Victorgrigas. See also MSR Group and Rotten Milk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete because it's nonsense and it's all by one author, albeit on two similar usernames (unsigned by User:ParkerHiggins).

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (A1) --Nlu 08:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rotten Milk

Part of a series of non-encyclopedic articles created by User:Victorgrigas. See also Bubblegum Shitface and MSR Group. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 14:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TNFL

Article about what appears to be a personal homepage. Alexa has no traffic ranking for this website [35] Thuresson 08:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Well, google gives us 557 hits on what are some pretty unique terms, so that's a start. And it seems to assert that Alexa is irrelevant Before anyone knew what Internet was the list was spread through Fidonet and BBSes (bulletin board systems). and it asserts notoriety through this statement: it has now grown to be the largest and most reliable frequency list in scandinavia. Now that gives a question as to notoriety. But then are frequency lists notable? Frequency_list on Wikipedia suggests not. Therefore, even being number 1, in this obscure category, I am afraid means a delete. Zordrac 09:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It may be a notable website, but it hardly seems to be the "most reliable frequency list in scandinavia". Repeated attempts to go to the external link provided simply timed out. Google gives a different link, but that redirects to the apparently non-functioning "new" site. Could just be a technical glitch. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral - no links to the TNFL page outside of here. Maybe we should start with the term frequency list: is the term in the THFL article the same as the one in the Wikipedia? No, it isn't - the TNFL refers to broadcasting (radio) frequencies instead. B.Wind 09:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, this should be merged with the appropriate article in radio broadcasting in Europe, that is, if Wikipedia should go into radio/TV frequency lists (such as often done for the United States) in the first place. B.Wind 09:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, does not fullfill anything on WP:WEB. That does not mean an automatic deletion anyway, but pretty much all of the content on those pages are in Swedish. Maybe this belongs in Wikipedia, but not the english version. HackJandy 19:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia has an interesting article about radio frequency but I don't think that article needs an external link to a web site with a list of Swedish FM stations. Thuresson 14:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge to RuneScape. If you want to merge other monster articles, or delete them outright, a separate AFD is needed. Ral315 (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King Black Dragon

This article is about a monster from the online game RuneScape. While I personally am a fan of RuneScape, I do not feel that the subject of this article is enough. (See Wikipedia:fancruft, for instance). I would say delete or merge with the RuneScape article. --Ixfd64 10:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• delete gamecruft Pete.Hurd 21:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge As much as I hate runescape, merge. It's part of series of similar articles. Should go to runescape/kbd or some such nonsense--Ewok Slayer 22:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge unless article is somehow related to other concepts. Why does it seem so hard to make a decent article about a video game monster? Article could use information about this monster in the context of larger trends, rather than strategy that only applies to this game. -- Creidieki 00:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge I think that this article, the TzTok-Jad article, and all of the other RuneScape monster articles should be merged into one big article called RuneScape monsters.

--Dtm142 18:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge I think that the KBD, the TzTok-whatever he is, the Kalph queen, and some other high lvl NPC's in Runescape should be merged into a article regarding Runescape monsters, but having all monsters would be too large an undertaking, unless someone has the time to compile a bestiary. Fshy93 19:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Panda Xpress

Delete Not notable. Googling for "Panda Xpress" yields 293 hits and "Panda Xpress" +comic yields 213. Chelman 10:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment/question. What would qualify a web comic for inclusion in Wikipedia as "notable"? What would be the minimum for a "traditional" comic strip to be considered for consideration for inclusion?

Without a clear guideline, I must remain neutral. B.Wind 10:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment The guidlines for this are actually quite clear: WP:WEB.

Is a high/low Google search hit a valid criteria for the definition of 'notable'? 6 of the hits on the first page of Google search for Panda Xpress are relevant. The webcomic is notable because of its format which offers something different and firmly "untraditional". My opinion. YMMV. --Trishtrash 14:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The high/low Google search hit is only an additional criterium. The comic has only been around for a few months and it only amounts to 75 strips. THe strips aren't half bad, although they are far from great. I would think that maybe in a year's time when the comic proves its longevity it can be considered notable. I just simply don't think that just because something was published it is notable. I for one used to run a blog that was visited by more people than this comic.....does that warrant a Wikipedia article? Chelman 18:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worth allowing the entry time to grow into something 'notable' before crying for the entry's deletion? It does take time to type in thing like character summaries, history, storyline and whatnot. A wikipedia entry is a valid outlet for a webcomic, as evidenced by the existing entries for such 'cult classic' gems as Casey and Andy, Sluggy Freelance and Queen of Wands as well as the more mainstream webcomics like User Friendly and Penny Arcade. 67.168.36.17 16:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)Eleri, Queen Pimper of Panda Xpress

There is currently a discussion on notability of Web Comics taking place as part of the discussion on Websites. Peyna 17:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment possible trademark violation of the Panda Express restaurant chain. Durova 17:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Not likely; completely different markets. Besides, even if the webcomic did constitute a trademark violation, Wikipedia would not in any way be prohibitted from including an article on it, because Wikipedia is not using the trademark in any infringing way. Peyna 17:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity, non-noteable. Does not satisfy the requirements in WP:WEB or WP:CORP for automatic Keep. Phrases like "character-rich" leads me to believe this is vanity more than anything. HackJandy 19:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:WEB is a proposed policy, please make sure you state it as such when referring to it in any discussion. (This goes for the comment above by B.Wind some anonymous editor as well. Peyna 20:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Have made a minor edit to better highlight that which seems notable (at least to the author) about Panda Xpress. In order for the entry to be 'vanity', I'd have to be a contributor or at have a vested interest in the comic's success. Neither happens to be the case. --Trishtrash 22:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not withstanding my other comments on this page, not enough readership or notability to need an article on Wikipedia. Peyna 20:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per Peyna. FCYTravis 05:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I'm still unsure whether 'readership' is fixed as a policy for keeping a webcomic-related article... if I may put the system on trial for a moment here; an encyclopedia is where one turns for the obscure and interesting as much as the widely known (I came to Wikipedia looking for an entry on Panda XPress, and decided to start one when it couldn't be found) As a web-based resource, Wikipedia should be courting this natural turn-to position as an authority on everything within its own medium. 'Notable' may be up for discussion, but 'not enough people know about it' sounds like faulty reasoning for an encyclopedia entry. Again, my opinion only. --Trishtrash 10:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep There's enough unique about Panda Xpress' graphics, layout, story and characters, not to mention it being the first 'self-writing webcomic' (as referenced on "Digital Strips show 43" to make it noteable in its own right as an emerging webcomic, without needing a high readership.

• Keep 216.11.73.14 13:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki, and I believe most of the "delete" votes here should actually be considered transwiki votes. ComixPedia is a cousin of Wikipedia's that's dedicated to webcomics. It doesn't have an article on Panda Xpress yet - whether this article is deleted or not, fans of Panda Xpress should consider copying it to ComixPedia. — Haeleth Talk 17:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Additional Info

I took the liberty of copying from the Websites discussion as pointed out by Peyna. That page seems to publicize a public Wikipedia consensus. According to those guidelines this comic is not notable and should be deleted by default:

[edit] Webcomics

A webcomic's impact can be demonstrated by meeting one or more of the following criteria:

1. Meeting any of the General guidelines for websites;
2. Having an Alexa ranking of 100,000 or better. (This is less demanding than for a standard website because every visitor is a consumer.)
3. Having a printed collection listed at Amazon with a sales rank of 100,000 or better;
4. If a webcomic has been picked up by one of the large webcomic syndicates, it should be included. These include:
   • Keenspot
   • Blank Label Comics
   • Modern Tales and its sister sites: Serializer, Graphic Smash, and Girlamatic
   • Dayfree Press
   • Dumbrella
5. If a webcomic has won a significant award, it should be included. These include:
   • Eisner Award
   • Ignatz Award
   • Webby Award
   • Web Cartoonists’ Choice Awards

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape Members

This is about the pay-to-play version of the online game RuneScape. The game currently has over 500,000 paying members, and that definitely fits the criteria for notability. However, I don't see how the paid version of an online game would need its own article. I would say that it should be merged with the RuneScape article. --Ixfd64 10:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - already duplicated in RuneScape and not meriting a separate article. B.Wind 10:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - same as B.Wind. HackJandy 15:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as A1 short article with little or no context and probable G2 test page. Capitalistroadster 16:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Rennie

1. Delete - Non-notable person; later reedited to an almost blank page Rebelguys2 10:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Delete - As above Chelman 10:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Speedy delete on three grounds:

• • 1. It appears that someone was "practicing" their editing skills there instead of the sandbox;
    2. The topic of the "practice" had nothing to do with Daniel Rennie; and
    3. The entire current article says, "not begun."

B.Wind 11:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as having no claim to notability. FCYTravis 05:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Razumovsky

Non notable entry - may be advertising. Alexa shows no information at all, and Google shows zero hits Kevin1243 10:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as vanity/lack of notoriety/one sentence article. I think it will be awhile before people will getting articles here based on their Podcasts. B.Wind 11:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. This is just a podcaster. HackJandy 16:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Hall Monitor 20:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Starke

The contents of this article, as far as I can tell, are non-verifiable. It is also worth noting that the reference provided, "Australian Kick Boxing Monthly" retrieves 0 hits on Google. This page has been speedy deleted 3 times in the past [36] and appears to be a frequent target of vandalism. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and padlock - three speedy deletes in the space of 12 hours speak volumes. In addition, it appears to be a hoax, or a vanity article at worst. As it is, it's time for a very determined anonymous writer to have a time out (and I say that as I am overwriting vandalism by [37]). B.Wind 11:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• I disagree. Just because australian kick boxing monthly does not exist on google does not mean it doesnt exist. It could be a little known publication - and those that know nothing about kick boxing would obviously not understand. He deserves to be included on the grounds that he has represented his country at the highest level and I would hate to think that sporting discrimination existed on WikiPedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.2.157 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It "could be" a little known publication? You are implying that you don't know whether the source cited by this article actually exists at all. Uncle G 17:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per policy on AFD-deleted articles. Lock if allowed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Little verifiable references to "David Starke" kickboxing see [38]. A search of the Australia/New Zealand newspaper database comes up with nothing so Delete as unverifiable. Almost a speedy candidate as an attack page. Capitalistroadster 11:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 11:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• I don't believe it should be deleted - those posting for its deletion clearly do not know much about kick boxing. If the article needs to be edited because some here do not like its tone, then so be it. however its deletion is completely unnecessary as he is a celebrity of the kick boxing world. How is kick boxing meant to become a popular sport if it cannot even be publicised on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obs0lete (talk • contribs) 11:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a publicity vehicle. It is an encyclopaedia. If you want kick boxing to become a popular sport (which it already is, by the way), then the way to do it is, in part, to ensure that publications like Australian Kick Boxing Monthly popularize it, and thereby obtain a large enough circulation that other people can tell that they even exist. That does not involve Wikipedia. Uncle G 17:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as notability not established, and speedy and lock since this is obviously recurrent. Note to creator: there is an undeletion policy and a process for appealing deletions, repeatedly re-creating does not form part of that process. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Takumi Nishimori

nn bio/hoax. A look over the history shows that the editor(s) could not decide on this supposed hacker's pseudonym, his abilities or the name of his so called "undetectable" trojan. Delete! --BadSeed 11:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - if it's not a hoax or a vanity article, it should be speedily deleted for lack of context. B.Wind 11:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Hoax, patent nonsense. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 17:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom (Note Patent nonsense has a very specific definition, which this article does not meet) Pete.Hurd 21:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strawberrysoup

nn company/vanity delete BadSeed 11:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ranked 295,144 by Alexa. Clear vanity. Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn and vanity.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 13:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, non-noteable. Does not follow guidelines from [WP:WEB] HackJandy 16:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It used to be absolute vanity, now the author has blanked his own page. (Does that count as an admission?). Whatever it is, just kill it. --Bachrach44 21:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --RoySmith 02:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snowvale

A virtual holiday in an AdventureQuest online computer game. Not notable, delete as unenecyclopedic trivia or fan-cruft. jni 11:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• For something internet-related, it has way too few Google hits (177), most of which are unrelated. Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. A fictional holiday in a free online RPG? Oh yes, Britannica has dozens just like it. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into AdventureQuest if anything. HackJandy 19:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Trollderella 21:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Morton

non-notable vanity. Subject is apparently a semi-successful memory act; no doubt he can remember how many other such acts exist (although perhaps not, since he claims to be notable mainly for forgetting things). Biggest claim to fame is trying to remember Pi to 42,000-odd places and falling short by some tens of thousands. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Just about meets speedy criteria for non-notability. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as self-promoting vanity. Ifnord 15:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - verifiable. Trollderella 21:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Question: how do I verify the balance of the content, other than the failed record attempt? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 10:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 03:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Mentioned in a reliable news source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/63006.stm and is an interesting character. Crypticfirefly 04:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete May be an interesting character, but so is my Uncle Hector. nn-bio. Denni ☯ 05:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. His claim to fame got him on the BBC news website - and 'mentioned' is a bit harsh, he got a whole article to himself. So it's above the normal standard of vanity pages. That said, there are huge numbers of people have failed to break records, and huge numbers of people that have been on news websites as an 'oddly enough' story. Still, IMO, worth keeping to break up the identical articles on local buildings and roads. Oh, and also keep Denni's Uncle Hector if he has a BBC news article about him. --Last Malthusian 09:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oh come on! One article on a slow news day, saying that he failed to get anywhere close to the record? Have you never heard of Andy Warhol's "15 minutes of fame"? The balance of the article is functionally unverifiable. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 10:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's verified that he exists and that he's been noted as a humourous loser by external sources. Maybe it's unverified that he's a vaudeville act and has appeared on 'numerous' television programmes, but it appears far short of some guy making stuff up about himself. What tips the balance for me is that I actually enjoyed reading about the guy, which beats Jason Gastrich and his ilk. For me to vote delete on a subject I enjoyed reading about and has a claim to notability, if small in this overlarge world, would need much more than the fact he's only had '15 minutes of fame' (which is more than Big Brother contestants get). Really, IMO he seems noteworthy as the Eddie the Eagle of vaudeville, part of the grand tradition of British noble losers. --Last Malthusian 00:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, 15 minutes of fame is still not notable. Radiant_>|< 00:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interactive Web Resources

Spam/Advertising delete BadSeed 11:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• In simply terms (sic), it's spam. Fritter it away and delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam with a thin coating of original research.. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Mark K. Bilbo 17:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam with a side order of self-help. 147.70.242.21 23:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whitesides

This was created by Tom Morton as part of a vanity crapflood. It was NPOV'd to (more or less) "whitesides is the premier taxi service in Lancashire, established 1880". I couldn't verify "premier" so I removed it. I now find that I can't verify the date either, and the small number of google hits for "whitesides taxi service" are mostly not even about this firm. So I'd say it fails WP:CORP Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Reading the original this looks more like {{db-attack}} than promotion. A taxi service with a driver who keeps forgetting his pickups? A taxi firm with the motto "There's never one when you want one"? (I'm beginning to think this Tom Morton is hoax or attack rather than promotion, as well). Either way, delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I could not verify anything in that article. HackJandy 16:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment the only thing that seems verifiable is the existence of a taxi firm called "Whiteside" in Lancashire: http://www.yell.com/ucs/UcsSearchAction.do?keywords=taxis&companyName=whitesides&location=LANCASHIRE&Submit.x=13&Submit.y=6&searchType=classic Tonywalton  | Talk 10:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• delete as above Pete.Hurd 21:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per JZG  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 22:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ifnord 15:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Constellio

NN Harry Potter forum with 45 members and only 3 actual Google hits, the rest being mirrors or subpages. No reason to list it on Wikipedia seeing as how Wikipedia isn't a web directory and there's nothing to make this site worth including.Nezu Chiza 12:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete forumcruft, probably vanity. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as above Pete.Hurd 21:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aluin Levitation (2nd nomination)

This was previously (earlier AfD) deleted, and then recreated. User:Firebug AfD'd it again but forgot to make a second nomination. Abstain. — JIP | Talk 12:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per reasons in previous AfD. Is the contents substantially identical? If so it should be speedied and probably locked. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete previously deleted magic trick in development, crystal ball, unverifyable, creator misbehaviour, and use of the dreaded "utilize" word all in one. Be Gone! ... Hey Presto! Pete.Hurd 21:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I think it's different, but it's still not notable. If it's recreated again it should be protected. -- Kjkolb 17:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trevor John Majeski

Given that wikipedia does not know what Continental West All star team or the Joe Shea division (named after Joe Shea??) is, I think that the contributions of Trevor John Majeski to sports are not notable. Please correct me if I am wrong....--Aleph4 13:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — Appears to be a vanity page. — RJH 19:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN-vanity --Bachrach44 21:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: If going to school, participating in athletics and having a job made a person's life encyclopedic, then we'd all have an entry. Skeezix1000 18:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, defaults to keep. I was tempted to re-re-list this, since even after two trips through AfD, it got precious little participation, but I suspect it won't get any more attention the third time. If anybody feels stongly that this should be deleted, don't even bother with WP:DRV, just go ahead and relist it on AfD again. --RoySmith 02:20, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi-Mart

Not only is it not notable, but much of the text in the article is suspiciously identical to that of Hi-Living and Jeonja Land, which were added by the same user... wikipediatrix 04:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Though it appears to be a large enough operation to merit inclusion, the similarity to the other two entries you cite is reason for suspicion. Anyone out there know Korean (or know a bit more about Korean culture/business)? Jasmol 07:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe drop a note on the Wikipedia talk:Korea-related topics notice board? I haven't done so yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This AfD nomination did not gather enough votes for consensus. Relisting. Please add your comments below this line. — JIP | Talk 13:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI: here are the links to the 3 companies from quick searches:

• himart, founded 1999, definitely legitimate [39]
• jeonja land, founded 1988, definitely legitimate [40]
• hi-living seems to be an amway-type multi-level marketing scheme [41] [42]

the contents of the 3 articles do not seem accurate for any of the three companies.Appleby 17:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if sales and employee figures are verifiable Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saintfeld

Appears to be a vanity page - refers to a purely online sitcom for which a Google search reveals only 53 hits, only about 5 of which appear to be related to the topic and several of those are links to the wikipedia entry or syndications thereof. ThomasHarte 13:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete looks like attempt to advertise a small production of which the site itself says "may see the light of day.[43]" Mark K. Bilbo 17:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-noteable, vanity. Of the 53 Google hits, only a handful have anything to do with the show. HackJandy 20:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - copyvio. --JoanneB 22:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Helen brodie

Looks like a vanity page. It's even signed with "Lots of love, Helen", FCOL. Delete unless notability can be shown, and even then clean-up. — JIP | Talk 13:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• It is a copyvio of her web site see [44]. I am reporting it now. Capitalistroadster 16:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Consensus not reached. Keep. Enochlau 05:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yang Pan-hou

Does not appear to be very notable or encyclopedic, although claims to notability preclude a speedy. Stifle 14:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete no context. --Bachrach44 21:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is context, the article is just too brief. The second sentence reads: "He is responsible for the continuation of the so-called 'old Yang style' or 'first Yang style' of taijiquan." Taijiquan is an alternate spelling for Tai Chi Chuan, a Chinese martial art. Needs fleshing out and wikifying. This seems to be a notable person, discussed in online articles about the history of Tai Chi. See google results here --Qirex 12:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert ^{T | @ | C} 23:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Ivory Tree

Vanity article about blog with no Alexa ranking. Creator's only contributions are links to this blog in other articles. Lucent 08:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Article received only one comment after original listing on 20/11/05. I'm relisting now. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete According to whois information, the website was only created on 01-Sep-2005, which is hardly enough time to make it noteworthy enough. -- Bovineone 08:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. Almost no Google, nothing on Google news, and zero Alexa. Always willing to see evidence of notability presented, of course. - brenneman^(t)(c) 14:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --RoySmith 02:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wzgorza Warszewskie

Non-notable set of hills. Stifle 14:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. (Notorious4life 18:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC))

• Comment. I am actually vaugely familiar with this area. It should probably be merged with Szczecin though unless something more noteable can be added. HackJandy 20:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. Enochlau 05:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enda Cummins

Unverifiable; no such person appears to exist. Possibly a hoax associated with Clongowes Wood College. Demiurge 14:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as per nom. Demiurge 14:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Tonywalton  | Talk 14:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• This is an obvious hoax from a University College, Dublin URL that adds a lot of vandalism. I'm off to speedy delete it now. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau

[edit] Skoch

Article about a surname, does not appear notable. Stifle 14:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• THIS IS NEED TO KNOW INFORMATION!
  • Unsigned comment by User:Ignatius09.
• A rather uncommon Czech name. And an article about a name should not be a biography of one person with that name. Delete, possibly a candiadate for speedy deletion as per WP:DVAIN. - Mike Rosoft 18:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This belongs under Anton Skoch, but he doesn't exist according to Google. HackJandy 20:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. No claim to notability, if in fact the person exists at all. According to the article, the subject has written one book, “which is to this date unpublished by any publishing company.” Unpublished authors have no claim to notability. •DanMS 04:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Enochlau 05:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyber Monday

I tried to flesh it out a bit; however, this seems like a completely new term invented this year - I haven't seen a source anywhere. At the very least, I think at least a year (until next "Cyber Monday") is needed to see if it actually establishes itself as a real term. -Tejastheory 00:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Opposed. The term clearly exists in the media and popular usage today (cf. home depot advertising for cyber monday), which establishes it as a "real term" for the purposes of Wikipedia. Konekoniku 04:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete. Should be linked from Electronic Commerce though. --WhiteDragon 16:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete. This term is new, but I've heard it so many times that it's going to stick around for at least awhile. If nothing else, it will always be an interesting exercise in neologism.

71.244.133.88 16:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I heard it bandied about on the morning news - obviously fast gaining widespread currency. BD2412 T 16:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note - 702,000 Google hits, likely sticking around. BD2412 T 16:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to Black Friday. It's currently front-page on CNN.com, it was mentioned on NPR this morning, and google news otherwise finds 426 articles about it currently.
• Keep. I would support the merge with Black Friday's entry. It's been well used (as BD2412 points out) in media outlets this past week. It doesn't seem likely that the internet or internet shopping will go away anytime soon. Note: Cyber Monday, as NPR and others have explained is due to the fact people shop online from work on Monday because broadband access is not yet universal. With the continued decline of dialup and increase of cable/dsl it is likely that "Cyber Monday" will only remain as a historical term used for a short period of time. Could be that next year enough people have broadband at home (and don't need to use the resource at work) and the Cyber Monday effect will be greatly reduced.Jon@bostonist.com 19:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not a usual poster here, and I'm not sure if I'm posting correctly on this page - but I'm a television producer with the FOX owned station in Greensboro, NC. I've spoken with Scott Krugman, a PR guy with the National Retail Federation's website shop.org. Krugman told me the Executive Director of shop.org coined the phrase 3 months ago to describe a trend first noticed last year. I pressed Krugman about "Cyber Monday" being completely manufactured by the NRF. He says NRF is hesitant to talk about coining the phrase, because it doesn't want "Cyber Monday" to appear to be a "Hallmark Holiday." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.209.32 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. Trollderella 21:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - although coined very recently, its use is very widespread in the media, and it appears to have "staying power." 147.70.242.21 23:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. sganjam 23:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  As I have never heard of this term prior to this year, it seems like its some random term coined by the major retailers to have an excuse for a sale. I think wikipedia should take a stance against this and just merge it with Black Friday. The faster it dies, the better. We don't need more holidays to dilute the already diluted Black Friday Sale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.233.22.95 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone invented this last month; Wikipedia is not Urbandictionary. The merge of information to black thursday is reasonable, and it has already been done! D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 00:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment the term might be new, but mainstream media is using it quite frequently. I seem to recall 9/11 becoming a catchphrase fairly quickly as well. HackJandy 02:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, Mainstream media has adopted this (CNN, ABC, etc). Even if it is relative hype, the shear amount of search engine traffic seems to indicate that this at least deserves a recognition for existing. HackJandy 02:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, There is no reason to delete this article and every reason to keep.--152.163.100.202 04:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, But please make it prominent that this is a marketing term generated by a retailing group (see BusinessWeek link at bottom of article). It is hype, but worth keeping up so long as people know what it is. Otherwise, please delete or merge with Black Friday. Allenu 08:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, only because I've heard it so many times in the past few hours alone - it's certainly a neologism, but i've seen it everywhere from cnet and yahoo news to gizmodo and cbs news and usa today...a merge with Black Friday seems best, and the wikipedia page seems to be among the top 20 or so Google results janey the crazy 09:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, Cyber Monday is a valid term. While it was coined by marketers, it is becoming part of the vernacular, unlike many things on Urban Dictionary. However, I don't think it's deserving of an article of its own, so I feel that it should be merged with Black Friday (shopping). --Bhtooefr 13:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but don't merge w/Black Friday (shopping). It is a separate occurrance, and should be noted as such, marketing gimmick or not. Any rationale to move it to Black Friday because of it being a marketing gimmick is rather POV. --badlydrawnjeff 14:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's fairly new but that is the pull of the Wikipedia. What good is this place if we have entries over a year late?
• Keep needs to be up here if only to illustrate that it was somewhat of a scam 64.59.209.89 16:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - seems to be a term gaining fast notability - at least wait to see if it dies with this year. Barneyboo (Talk) 16:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, We were discussing this term at the office, and Wikipedia was the first reliable source we cound find on its origins. Even if it's not a real phoenomenon, it's a real phrase people use and the article should reflect that.
• Weak Keep or Strong Delete and Merge, I hadn't heard of it until a forum posting about a day ago, then a Slashdot article today. Regardless of the media/retailers picking it up, it just hasn't passed into common phrase yet. You don't hear everyone talking about Cyber Monday sales. Most of what you find online about it is people discussing this new term. I say it be merged with the Black Friday entry and put in a small section. Maybe if it gains more widespread usage...but for now. ^demon 16:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It was bandied about on the local news yesterday like crazy. It's a new term but it's clearly gaining currency quickly in the media. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Wikipedia should document all words possible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.76.33.241 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 29 November 2005 UTC (User's only edit)
  • No, no it should not. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As much as it is showing up in the press, people will look for an answer. --StuffOfInterest 17:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above reasons. Youngamerican 17:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete This is a flash-in-the-pan term that only has legs this year, because of an easily rebroadcast story in the media. It's a fake meme, based on the faulty assertion that shoppers are flocking to online sales after they return to work. No one has even substantiated that the phenomenon actually exists. This to me is a red herring marketing term that has no reality outside the stupid media story that generated it. This is especially clear from ludicrously dated use of cyber which itself is deprecated among the online community. Wikipedia should delete this one with extreme prejudice. Rcharman 17:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

cyber might be deprecated among the old guard of the internet, but casual internet users still use it (eg. cyber crime is used by government [45] and news now). --Interiot 18:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Rcharman, it is precisely BECAUSE this meme has grown so quickly and so fast that Wikipedia must address it. I for one only learned Cyber Monday was a gimmick from Wikipedia. Wikipedia can have urban legands and "false memes," as long is it debunks them. It's an important role for the pedia to play. 64.59.209.89 18:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Unfortunately this term has legs, and because of its...*sigh* notoriety we'll have to hear about it until the end of the year. We'll probably revisit this next year after they stop using it and be able to delete it then.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 17:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep...unfortunately it has notoriety. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The term exists and will likely not go away. As long as the article reflects the true meaning of the word and misleading history behind its adoption (as I think it does now), it should stay. 18:22, 29 November 2005
  • Comment Can it be proven that it will stick around? Other internet-coined turns have since gone the way of the Dodo (Information Superhighway anyone?). From what I can tell Googling it, most discussion seems to be of the "WTF, where did this term come from?" variety, as well as many news articles talking about this sudden new term. Therefore, I'm amending my vote to "Strong Delete and Merge" -^demon 20:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Black Friday (new term and it's not know if it will survive into the future) Broken S 20:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, as per StuffOfInterest.—thegreentrilby 20:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merging/redirect to Black Friday (shopping) will still allow people to type in "Cyber Monday" and see the merged blurb about it there. Though there are now news stories suggesting real numbers are confirming [46] that this year's Cyber Monday saw significantly increased sales, though I still think it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, as both news and companies have an incentive to hilight only the best sales figures. --Interiot 21:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • But "Black Friday" isn't "Cyber Monday," and the only relationship they have is that they're holiday shopping days. A merge makes no sense. --badlydrawnjeff 21:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It's a name taken from a already widely used name. It's trying to play off the popularity of Black Friday. That's the connection. That and the fact that they're so close together, apparently as this is now a holiday. -^demon 22:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't know what to say... they're clearly not the same actual day, but they're also clearly closely related. 2/3rds of news articles that mention Cyber Monday also mention Black Friday. [47] [48]. --Interiot 22:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The term is relevent even if in a historical perspecive of xmas season 2005. 12.20.127.229 20:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've heard this term no less than 100 times in the past 7 days - no matter how much Imay personally hate it, it's certainly catching on. --Bachrach44 21:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, mentioned by major news outlets, even if it looks like Buy Nothing Day will have to turn into Buy Nothing Month. Smerdis of Tlön 22:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Advertising, please do your homework, as Businessweek did, on the origin of the term:[49] BTW, searching for 'cyber saturday' or any of the other days of the week gives you millions of results as well. 131.107.0.73 01:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

did you even read the entry? The WP article reflects the same information as the businessweek article. What are you talking about? 69.142.21.24 01:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

NOW it does, and I'm happy about that. Keep the way it is.

Millions? Try thousands. Three orders of magnitude off. Even a much more restrictive search still gives 20× as many results, at least for what I checked. Weak keep for what it's worth. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-30 01:20:44Z

Interesting that you would just lie about the # of results for other days of the week. Try cyber+saturday or cyber+sunday (2.7-3 million hits on google) then come back. 131.107.0.73 21:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Lie? Hardly. You apparently do not know how to use Google properly. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-30 21:44:59Z

• Keep Quentin Pierce 01:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for posterity -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.21.24 (talk • contribs)
• Keep -- user:zanimum
• Keep 69.142.21.24 02:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Quadraxis 02:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep saw it on the news. We have a Black Friday article why not keep this. --Aranda ⁵⁶) 03:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Doboy

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning may be seen in this edit summary. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for completing that; my wireless pooped out right after I tagged the article. Delete vanity article on nonnotable DJ. Postdlf 02:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 05:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guillemots (band)

• Delete - non-notable. Andy Mabbett 12:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete from me too, for the same reason. One self-released single, no significant press attention as far as I can tell. --Brumburger 14:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria -Nv8200p talk 17:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Pity, as it's a great name for a band! Keresaspa 18:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge into Gold Belt Byway --RoySmith 02:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phantom Canyon Road

If deleted add something to gold belt byway article about it...

• • Delete - non-notable Denni ☯ 02:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Perhaps merge with the page for the canyon. Makhnono! 15:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Gold Belt Byway. 147.70.242.21 23:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 04:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Super scuba diver Tuna

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable web comic. Only one year old and doesn't seem to meet any of criteria at WP:WEB. Superm401 | Talk 14:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't seem to be a webcomic, but perhaps a game? That may exist sometime in the future? Delete. as per vanity. Makhnono! 16:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Consensus not reached. Keep. Enochlau 04:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Golf

Putting up for AfD. Seems like some kind of joke. Maybe should be speedy delete.

• DELETE - not enough evidence that this is a category which has wider support than those who wrote the page. Grroin 01:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• I suggest an edit/delete of 'terms' which seem to be a joke. This is a real activity.
• Before deleting please check the following. We all play urban golf. This article WILL evolve: Warren Ptera

http://www.nori21.com/ http://www.turbogolfer.ch/ http://www.urbangolf.fr/ http://www.urbangolf.ch/ http://www.19mtrou.com/ http://www.urban-golf.org/ http://www.sgcgolf.com/ http://www.naturalborngolfers.com/2005/ http://www.urbangolf.org/

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 04:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WWEEKEND

Completely non-notable gathering. Parts could be considered an attack page. Delete --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 14:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unadulterated nonsense of the finest quality. chowells 14:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a textbook example of a vanity article. Demiurge 15:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Its a pity, the writer of the article probably spent a bit of time working on this article. Or not. Croat Canuck 17:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Ah, I'm sorry. I onoly wrote it because I had a rfee afternoon at college. I was very bored and I needed something to write about. It is a pity because it took something like an hour to write. It is unadulterated nonesense of the finest quality because I really wasn't taking my time with how truly disturbing The Hunt's actions were. Also, this was supposed to be the start of a campaign to get The Hunt booted out of our media class. Come on, people, it's just a laugh (well, for those who were there, anyway). Delete it if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.39.249 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-29 08:36:01 (UTC)

• Delete?. Having said that, what does it matter if it's just a group of 17 year olds discussing with others in the college about an entertaining night. This thing, this WWEEKEND, is nothing and shouldn't even be relevant to you higher powers. Just leave it alone and ignore it, and it'll go away through the slow decay of time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.39.249 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-29 08:38:46 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G7, author has voted "delete" twice above. — Haeleth Talk 17:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; editorial decision taken to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 02:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soldier Side (song)

Article about a song, not notable per WP:MUSIC. Stifle 14:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge. No deletion required. Trollderella 21:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Information in article is already present in Hypnotize (album). Delete.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 03:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. No source for it being based on the Armenian Genocide. The meaning of the song is probably literal (i.e. "People on the soldier's side, there is no one here but me.") --Tom 20:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Save Even though it's a rather small article, with some time, it can be built into a decent article about this song, although then again, it's serving it's purpose already, we know it's the finish of Soldier Side from SOAD's last album, Mesmerize. So let's keep it! -Joe Sakariath
• Delete random nn song from an album.  Grue  16:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Just make it a stub!

• Merge anything interesting into the album article. — Haeleth Talk 17:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 04:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incrementally

Completing AfD nomination by User:195.10.5.6 --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - dicdef --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. Demiurge 15:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -Just a definition. Makhnono! 15:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 04:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ModernBill

Advertisement for non-notable company. --S.K. 15:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, possibly move to ModernGigabyte. Google seems to think that the company is somewhat notable. -- timc | Talk 17:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - ModernGigabyte doesn't exist, and this page is nothing but spam anyway. --Bachrach44 21:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 04:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Hagan

Looks, smells, sounds like a hoax. Appears not to be a candidate for speedy deletion. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:01, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — No google hists for "Dan Hagan" IAD recordings. Non-neutral vanity; presumably a hoax per nom. — RJH 16:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This pushes back the boundaries of the mundane to new and unexciting levels. But it's nice to hear that he and Irfan are still FREINDS. Peeper 16:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What?? You think I write this shite? (Joking, duh...) — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability asserted but not verified. Two Google hits for his supposed album "Daniel Hagan" "Me and Him" neither of which inspires confidence [50].

12 year old claimed to be a pop star. Capitalistroadster 16:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly a hoax. -- timc | Talk 17:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. --Metropolitan90 17:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 09:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jody Dobrowski

Non notable individual. 217.41.241.203 16:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Article needs to be expanded to establish notoriety (or lack thereof). For the time being, weak keep conditional on a rewrite. 147.70.242.21 23:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete these kind of crimes happen all the time and there's nothing in the article to set this one apart from any of the others. JCFTaylor 01:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Other than being murdered, no assertion of importance, and sad to say, being murdered is pretty ordinary these days. Denni ☯ 06:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep as a diambiguation page. Enochlau 09:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Growth

Dictionary definition Nv8200p talk 16:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• This is a stub for a topic we don't have but need. I was intending to write more at some point but people have asked me to work on some other things. Don't delete it. alteripse 17:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is more than a dictionary definition, and it definitely has potential to become more encyclopedic. -- timc | Talk 17:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Turn into a disambig page pointing to the various article on biological and economic growth. - SimonP 18:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Disambig per SimonP. BD2412 T 21:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Growth article need to grow.--Ewok Slayer 23:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a disambiguation page. Already "What links here" shows almost 100 links. -- DS1953 05:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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