Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< November 5 November 7 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] November 6

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 articles. - Mailer Diablo 01:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PS2 G.O.T.Y 2004, Microsoft XBOX G.O.T.Y 2004 and PC G.O.T.Y 2004

Unneeded lists RadioActive 11:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unverifiable pointless POV and combines gamecruft and listcruft in one package. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't unverifiable or necessarily POV; they're the GOTY lists from Gamespot. (There's even a link at the bottom.) That said, it's pointless listcruft, and should be deleted. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; a link is already in the page of Game of the Year, so no need to merge. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Series of Unfortunate Events libraries

As far as I can tell, this is a fancruft list concerning a series of children's books. It doesn't seem to have any real function, and is certainly not encyclopædic. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete (to keep things clear). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 16:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivia. Gamaliel 17:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft. *drew 22:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft indeed. Zoso 12:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just looked up the defintion of "Fancruft" and this is a great example.
  • Delete - or merge with another article on Lemony Snicket? I confess to a very small fondness for trivial minds...Her Pegship 06:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 23:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Air Force ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation

The legislation of the Russian Federation does not institute a separate rank system for the Air Force, which is not a separate service as in the US and the UK. There is separate system for deck ranks, but even then branch services such as aviation, artillery, sapper, medicine, justice etc. use ground troop's rank system, even though their uniform is a naval one [1]. See Talk:Fleet Admiral of the Russian Federation --DmitryKo 19:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. --DmitryKo 19:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per well-argued nomination. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, because although the actual ranks are identical, the uniforms and rank insignia of the Russian Army and Air Force are different enough to warrant seperate articles. Saberwyn 23:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Once again, these are not separate services but rather branches of the ground forces. Any differences can be explained in corresponding articles for all-forces and deck ranks. --DmitryKo 12:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm with DmitryKo here. Given they are the same ranks and branches of the same force, which appears not to be indispute, then differences in insignia can easily be dealt with in the main article. Otherwise there will be substantial duplication between the two, plus a tendency to mislead by implication. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Saberwyn. Xoloz 07:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Saberwyn. 14:30, 7 November 2005 (EST)
  • Keep This is why I hate this site. As much work as I put into this, and you even think about putting this article for deletion? THERE IS NOTHING WROND WITH THIS ARTICLE - ALL RANKS ARE UP TO FORMAT, and as far as I am concerned THERE ARE SEVERAL RANK ARTICLES ON THIS SITE - THERE IS NO REASON TO DELETE THIS! 65.35.197.181 00:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Saberwyn. Prodego talk 02:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no reason for this article to merit deletion. --Stux 02:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • merge all soviet rank articles into Military ranks of the Russian Federation, the images dont need to be so big either.  ALKIVAR™ 05:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Although air force uses all-forcess ranks it is still a sepporate branch as it is even said so on russian ministry of deffense website. And we should wright about al this not existing ranks in the article without putting them in table. --DimaY2K 19:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Tew

NN except for The Million Dollar Homepage. Unless he does something else noteworthy, maybe. Delete. -- Perfecto Canada 01:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The subject is not notable per se. All information in this person is covered in the article The Million Dollar Homepage, which has been deemed notable by the Wikipedia community by virtue of surviving AFD. ♠DanMS 21:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 21:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. *drew 23:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Ben Isa

Delete. No information at all. 141.157.203.65 02:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Empty page..Dakota t e 02:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; the article does not provide much information, but can be useful anyway. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep; though it needs expanding - but the guy was notable and important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juicifer (talk • contribs) 01:20, 7 November 2005
  • Keep interesting historical figure. Dottore So 10:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep as above Pete.Hurd 21:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -Doc ask? 21:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alun rhys jones

I put this up on the suspicion that the contents are nonsensical. Google gives 83 hits for various Alun Rhys Joneses but none seem to be relevant Tintin 17:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain Tintin 17:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as insult page under A6. This is nothing but an attack on its subject. Capitalistroadster 17:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as per A6. Deltabeignet 19:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete; insult. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 20:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew theory

Idiocy that should be deleted as original research. 66.191.124.236 05:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No relevant Google hits; this is a original research, if not outright nonsense -GTBacchus 05:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. *drew 06:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --anetode¹ ² ³ 06:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone else. — JIP | Talk 08:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. it's clearly been put in as a joke... GhostGirl 10:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Patent nonsense. Not even BJAODN material. Can it be speedied as nonsense? Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/Speedy delete. This is not patent nonsense as that term is defined on Wikipedia. A speedy criterion that I would argue applies is G3, as this is really silly vandalism ie. a joke article. encephalon 16:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Update: I have tagged it as such. encephalon 16:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andúnë

Dicdef in elvish language! Unsigned by User:Jnothman

  • Ha! What's elvish for Delete? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A sufficent quantity of orcs probably has that effect. Ben Aveling 07:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What's the elvish word for Delete? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete wórthlëss fáncrůft. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. encephalon 16:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ariadna Project

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC, Allmusic has not heard of them, first album released in 2005. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bimby the Street Peddler

This is apparently a fictional character in a non-existant book by a non-existant author, as a look at the deleted edits for protected page Dita & Glennard indicates. —Cleared as filed. 16:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Would this qualify for Speedy under G3? -- JLaTondre 17:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity character. *drew 22:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, not notable. Thue | talk 21:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Jordan (Scientist)

  • Someone let me know about this today, and I didn't create or ask for this to be made. I'm certainly not notable enough to have a Wikipeida article ;-p. Please Delete. --Bcjordan 01:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be a vanity page. No other contributions by user. Claimed achievements not significant. [2] Regards, Ben Aveling 03:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

NN bio of 18-year-old scientist. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This article is completely legitimate. See here or here. --64.252.2.112 03:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neither of those links demonstrate the notability of the subject of this article. —Cleared as filed. 03:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 04:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nomination ERcheck 05:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, winning a science fair for high-schoolers doesn't make someone a scientist. Gazpacho 06:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a scientist, not notable. Science fair semi-finalist is not a prestigious scientific award. Average Earthman 08:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nomination GhostGirl 09:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not noteworthy enough to satisfy articlespace policy. encephalon 16:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - This should've been speedied. And if Mr. Jordan's friend continues to be personally abusive, I'll be asking to have his IP address blocked. -- Robster2001 19:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC) (edited by me at 03:20, 7 November 2005)
Agreed. I've now tagged it db-bio. Ben Aveling 21:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, 18-year-old scientist? puh-lease dr.alf 23:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British diplomatic peace proposes also political struggle between Toho Kai and Kodoha groups in 1942

Incoherent title and content. This appears to be about the role British peace negotiations arguably played in creating conflict between rightwing political groups in 1942 Japan. The same topic is already covered, coherently, at Imperial Way Faction#Hideki Tojo succeeds as party leader.

The duplicate at British diplomatic action and political movements in Japan during 1942 ought to go too. Tearlach 20:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Oh my! This is close to acquiring a full set of tags! Anyway, delete per cogent nomination. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 20:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete /merge if there is any info missing from the other article, that can be extraced and made readable. Bjelleklang - talk 22:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination dr.alf 00:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. BD2412 T 05:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete. Wow, it's like somebody ate a history book and then threw up. Andrew Levine 07:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there no way we can keep this beautiful example of Spanglish, perhaps in BJAODN? Aecis praatpaal 10:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was redirected to Musical theater. - Mailer Diablo 01:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Broadway musical

Seems to be an incomplete portal in the main namespace. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 23:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --JAranda | watz sup 00:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burning vision

A company that does not reach notability. Delete. -- SoothingR(pour) 14:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep & cleanup, mentions MTV and Destiny's Child, they've also made a feature film, some television adverts amongst other notable things. — Wackymacs 14:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have wikified and cleaned it up, though more context and the company logo could be added. — Wackymacs 15:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is obviously notable enough. Gerrit CUTEDH 09:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a fast rising company of some note. Katzkane 10:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the company have produced numerous music videos and have a feature film being released early next year. Sonnymonte 12:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by RHaworth. --GraemeL (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canberra gorillas

It's a joke page. And it's a recreation of an earlier one by the same name. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I've speedied it as it's a recreation of an earlier deleted page.--chris.lawson 08:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --JAranda | watz sup 00:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Thacker

Bio of questionable notability. Does being a convicted criminal make one notable? ERcheck 07:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Bio of a real person, not "notable". Convicted criminal. Nothing in his appeals make his case stand out from others. ERcheck 07:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This person committed a crime that was judged to be so henious that they need to die for it. We already have many articles on people who have been executed - Brian Steckel, Melvin White, Hastings Wise, Luis Ramirez, Ronald Ray Howard, Alan Matheney, John W. Peoples, Jr., Marlin Gray, Willie Williams just to name some of the people who were executed in the United States since September 2005. Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral Weak delete. We shouldn't list every executed criminal, just the interesting ones. And sorry EM, but I don't find the article an interesting read. If it were, I'd probably feel differently. It doesn't explain to me what makes this person more interesting than all so many other executed crims. Ben Aveling 08:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The article has been polished a bit, and I'll agree, is borderline notable. Ben Aveling 21:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I'll admit that my prose isn't fantastic (I'm an astronomy student, not a English major), but you should be looking at the topic, not the content of the article in deciding if it is worthy of an article on Wikipedia. The death penalty is a controversial issue in the United States, and every execution receives coverage in the national news media. I'd be interesting to know how we would decide who is "interesting" or not? Multiple murders? Rape involved? Children? Evil Monkey∴Hello 08:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Try Wikinews. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
You go tell them that at 2005 French riots.  ;-) But I agree, wikinews would be a good place for an article about this. Ben Aveling 02:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
What about this man's death, more then so many others, sheds light on the death penalty debate? You chose this man deliberately, yes? So I assume there is something special about him. Now maybe it's just that he is somehow special to you. If that's the case, you should be creating knowledge; put down your feelings and post that as a blog, or to your local paper, or to a relevant mailing list. If he is or should be special to us, then tell us why! Either way, write from the heart, not the head. We can fix your prose, but we can't inject spark if there's not life to begin with. Good luck. Ben Aveling 09:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The reason I chose him is that he is the next person to be executed in the United States, with his execution scheduled to be on 9 November 2005. Evil Monkey∴Hello 18:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment - a quick google finds the claim that "3,581 offenders were under sentence of death in the United States as of December 31, 2001". This seems too many to warrant separate articles on all of them. A summary page may perhaps be more appropriate. Average Earthman 09:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • comment on the comment - I venture the opinion that the vast majority of the 3581 will die of old age; I think EM is on to something that a real encyclopedic-like purpose could be served in chronicaling the facts behind and about the relatively few that are actually executed (and their victims, I would add).
  • postscript to comment on the comment Capital_punishment tells us that there were 59 executions in the US last year, about 3X the number of hurricanes. At that rate, 60 years would be required to clear the backlog of condemned prisoners. FRS 04:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I doubt being in the death row is a case for notability itself. Case does not stand out from others. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza
  • Weak keep I personally don't see a reason to have biographies of random murderers who are sentenced to death, there are so many murderers and they don't seem special to me. However, a number of the murderers Evil Monkey lists above are no more noteworthy than Thacker, and it would be inconsistent to keep them and delete this one. I am not suggesting that we should keep an article that merits deletion just because other articles that might merit it didn't get nominated, just that the continued existence of so many articles on 'ordinary' murderers suggests a consensus consistent with keeping the Thacker article. GhostGirl 13:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This person is not just any convicted murderer. He is the next scheduled execution in the United States. I'm not proposing that we start writing articles on every death row inmate, just the ones that are actually executed. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. Evil Monkey∴Hello 18:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Information is verifable and notable. —Cleared as filed. 18:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, very notable death row inmate, next scheduled execution in U.S., likely to be in news a great deal, people should be able to find information on him in Wikipedia. Babajobu 18:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hardly committed a notable crime. Bio reads like the actual newsstory. --InShaneee 23:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep appears notable, but in need of cleanup. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing to delete following further investigaiton; I smell a soapbox. I agree with InShaneeee. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Wikipedia is not a collection of everyone who gets executed in the US. I don't even think that a list of executees is required either. dr.alf 00:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep A very close call, imo, but the information in this article is verifiable and notable enough for me. If the PoV was slanted to make a point or the article was posted from some anon IP my opinion would probably be different. It's also a telling point that the article's subject is not just another convicted murderer but is someone about whom a lot of press coverage is inevitable as his execution date nears. FRS 00:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't know why people continue to laud the murderer and ignore the victims.Ryoung122 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Individuals executed by the state are notable both as the subjects of significant media attention around their execution date, and as part of a major public policy debate in the United States. -- Seth Ilys 05:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with Evil Monkey and Seth Ilys.-gadfium 05:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Question Are we allowed to keep for (say) one month, then reconsider deleting? Ben Aveling 06:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Charles Thacker has now been executed. I'm not sure if there will change anyone's vote. Evil Monkey∴Hello 04:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment - no change to my vote. If someone deems his execution noteworthy enough for Wikipedia notice, the appropriate place would be List of people who were executed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ERcheck (talk • contribs)
  • Delete a non notable murderer, come on! shouldn't even be considered to keep--Westernriddell 06:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • User's only edits are votes on six AFDs yesterday. Evil Monkey∴Hello 19:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Definite Keep - this is a newsworthy event, it received adequate coverage, and his appeal set a certain standard for the application of the death penalty. There is no question that he and all others executed should have at least a basic article about them, if only for the crimes they committed. We are cataloguing all of the human experience. Danny 13:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Satisfies the criterion of being more notable than Koga (Pokémon). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-10 14:20
  • Keep. The purpose of Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia" and that means that certain topics are going to be able to be kept updated and included than in the "Encyclopedia Brittanica" or what not. Also, if the Thacker article is cleaned up, and more research done on the man, the crime, and whatnot, then it could be a valuble asset down the road. Further, I like to see biographies on such things, if for nothing else than to give an understanding as to why the individual was put to death, what the individual's last meal, and last words were. Remember, an insignificant peice of data to us, down the road could be vital in the understanding of the future.Soldan 16:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Soldan. Andres 19:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Danny and Soldan. Why? Because if this encyclopedia is to cover such important topics as criminology and penology then this kind of data is useful now and is going to be only more useful in the future, when someone might really want to go back and explore the death penalty in the U.S. We have precious little knowledge of why people were put to death in 19th century America, let alone, say, ancient Egypt; think of how important that kind of material is historically and sociologically. As Brian0918 suggests, this is more important than some other entries, such as the score of every cricket match played in England. Bruxism 20:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I suggest we have consensus to keep. Ben Aveling 21:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chief Marshal of the Air Force of the Russian Federation

Rank doesn't exist, article created by the same user as per Air Force ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation. See Talk:Fleet Admiral of the Russian Federation --DmitryKo 20:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. --DmitryKo 20:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Accepting the authority of DmitryKo supported by a cursory Google. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Provisional delete, provided the rank indeed doesn't exist. If it does exist but hasn't been "awarded," then keep but expand. Aecis praatpaal 00:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete although V. Molotov created the Air Force ranks insignia article, Roitr created the latter. 65.35.197.181 22:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the rank does not not exist. Air foce uses all-forces rank, so the rank of Marshal of the Russian Federation is used for all branches.--DimaY2K 13:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 rewritten article. - Mailer Diablo 01:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chindia

dictionary definition. -- SoothingR(pour) 15:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete neolog Ashibaka (tock) 17:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Now that it's been expanded, no vote-- I'm not one to know whether this is widely used or can be more than a dicdef. Ashibaka (tock) 05:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This term is actually in use as Sino-Indian relations become more friendly and their economies grow. Punkmorten 18:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The issue is not use; the article does not provide information that qualifies it as an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Deltabeignet 19:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Keep; no longer a dicdef. Deltabeignet 21:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikictionary; seems to be a somehow widespread neologism. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC) No more a dictionary definition now. The content is worth an article -- not completely sure the title Chindia is appropriate, but it can be moved later if necessary. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 09:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - "the article does not provide information that qualifies it as an encyclopedia article". It may not at the moment, but has the potential to. It is a common terminology in economics and general finance. Deano 20:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef of a particularly ghastly neologism. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I've just expanded the article to talk of the context as to why "Chindia" has become important. Categories need to be added yet. While Sino-Indian relations looks at the entire gamut of relations from a historical perspective, this article (in the expanded form) primarily looks at the scope and progress in economic synergies between the country. The popularity of the term "Chindia" is another reason for my "keep" vote.--Gurubrahma 01:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - The revised article is more than a dictionary definition and qualifies as an encyclopedia article, in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for the new version. Tintin 19:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--Pamri • Talk • Reply 14:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep – interestingly enough there was a "chindia" map on commons: a few months back. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect to Sino-Indian relations as neologism, but somewhat in use.
    -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 23:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rx StrangeLove 15:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] City of Port Louis

An article on this subject already exists at Port Louis Ebz 11:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Costa rica vacation

Hard to tell what it is, I'm not sure it's even a speedy! In any case, any salvageable content would likely be redundant with Costa Rica anyway. Wcquidditch | Talk 01:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete with no merge per nomination. Wcquidditch | Talk 01:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the spam. I've deleted the link from the bottom but I still see no redeeming value. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. Agreed: neither merging nor redirection is merited. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. HGB 23:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creepabilly

Self-invented genre with 146 google hits. Punkmorten 18:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Customizing Nokia mobile phones

Possibly un-encyclopedic. RadioActive 07:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, the entire article only consists of external links. — JIP | Talk 08:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just exlinks. Gazpacho 08:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, HOWTOs don't belong here anyway. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; the topic itself is notable, but the current version of the article is only a list of external links, explicitely mentioned in WP:NOT. I agree an HOWTO does not belong here, but I think that a really encyclopedic article on the topic could be written. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 22:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete poor attempt at a howto, which woudl have no place here anyway. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. All the reasons have been said already. 14:29, 7 November 2005 (EST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CyclePat

  • Delete. Vanity page written by CyclePat himself. Non-notable. A shop that has a prototype and that is it cannot really be considered notable. Also, it's advertising and a personal essay, not an encyclopedia article. On the talk page, CyclePat claims that he's part of the movement to get PABs registered for road use in Ontario. The problem is that, that doesn't show notability since the PAB movement in Ontario isn't even notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Delete please. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP - "produces on a small scale, 1 to 2 electric motor assisted bikes a year." - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 13:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 14:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination GhostGirl 15:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Like the MMIC (motorcycle and moped industry council) or like (amenesty international) CyclePat promotes equality rights, educational material, legal advice, and on the side CyclePat's is developing / (has produces) it's first prototype PAB through much R&D. This is a imerging company, that is politically inclined, profiding free legal council to residents all over America, ensuring prompt and fair trials (to users of such vehicles), developing policy for larger organisation such as the "electric vehicle coucil of Ottawa", or the "Cycle Ontario Alliance". The influence of CyclePat's has been notable in the Ottawa municipal government by it support in the creation of a letter to the ontario government for supporting the use of PABs (for on road) in Ottawa. Essentially recognizing such vehicles in Ottawa. This article could be a sub-article of electric bicycle laws or manufacture. --CyclePat 17:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Um, Pat? "Emerging company" = not notable. If you are just growing and emerging now, the shop isn't notable. Could you see an encyclopedia like the Brittanica or even a bicycle encyclopedia listing an "emerging company"? I can't. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 17:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • comment: Has been in business for more than 10 months, making a notable presence in many other organisation and the government. Also may I suggest those that are voting take a look at discusion of the previous attempt to speedy delete. I believe I expressed my opinion that woohookitty is taking this as a personal crusade because he's mad at the edit war that exist at electric bicycle. --CyclePat 17:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Um Pat? Your article is a vanity article. It was written by you to promote your shop. That defines vanity. There is no notability here. You've built one bike and it's only a prototype. The spelling and grammar in your article is awful. This has nothing to do with an edit war. Besides, see those votes up there? Those are people who have nothing to do with the edit war and yet they believe that the article is non-notable and vanity. I'm not mad at you. If I was mad at you, then why do I keep trying to help you? That has nothing to do with this. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 18:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I have no prior interest whatsoever. I judged the page by its "merits" according to published criteria (e.g. WP:CORP and WP:VAIN). The verdict is clear. There are many companies which have been in business more than a whole year and which have more than one example of their product, they are still not notable. If you want to see the path to notability from a garden shed one-by-one cycle making business check out Brompton Bicycle. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 18:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Never heard of brompton Bicycle, learn something new everyday. What makes this company notable?--CyclePat 20:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly agreed. No prior interest here either, but being in business 'more than 10 months' isn't a claim to fame. Noone is saying this venture isn't good, just that it's not had the impact required to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Previous edit wars are irrelevant, the article will stand or fall on its own merits according to published criteria. GhostGirl 18:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Let me remind everyone that it is easily possible on wikipedia to make sock pupets to place a vote. And let me also remind you that the "importance" and influence of the company is a key issue at stake. (not how long you've been in business) Segway is a pretty new (imerging) company . Again, the social political importance is something to take into consideration. We wouldn't delete Place d'Orleans or Paradigm Electronics. Perhaps we might remove any bias information but deleting these articles seems hardly reasonable. The same for CyclePat. I believe that it is a manufacturing company that has much influence. (It's seems like woohookit has brought this subject on going from extreme measures (fast delete) to gradually less extreme (delete)) Perhaps this article only needs some discussion to clarify any miss-understandings? --CyclePat 20:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC) --CyclePat 21:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Finally I would like to say that: Notability is not necessarily wiki policy procedure for the deletion of an article. (see this--CyclePat 21:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Uh huh. And which part of WP:CORP -- the relevant guidelines -- does it fall under?
  • Delete. Minor company, at best. --Calton | Talk 01:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promoting vanity, sock-puppet accusation in this case absurd. CyclePat: A little less talking and more listening would help. If your company sells 10 million bicycles, then we'll see. Ryoung122 01:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promo. Allow this and you are on the way to AdWikiPedia the Online Directory of Every Company in the Cosmos, written by that company and for that company. It's great, but it's not encylopaedic. Gonegonegone 17:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; vanity, nn minor company. MCB 08:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rx StrangeLove 15:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Dancer

Doesn't seem notable, sounds like nonsense to me. I tried looking for related context on Google and could not find anything related to it. Wackymacs 14:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Sounds like someone's been drinking too much strong tea. . . Anville 18:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment Certainly smells like a hoax. The original author, User:Skysmith, seems very active in creating/editing biographies of unusual people. I'll put a note on his talk page asking for a verifiable source. Pete.Hurd 21:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Greetings. Sources for Daniel Dancer are definitely lacking. I got my info from a Reader's Digest book "Facts & Fallacies" (around 1988) but that does seem to be the only reference. In hindsight, I noticed that some of the articles in that book have at least dubious details, so I've begun to have second thoughts. If this one really remains the only reference, maybe this can be relegated to the category of "fallacies" (or "legends"). Unfortunately, I cannot travel to London to check. - Skysmith 11:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dario Chioli

Seems to be vanity; probably non-notable Italian author, although this is difficult to verify from an English-speaker's perspective. I have asked lone contributor for evidence of notability as in WP:BIO.

  • Keep. Notability asserted and shown. He's got several published books. - Sensor 00:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Several books published does not necessarily qualify for WP:BIO unless they had a distribution of 5000. Anyone can publish a book: I don't know the distinction of the publishing house. Article is posed as a series of links to web sites. Article was written by User:Superzeko (Dario Chioli's web site name coincidentally; user has only uploaded this unsourced image and written this article) and three minutes later by 151.37.243.202, whose only contribs have been wrt this author. Seems to indicate vanity; notability is yet to be proven. jnothman talk 00:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Point taken, esp. re the publishing, but I think we've still got enough here to keep the article. - Sensor 01:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Warning, image in article is unsourced. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 00:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Enough published to warrant expansion. Writing in Italian makes him less visible. Dlyons493 Talk 02:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: How sure are we that the website linked as source for these books is not a self-publishing house? Amazon has nothing by this author. Italian Wikipedians, can you verify? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete, then, per ERcheck. I suspected this was a very minor publisher, and it looks as if it is. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 22:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Possible vanity page. Google search on Dario Chioli / on co-author does not bring up info. The "same" article was posted yesterday in the Italian Wikipedia - and flagged to watch for self-promotion/needing verification. ERcheck 15:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Not having heard of this "Magnanelli edizioni" publisher (the main publisher for this author) before, I checked their web site, and found out that it's the kind of publisher that only publishes about 1 book every 2 months. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 22:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, at least from stanpoint of English WP--no evidence that any thing he's written is or has been translated into English FRS 00:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I pretty much disagree with your point of view. Sure, if an author is important one can be sure that something has been translated, but I would not base the existence of English translations as a measure of notability. I voted delete on this one and I would have voted delete on it.wikipedia as well. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 09:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity page. Dottore So 09:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Michael Clarke

May be an article about a non-notable figure. There are a handful of Google hits (< 10), and he appears to have won an award (but I'm uncertain of the importance of said award). A previous entry at David michael clarke was speedily deleted earlier, but I believe it was blanked before it was deleted. For what it's worth, it appears the author of the article is writing about himself (if the username is any indicator). Locke Cole 08:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • delete I'd have trouble accepting that one award 10 years back counts for much. And have a look here. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Does not seem notable. -- RHaworth 09:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article author has left a note at Talk:David Michael Clarke that may be worth considering. I'm still undecided, but leaning towards Deletion. -Locke Cole 10:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy. Non-notable per WP:BIO. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I just stumbled across wikipedia, and was amazed at how badly it reflected the art-scene in Scotland. I have already spoken to a few other artists who are going to send me short biographies so that this can be put right. There really are not so many prizes for professional artists and this should not be the criteria for inclusion. Rather it should be based on activity and peer recognition. I know it is not so easy to find stuff on me on the net. It is a problem when you name is quite common. That is why I am also currently working on a website to regroup my work, which has been ongoing now for 15 years. If you want to check out my day job, here is where I teach:

http://www.esbam.net/html/S1_equipe.html

-Daveclarke

  • DELETE The FIRST sign that an article is VANITY is that it is an auto-biographical entry. If this person were so important, someone who doesn't know him personally would have written an article on him already. In his soapbox, David Michael Clarke appeals to nationalism and self-promotion. That it is "not so easy to find stuff on me on the net" is a good reason to suggest that David Michael Clarke is NOT NOTABLE.Ryoung122 01:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete textbook case of vanity, or misplaced myspace.com profile. Davidrowe 03:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unnotable. Dottore So 10:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Denis Rivera

Head of a union local does not meet WP:BIO. 66.191.124.236 07:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Derek ivany

Appears non-notable. This guy certainly exists, but Googling for "Derek Ivany" gets more and higher-rated hits for someone else entirely. I'd say this probably fails WP:BIO and is vanity, but it's not clear-cut, hence I brought it for a vote. What does the panel think? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Google Search & Yahoo Search both yield Derek Ivany as top search result. http://ca.prweb.com/releases/2005/11/prweb305605.htm - Google mentions Derek, Vietnam and His Indochina Securities Inc.

Yahoo Search returns Yahoo Finance - Insider Filings for Another Public Company Derek Ivany serves as a Director For

Above unsigned comment by user:65.94.198.178, 11:30, 7 November 2005

Additional Entry http://www.asianstocks.info/vn/main.htm ™‚±‚̃TƒCƒg‚É‚¨–J‚ß‚ÌŒ¾—t‚ð‚¢‚½‚¾‚¢‚Ä‚¢‚Ü‚·B

uVery nice write-up on the Vietnamese market.v@@@@

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Derek Ivany@CEO@IndoChina Securities Inc.@2005/05/03 15:08:09 “Œ‹ž (•W€Žžj

I nominated Mr.Ivany as he has helped transform the Vietnamese equity markets. Shing Lo

He also contrals the medias in my Country Viet Nam. He is doing stocks and data for our markets. I know Mr.Ivany like good friend he is young man only 22 years and already very successful and sometimes on TV on Viet1 for the business.

Noone is saying he doesn't exist, or that he isn't nice or successful. Just, he doesn't yet merit an enyclopedia article. GhostGirl 08:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps there is another area for internet searchers to find him?

  • Mr Ivany posted the following message at the help mailinglist.

To whom it may concern:

I have been advised that my name is been placed on your online encyclopedia as some sort of joke or prank. My name Derek Ivany is currently catergorized as an article for deletion. This affords the notion that I am somewhat uncredable or unworthy of acknowledgement. I am not sure what your organization is about or why my name is there. But I do not want to have my name or image defamed with some sort of online rhetoric. Please have my name removed from your website.

Regards,

Derek Ivany President & CEO Indochina Securities Inc.

Given the concerns about whether he meets our criteria, perhaps it ought to be deleted. Capitalistroadster 09:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dimensional area

A one-line article dealing with a central plot device in MegaMan NT Warrior. kelvSYC 06:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete NN, idosyncratic. If it were a Pokemon ref, of course, I'd keep in a second. Marskell 11:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, central plot device. Kappa 13:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to MegaMan NT Warrior, until Wikipedia comes to its senses and burns all fancruft ;-) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge all useful info to MegaMan NT Warrior, then Delete. Central plot devices do not necessarily require their own articles, they merit mention and discussion in the article that concerns their respective fiction. --anetode¹ ² ³ 18:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, and article name is too vague. --A D Monroe III 22:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Dottore So 09:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Definitely not notable ~ Hibana 21:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  Denelson83  21:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Distortion (Alias Unbound)

More crossover fan-fiction stuff added by the same user as the other "Alias Unbound" pages. The rest of them are listed among the last few on the November 5 log. -Andrew Levine 01:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Andrew Levine 01:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. jnothman talk 05:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per Alias Unbound. I did leave messages suggesting these authors hold off creatign new content pending settlement of the AfD votes, maybe they haven't read them. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It's an anonymous IP. I've never known an IP user to reply to PMs and I'm not actually certain they even receive notification that a message exists. You might be better off putting a message on the discussion page of the article in question. 23skidoo 16:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Gosh, I'm glad I stumbled across the "Alias Unbound" sub-wiki via the Isaac Asimov "what links here" page. Otherwise, how would we ever have discovered these pages? Anville 13:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 23skidoo 15:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 this is a clearcut CSD A7. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doug Leone

Non-notable vanity article. Article makes no claim of notability, other than a resumé-like list of jobs he's done. I can't find anything out there that I could add to this article to make him notable from an encyclopedic sense. —Cleared as filed. 03:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duppeditt

Norwegian neologistic dicdef. Physchim62 (talk·RfA) 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:
Norwegian, according to XRCE. Hitchhiker89 14:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The word exists, and is best translated as thingamajig. However, this is a neologistic dicdef (first sentence: "A duppeditt is a person who loves electrical appliances"), which goes on to explain the supposed history of the word. DO I have to translate it first before I can put it on AFD? Sam Vimes 10:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EC Pistols

non-notable band with no albums released CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete The now-speedied pages of the individual band members also mentioned that they're all in junior high. --InShaneee 22:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nom. Krzypntbllr 22:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable band yet to have an album. *drew 22:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Released albums: none to date. Need we say more? Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Nonsense.--Ryan Delaney talk 12:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elastiboy and Dash

Redundant per The Incredibles, no redirect required as this is an unlikely search term - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Vote moved to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electric bicycle

THIS ARTICLE should not be deleted as discused in the talk:motorized bicycle. It is essentially a sub-class of "motor assisted bicycle" and has had it's chance of being incorperated with that article, however... that article is purelly narrow minded propaganda for electric bicycles, hence it is my belief so we can lighten up the article on "motorized bicycle" that we resume the creation of electric bicycle --CyclePat 05:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I think CyclePat has nominated this for deletion without really understanding how deletion policies work. cyclePat, this is for nominating an article to be deleted. Sometimes people nominate articles to be deleted when they don't really want them to as a breaching experiment, but I don't think that's what you intended. For anyone else -- CyclePat, a bicycle shop owner in Canada politically active enough to be involved in some petitions and court cases related to the issue, started working on an article on electric bicycles. I and several other editors began helping him. We decided that the article should be moved to Motorized bicycle so that it could incorporate text from several articles about bikes of this sort; they were fractured over electric bicycle, power-assisted bicycle, power-assisted cycle, etc. Not liking changes to the new motorized bicycle, CyclePat has begun reverting the redirect on electric bicycle and re-creating his old article, which was mostly about Canadian jurisdictional laws and was rather POV in spots. Electric bicycle should stay redirected to motorized bicycle. · Katefan0(scribble) 06:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect. Besides what Katefan said, we have a Request for comment up on this already. Besides, this should be under redirect for deletion, since he's asking that a redirect be removed. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect or article, clearly a valid topic, I don't really care which way this ends up in terms of factoring. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, don't understand the nomination. Gazpacho 06:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote moved to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Europe United

Vanity article on what appears to be a one man political operation, categorized as if it were a recognized and funded multinational EU-wide political party. Editing history indicates it's by said fellow The Tom 03:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not yet. Gazpacho 03:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Newly started political party with a website. No national recognition. ERcheck 05:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Appears to have been started around September 2005. Not notable yet as a bona fide political party. You can join for just 10€ though and help it on it's way. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable yet. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability not established, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. (11:47, 10 November 2005 Brian0918 deleted "Fiveonenine" (vandalisms galore)) - Mailer Diablo 01:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fiveonenine

Non-notable music forum for small area in Canada. Fancruft. Hitchhiker89 21:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Negro

KEEP Fred Negro is an Aussie legend, not only for his larrikin lyrics but for his sometimes disturbing, but always hilarious column in beat magazine. His own inimitable style is the embodiment of dirty StKilda pub rock in the 80’s and 90’s. Don’t drop Fred. CS

I could easily be wrong, this is one of those maybe, maybe not ones. I'd say not notable, but locals may have a better perspective. The article makes a poor case for inclusion. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me make a few quick comments, and hopefully others will concur. As the page has only just gone up it should be given some time to grow before a call is made on the case for continuance. However, though the page stresses FN's 'local' profile in St Kilda, Melbourne, Australia, it should be understood that that Melbourne is arguable the centre of Australia's live music scene, and further that St Kilda is the pinnacle of the Melbourne scene. Significant in St Kilda means significant nationally. Further, his influence is not restricted to music, but extends to an influential comic strip. This is not a suburben muso. thanx (unsigned - comment from 08:19, 6 November 2005 Showard)

I concur (as, God help me, an actual expert in Australian indie rock) - David Gerard 08:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Authors contributions are this article on Fred Negro, adding Fred Negro to article on cartoonists and to article on St. Kilda. All tie to promoting subject. Google hits (though few) on subject validate article, but don't validate notability. Local is local. Validation of his impact on the Australian music scene would be helpful/additional comments from Australians. ERcheck 15:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • That was exactly my view. No problem with keeping it if the guy genuinely is notable (as seems possible given other comments), but the article, and Google, do not make the case. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep It looks very borderline but he seems just about noteworthy enough and quite interesting. I agree with ERcheck and Just zis Guy, you know? that some perspectives from the locals about just how significant Fred Negro is would help. Strong Keep based on comments below. And this time i'll remember to sign my comment! *blush* GhostGirl 07:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is mainly an indie music type of guy and has not made much impact on the mainstream charts. However, I have heard of I Spit on your Gravy and the Twits have played the Big Day Out although they have not been listed in the article. See this picture for confirmation see [3]. I will put this on the Australia-related deletions page and a message on David Gerard's talk page would probably be a good idea.Capitalistroadster 23:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. .Capitalistroadster 23:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm from the city, know the local music scene there reasonably well and generally have a very low bar for bands, but this falls well below it. I strongly suspect vanity. Ambi 02:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Keep. Ambi 07:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • His fame goes back to the '80s, when you were just a wee tacker - David Gerard 08:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll take your word for it. :) Ambi 07:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - he's thoroughly well-known in Melbourne and has been notorious on the Australian indie rock scene since the early 1980s with several bands and albums. I'll have to see what I can do to flesh this one out. (Doesn't help that any reference works I would have on the subject are in Australia, but oh well.) - David Gerard 08:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Published writer and cartoonist. Well known within the Melbourne music scene. Agnte 11:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think he's more famous for his cartoons than his music. Does a cartoon calendar-style ad for the Espy that appears in the Inpress music street press each month, doesn't he? I was actualyl flicking through a book called Plastered: The Poster Art of Australian Popular Music, and he has about 5 entries over 2 pages. pfctdayelise 13:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


  • Strong Keep! I have lived in Melbourne, Australia for 17 months on and off over the last 3 years and spent quite a lot of time checking out the music scene in Melbourne. And YES, Fred Negro is a significant feature! A living legend in the Melbourne music scene - especially among those who still remembers the 80ties. Most facinating of all he still delivers an impressive live act. I was facinated by the first gig I saw (at the Espy, St. Kilda) and speechless after the second one (somewhere on Queen Street, CBD) - which featured a piece of Fred's famous stage act of performing naked (!) and banging his dick against the mic stand to the beat of the bass drumm (se photo below - its Fred on the right with the blue shirt).

Image:FredNegroMelbourne04.jpg

--Jkjeldskov (Denmark) 18:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - notable musician with credible, provable history. Anyone who frequented the infamous Espy Hotel could write volumes. -- Longhair | Talk 19:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - A WP entry would be valuable because Fred is one of those people whose work everyone (in Melbourne) has seen, but about whom most people know little. It would be good to see more biographical information in the entry; many Melbournians would be able to add some. The weekly "street press" magazines have a wide readership in Melbourne, and anyone who has read one in the last decade or more will have seen a comic or article by Fred. He has a distinctive style, very politically incorrect, impossible not to notice. The work is not to everyone's taste, but many would be curious about the author. David Nichols (who writes for Beat street press magazine amongst other things) said that when Beat polled their readers recently, they found that one of the main reasons people read the rival Inpress magazine was that Fred is in it. David thinks Fred was publishing underground comics as long ago as the 70s and appeared in a Penguin Down Underground book of comics around 1983. Greg_Wadley 22:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-known musician and cartoonist in the Melbourne music scene, particularly in St Kilda. --Cnwb 23:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rx StrangeLove 16:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Phelps Jr.

delete Not notable. 66.32.126.228 04:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As the son of the infamous Fred Phelps and heir to his empire (if such a word could be used) I think he is quite notable. I have seen him quoted in a number of places regarding various protests and such. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 15:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Very notable son of the very notable Fred Phelps Leads an active role in expanding his father's cult. Cynicism addict 16:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything verifiable to Fred Phelps. Being related to notability does not confer notability. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 16:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Westboro Baptist Church or Fred Phelps. Not notable enough to merit his own entry. Only one quote in Google News, and most of the Google references treat him as a minor character, as does Westboro Baptist Church. --William Pietri 16:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Westboro Baptist Church or Fred Phelps. He doesn't have any independent claim to notability. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per A Man in Black. Xoloz 07:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Guanaco 23:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This article was once much longer and I had found it useful. May I ask whoever removed most of the text why it's now a stub? CanadianCaesar 00:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I looked at the history and saw that it was deleted by 66.32.35.45, which is possibly a WBC congregant. I've restored the text. Guanaco 03:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You might be right. Keep- again, I found it useful. CanadianCaesar 00:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve As Phelps Sr. ages, he has the potential to become more prominent in his own right. The information about his marriage is interesting and provides some insight into the Phelps family dynamics. The problem is that none of this information is sourced. TMS63112 21:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Friday lunch lovers

Supposedly a group of college students formed in the fall of 2005 who eat lunch together. Not encyclopedic. 66.191.124.236 06:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Edwardian 07:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn vanity. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. I suggest it meets A7 of CSD, unless that's purely for biographies GhostGirl 13:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. encephalon 16:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Transwiki to that place that takes all deleted Wikipedia articles :) Ashibaka (tock) 17:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
You mean Uncyclopedia? ;) —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete yet more student vanity. Were we that self-obsessed when we were students? Actually I think I might not want to know the answer to that... Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  Denelson83  04:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck Death Row

Puportedly a Snoop Dogg album, but not listed at all in the allmusic database. Most likely an unnoficial underground bootleg of some sort. Delete.--FuriousFreddy 03:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Real album by a famous artist. See [4] and the Michigan State University review. A few other hits on Google. —Brim 05:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It doesn't appear to be an actual release, just an underground mixtape. Many of these same tracks also appear on Dead Man Walkin', which actually is an official major-label release. The links provided aren't reliable (one is a mixtape website, the other is a college student's page), the Google search returns only one other relevant links except the ones you listed (another website selling the album/mixtape "Fuck Death Row" + snoop + dogg), and your edit summary doesn't help convince me that I should take your word for it. If you can find a verifiable official source which lists this album as having been put together and released by either Snoop Dogg or one of his present or former labels, it can be kept. --FuriousFreddy 05:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence that this is a verifiable or notable album. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not verifiable. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --A D Monroe III 22:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it may be underground, but it looks like has relevance --Bkwillwm 20:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I heard of this bootleg before in school but still not a real album --JAranda | watz sup 00:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 09:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Physchim62 as recreation of deleted content. --GraemeL (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gametalk

Seems to be about a page that doesn't meet some of the proposed guidelines on WP:WEB (Alexa ranking, specifically, currently at 39,381). Article itself seems to be very POV as well. Locke Cole 10:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - this article seems to have been VfD'd before, the only change is that now it's Gametalk and not GameTalk. Also suggest protecting the page if deleted. You can see the previous VfD discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GameTalk -Locke Cole 10:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, POV. *drew 11:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Locke. Tagged as such. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 15:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/Speedy delete. Whether or not it qualifies under G4 will be determined by an admin who can compare the versions. I do not believe that this otherwise satisfies WP:V and WP:RS, so my opinion for the AFD is delete if this version isn't speediable under G4. encephalon 16:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Small note: seems you have a spurious <i> in your sig. :P -Locke Cole 16:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Although the subject matter is the same, the contents of the two articles are different. This is probably because in all three cases (GameTalk was re-created.) the article largely comprises material that appears to be the personal opinions of the authors themselves, and that is wholly unsourced. Uncle G 18:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


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

[edit] GBU-37

The result of the debate was keep Ben Aveling 11:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Only content is an external link, and Wikipedia is not a link repository. Deltabeignet 06:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Keep based on new additions. ````

  • Delete per nominator. Keep per nominator. Edwardian 06:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's spam. Or maybe redirect to Precision-guided munition.Regards, Ben Aveling 07:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Not interesting. We should set the bar for inclusion higher than this. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination GhostGirl 12:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep now has content - reason for this nomination no longer applicable GhostGirl 09:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as spam. Ifnord 18:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • No longer spam, I agree. But I'm with Ben Aveling - it's really not notable. I believe that Wikipedia should have lots of esoterica and minutae, but will ever anyone type in GBU-37? Vote changed to simple delete. Ifnord 04:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a list (of one!) of links. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 22:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC) Delete or merge; little content, probably will never be even a stub. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 12:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and speedy if possible. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • OK< now has neutral enough ocntent to nullify the original criticism. But if expanded to its fullest extent this would still be smaller than many stubs! Merge into a decent-sized article on US munitions or something. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definetely not spam. Real weapon. DialUp 06:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I can confirm that the article now has content. But it still doesn't say anything about why this weapon is notable. Do we list every weapons delivery system known to mankind? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten; Wikipedia has lots of articles on weapons systems. MCB 07:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd still like to see a reason why this one is notable. That said, currently the vote is 5:3 in favour of delete, and most of those votes predate the adding of content to the page. I don't think that represents a consensus to delete. Does anyone object to pulling the flag? Regards, Ben Aveling 08:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep after added content--Bkwillwm 20:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this is an encyclopedia JG of Borg 22:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe there is consensus to keep this article. I've let Ifnord know that I'm making this recommendation but I don't feel there is any need to wait for a response. Even if he agrees with me, delete is clearly a minority view and the page should be untagged.

Regards, Ben Aveling 01:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rx StrangeLove 16:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George Chilcott

Probably a vanity article on a non-notable muscial group and local TV show. The only other online reference I found is the group's personal website MK2 07:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry about that. This is the first time I've posted something to this page. MK2 06:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Note that an article was created about the subjects public access cable show about same time. Seems to be self-promoting of non-notable show.ERcheck 15:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Kirill Lokshin 21:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Griffith University Student Law Association

Delete as society vanity. Pilatus 14:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable, doesn't merit an article. *drew 14:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delte, would hate to see every student association listed on wikipedia dr.alf 23:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Griffith University which already has an article on student associations although we don't need information on the Committee which is essentially transient information. Capitalistroadster 00:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 00:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Capitalistroadster's good suggestion. This AfD subpage doesn't seem to have a nomination? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, anything to remove as many lawyers as possible, even worse wanna-be lawyers. This page was originally referred to as "the most notable student association" at Griffith without any reference on the Griffith page to the actual statutory student bodies of which the SLA is just affiliated too. It is clearly a vanity webpage, these guys are just a law students club. Blargon 09:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete University associations, like this one, are not usually notable. Dottore So 10:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete without Prejudice - The Griffith SLA is the Australian equivalent of the Harvard Law School student association, since Griffith has been rated as Australia's Leading Law School (source:Good Universities Guide 2005). As an alumni i am aware that this organisation may be noteworthy in its activities, however the article submitted to wiki is an attempt at vanity as it does not list the achievements of the association, and presents as nothing more than a group of students wanting attention (vanity). I say that this article should be deleted, and should the Student Law Association in the future manage to submit a more appropriate article to wiki demonstrating its noteworthiness, then that should must be allowed. - Does anyone on the SLA remember the Road to Nowhere?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HardOCP

This entry is a blatant plug for a hardware review website and is not the sort of material to be included in an encyclopedia. HardOCP is one hardware review website of many hundreds and is not of any particular significance. This article should be deleted and *perhaps* replaced with a more generic article discussing the phenomena of hardware review websites in general, with appropriate links to many sites. However, I doubt even this merits an ebtry in Wikipedia. Paul 10:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The cleanup by Anetode is justified. *drew 23:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Popular hardware review site with an Alexa rank of 8,232, passes provisional WP:WEB standards. Though the article does need cleanup. --GraemeL (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Article tone is no longer advertorial. --anetode¹ ² ³ 20:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a pretty well-known site, mentioned in Slashdot every now and then, even quoted/referred to in print (at least in my local game mag from time to time). Hate to see people nominate articles just because they read like advertisements - that's what cleanup is for. --Wwwwolf 23:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Site gained a lot of attention online after exposing Infinium Labs as a possible fruad, and for the lawsuit that followed. --InShaneee 23:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Site is famous for its honesty on very controversial issues such as the Infium Labs , ATI's paper-launch. More about the background of site should be included.
    • Comment by User:24.6.175.117. User's second edit. --InShaneee 21:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep re-write acceptable Pete.Hurd 21:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep This is a well known, often-referenced site with a large community behind it, less known than slashdot but of similar character.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homer Football

A small high-school football team. Hardly notable, and just created. Maybe even Speedy Delete as spam, but AfD seems most suitable. Ian 13 20:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: Please also note the author User:72.226.145.68 has attempted to remove the AfD tag, which I have restored. Ian 13 20:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ian 13 20:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per non, agreed doesn't seem notable. Fallsend 20:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the following is not at all true, it is a great team and this is a free encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.145.68 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 6 November 2005
    I have moved the authors comments from the top of the page to here. I also would lik to ask the author to leave my talk page alone. Ian 13 20:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 20:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, vanity team. *drew 22:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Good luck to the team(s); goodbye to this vanity article on a high school American football team. Sliggy 23:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.alf (talk • contribs) 20:11, 6 November 2005
  • Delete per nominationCrusading composer 00:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] $hort Records * Nationwide - Independence Day: The Compilation *double disc*

This appears to be a track listing for a non-notable record. Allmusic.com has heard of $hort Records, but I can't see much evidence of any significance for this particular album, nor is any data supplied to substantiate this (e.g. sales). And as for the article title - I have not the words. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks more like an entry on eBay than Wikipedia. Bizarre! *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 15:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. That's crazy stuff. Non notable.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 22:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - the red links for Disk 1 and Disk 2 are almost worthy of BJAODN Pete.Hurd 21:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rx StrangeLove 16:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hospital Virgen del Camino

If this were a person this would qualify for a speedy deletion as there is abosolutely no claim of notability made for this hospital. Caerwine 17:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge/Redirect to Pamplona unless somebody wants to make this page more interesting... :) — RJH 16:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 20:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rx StrangeLove 16:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricanes (band)

Delete. Not notable. Google search on its lead singer yields zero result. Doesn't pass WP:Music. --*drew 04:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. No info from search (cantopop, song "Direction", band, band members.) ERcheck 04:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hurriganes (note spelling) which is one of the most famous Finnish rock'n'roll bands. — JIP | Talk 08:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete s band vanity, notability not established, or redirect per above.- Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a redirect per JIP. encephalon 16:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 under A1 and G1 and moved to BJAODN

[edit] Idlewells Shopping Centre

Close to speediable as a very short page with little or no context. 66.191.124.236 04:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete under WP:CSD category G1 as an article with no meaningful content or A1 very short articles providing little or no context. Current text is: "Used be called something else and was a concrete prefab monstrosity although i liked the little pyramid building that led to the underground car park. Also it's most proberly named after the little river that runs underneath it (you can see it if you walk through the allyway next to the bank and news agent near the sundial and keep going towards the supermarket carpark, it on the left where the fence is)" Capitalistroadster 04:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete .. G1. ERcheck 04:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per Capitalistroadster. *drew 06:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A1 --anetode¹ ² ³ 06:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Some wikivacation.  :) This was just too weird to not put into BJAODN. - Lucky 6.9 07:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rx StrangeLove 16:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Imaginative Journey

Original research. This reads like an essay. There is some currency of the term in discussions of literature, but that is not what this article is about (and arguably encyclopaedic even if it was). - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Innovation Club

Non-notable club, perhaps? x42bn6 Talk 08:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. GhostGirl 13:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this (non-notable) although there are several clubs with related name (e.g. MIT Innovation Club) so there might be scope for an article on innovation clubs as a concept. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a non-notable club/co-curricular activity. *drew 14:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 15:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Carioca 22:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Preaky 04:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps can put this page, "Innovation Club" as a disambiguation page and rename the article "Innovation Club (Nan Hua Secondary)"? Other clubs including uniformed groups were in Wikipedia. Also, other innovation clubs do exist. Agreeable? Thiamshui 12:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Turning this into a disambiguation page would only be wortthwhile if others were also listed. As it stands the proposed article Innovation Club (Nan Hua Secondary) would fail the same test: it is not notable, and not easily verifiable either. You could always merge it into the general article on the school (which, if it doesn't exist, you are free to create). Precedent is that even very minor senior schools get kept. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't for clubs. Moreover, this is not a known society like uniform groups of the world. This just isn't suitable though I belong to the club. HistoryManiac 14:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intellectual Input

Hoax article based on original research. Essentially it duplicates the thesis of intelligent design, but does so poorly. Although the author claims that "Despite Intellectual Input sometimes being referred to popularly and in the media as "Intellectual Input Theory," it is a scientific theory by any commonly used definition of that term.", a google search for "Intellectual Input Theory" yields no hits, and one for "intellectual input" yields only unrelated results. Delete: Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine --anetode¹ ² ³ 06:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete original research. Gazpacho 06:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Edwardian 07:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete OR.-- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - original research. Page now essentially blanked by originator, tagged for speedy. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I removed the speedy tag in view of the page history: the original version is not speediable and three "different" users have edited the page. Physchim62 (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International Metric Perpetuity Scale

poorly-written OR — JEREMY 06:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nothing on Google, external link is broken and is to what is apparently the personal website of the article's author. - Pasiphae 07:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete OR -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. I think he's referring to metric time, but nobody calls it this. -- Kjkolb 14:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. I read it as a reference to Decimal time, but again, no-one calls that by this name either. --BillC 15:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This concept does exist, but is not commonly called by this name (as in: never outside this article, according to Google). Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jarle Roar Sæbø

Listing with No Vote. Contributed by an anon with no other contribs, and reads like a vanity entry. Standards on magazine writers aren't very solid yet, and I'm not sure whether contributing an article to "Nordic Intellectual Property Review" is enough to make a person notable by our current standards, hence the no vote. -Colin Kimbrell 17:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: If kept, this should probably be moved and redirected to a title that uses the standard English character set, as I beleive that's currently the consensus for such articles. -Colin Kimbrell 17:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Fortunately, there is no such consensus. Punkmorten 09:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A7. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably delete. His name yields 10 results on a Norwegian search engine. But I added a link to his CV so others can check. Punkmorten 09:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom., possibly speedy A7 per howcheng. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 13:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rx StrangeLove 16:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joakim Gräns

Non-notable young stage actor. Page is apparent vanity and I see no evidence of notability per WP:BIO. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- Longhair | Talk 07:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan Box

Bombs the Google test. From this article, there seems to be nothing that makes this person stand out greatly from any other person. -Nameneko 06:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. Non-notable bio of a real person. ERcheck 06:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 06:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, and I have added the {{nn-bio}} tag. The article does not even attempt to assert that Box is important or notable in any way. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete under A7 of WP:CSD. There is no assertion of notability that I could find about a teenager from Lambton near Newcastle in NSW. Capitalistroadster 06:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 06:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "jump city"

Fictional everycity that is the basis of the Teen Titans (animated series). Not even given a name on the show itself, it has no recurring locales or notable geography (and therefore nothing to write about). Delete as non-notable fancruft.--InShaneee 23:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete; I guess parenthesis should not be used for names of wikipedia articles also Alcatel 23:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] K Hüsnü Can Baser

Was tagged as nn-bio, but notability can be at least argued. No vote. Physchim62 (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 16:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Birtch

Non-notable per WP:BIO - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. NN. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 15:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The author's contributions are this article and a list of female body builders. I'm not sure whether Birtch's 7th place finish in Canada makes her a notable female body builder. A few Google hits. Enough? ERcheck 15:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination GhostGirl 15:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, though clearly the article needs work. The WP:BIO reference cited above says: "Biographies on the following people may be included in Wikipedia...Sportspeople who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in an individual professional sport, or at the highest level in mainly amateur sports, including college sports in the United States." Birtch has competed in the Canadian National Championship, which is the highest level of amateur bodybuilding (in Canada), so this would seem to satisfy the criteria for inclusion. fbb_fan 19:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lemonjellos

A coffee shop in Holland, Michigan that we are informed regularly has live music. 66.191.124.236 07:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Pending an oppportunity to visit it myself to verify, I think we should delete. Ben Aveling 08:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a coffee shop. Non-notable. *drew 08:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per *drew. and it looks like advertising to me. GhostGirl 13:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a coffee shop that sometimes has bands? Wow! How unusual is that. Oh, wait... Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Just zis Guy, dr.alf 00:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn coffee shop --JAranda | watz sup 00:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we have consensus to delete. Ben Aveling 01:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of best selling rap albums (USA)

Aside from the minor fact that it's titled "best selling rap albums" and not "best-selling hip hop music albums", and the major fact that it includes three and-a-half non-rap or hip-hop albums (which would neccessitate its being retitled List of best-selling urban music albums, List of best-selling hip hop/R&B albums, or something similarly tricky)...is a seperate article such as this neccessary? --FuriousFreddy 06:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Article claims that the list is from the RIAA but doesn't provide a link to it or outline where it could be found. Would vote to keep if RIAA reference is verified, otherwise delete unless reliable source is provided. Capitalistroadster 06:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete wrong title, incomplete, not verified and as such borderline POV. Best served with a complete rewrite. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Rune Welsh. --A D Monroe III 23:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unsourced, hence unverifiable. And even if it was, I say burn all listcruft. Into Room 101 it goes... Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Everybody Loves Eric Raymond episodes

Summary of individual strips of a webcomic. Nonencyclopedic. tregoweth 07:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Kirill Lokshin 21:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of results of the England national rugby league team

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • If you call that information. Delete. Ben Aveling 08:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 13:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, pending the development of separate articles for each game. Kappa 13:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete I'm a Rugby fan, but sports results aren't encyclopedaic. Dlyons493 Talk 14:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. GhostGirl 13:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 13:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. encephalon 16:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and please, please, please don't make articles for each individual game. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think it would be better to have information about individual series such as Tri-Nations, English/Great Britain tours and I would certainly vote to keep such information. It would be of interest to many people in the UK, Australia and New Zealand and would definitely be encylopedic. The problem with this article is that the information is not in context but I would vote Keep until such articles are developed. It would be great if interested editors started work on such a project. Just because an article is not of interest to you doesn't mean it doesn't have encyclopedic potential. Capitalistroadster 23:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If someone were to write an encyclopedic overview of those series, I would vote keep every single time. This, however, is not encyclopedic; it's a raw collection of data, almost entirely without context and presenting little value to the development of articles about those series. The problem isn't that this isn't interesting (nevermind that it is by its nature of interest only to those interested in both the English national rugby team and statistics), the problem is that this is unencyclopedic. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
      • That is a non-issue. Wikipedia is also an almanac. A very high priority is given to making that clear on Wikipedia:Article. CalJW 13:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. How do you suggest this date be presented then? If its on the main England Team page, it make it too long and gets in the way. So I created an archive of all the results, so users can be reffered to them. Instead of nominating for it to be deleted, why don't you give me a better way to present the info?...
  • Keep This is an entirely legitimate almanac style entry (and I've never watched a game of rugby league in my life). Wikipedia:Article states "A Wikipedia article is defined as a page that has encyclopedic or almanac-like information on it ("almanac-like" being lists, timelines, tables or charts)." This clearly meets that definition and is is certainly not "indiscriminate". CalJW 13:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Astonished this is even listed. It is verifiably factual and verifiably legitimate as per Wikipedia policy. Duh!!--Alicejenny 13:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not a rugby fan but many people are and of course this is encyclopedic. Keresaspa 15:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm profoundly unswayed by arguments containing the word "duh". I suppose that WP:NOT should include "Wikipedia does not act as a database," because that is what this effectivly is: a flat file with data. No information, or analysis, or history, or even links to pages that have those things. Disk space is cheap, but not free, and this article's cost in terms of storage, maintenance and response time does not justify it's inclusion. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
It's not so much the cost of keeping this article, it's all the other sports results that will arrive if we allow this one to stay. I'm currently losing a vote to delete a weapons system that no-one's ever heard about or cares about because "Wikipedia has lots of articles on weapons systems". Regards, Ben Aveling 08:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Sports results are unencyclopedic, I think. Grackle 11:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I can see the point in expanding a bit in context - where the match was played, what it was played as part of, who scored tries and so forth - but that's hardly a reason for deleting now. Notable, verifiable, and NPOV Sam Vimes 21:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --JAranda | watz sup 00:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & Ben Aveling's point. Dottore So 10:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. BD2412 T 04:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liz Murray

Nominate and delete as NN vanity and WP:NOT a crystal ball re forthcoming book. Changing to keep and withdrawing nomination after rewrite. Good job, ERcheck. - Sensor 01:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Keep the rewrite. Dlyons493 Talk 02:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable as an author. NOT a crystal ball since already published. See Amazon sales page. Also featured on a DVD called Homeless to Harvard - The Liz Murray Story. Even though I've never heard of her before, she seems noteworthy to me. —Brim 05:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough to warrant a Lifetime movie in 2003. Recently released autobiography - sales rank on Amazon probably enough to meet author criteria. Article could use some cleanup to make notability clearer. ERcheck 05:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment - she is notable enough to be one of the invited speakers for a conference in which Colin Powell is the keynote speaker. The article has been edited to reflect that her book has been published. ERcheck 05:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ERcheck's rewrite. Over 12,000 hits for "Liz Murray" homeless see [5] so she seems notable enough for an article and meets WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 05:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per above. NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Noted on article's discussion page that the article had previously been deleted for copyvio. The article that was the subject of this afd nomination was written in a tone that made it seem that it might have been copied from some publicity info. Did a major edit to consolidate the info and aim to a NPOV. ERcheck 06:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Brim, as currently written. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Preaky 03:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Love brothers

Delete. Unverifiable "band"; probably just vanity. Edwardian 06:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I hate vanity pages. However, if the article is correct in claiming they were certified gold, they might be notable under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Nevertheless, the article doesn't cite any sources; if a source is added, change my vote to a keep. Deltabeignet 06:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverified, nn. *drew 07:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A Google search for "Love Brothers" gold record came up with plenty of hits for Lucky Dube who was in a band by that name but nothing for these guys see [6]. A search for Love Brothers on Top 40 charts which has a database going back to the start of the decade proved similarly fruitless. Possibly a case for a redirect to Lucky Dube. Capitalistroadster 10:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverified. There appears to be a slightly less non-notable band by the same name, but this is not them, and even they apparently fail the usual tests. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, vanity dr.alf 00:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 16:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Love to Love

Delete. This article does not conform with the Wikipedia standards and it contains unencyclopedic texts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.23.174.69 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 5 November 2005 Delete. This should be deleted once and for all for the author continously ignoring all noctices posted there. Should be deleted now.

  • Keep. It just needs cleanup. (Unsigned comment by Reviewgirlerika 11:33 6 November 2005)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Vaguely notable, though it needs a heck of a scrub. Anville 18:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (Fixed formatting of this AFD page.) ♠DanMS 21:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Yes it might be worth having if rewritten, but I would say it's better to have no article than this drivel. It was tagged in September and nobody has cleaned it yet, which suggests they are not going to. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep due to precedent of having articles on TV series, but this needs either a total rewrite or it should be reduced to a stub until someone comes along to write a proper article. 23skidoo 02:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable, as far as I can with Google. Xoloz 07:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ingoolemo talk 01:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lovefest

NN annual event in a small town of Ireland. Attendance unsourced. Google search for "link:www.freewebs.com/thelovefest/" and "site:www.freewebs.com/thelovefest/" yield no results  Perfecto Canada 17:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. -  Perfecto Canada 17:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom and because that's where all these bloody unsigned bands are coming from! Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN, not an unique event. *drew 22:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. A new website is under construction. [7].--Commander Keane 23:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Is it non-notable because it concerns a small town in Ireland? Or small bands? Either way, I don't see the harm in leaving this be and seeing how it develops. Cormaggio @ 00:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Based on what I see, it fails the WP:Verifiability to pass WP:Importance. Meaning, is there clear proof that a reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject? If so, then I'll retract my vote. -- Perfecto Canada 03:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn event --JAranda | watz sup 01:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 10:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Malham Road

Non-notable subject: a residential street in the Tamworth housing estate Stonydelph (map). (Presumably this is the street in which the author lives.) No response from author to comments placed a week ago on his talk page. For this subject, I found it difficult to justify an edit to a redirect to Stonydelph, hence the AfD. --BillC 14:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. -- BillC 14:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ERcheck 15:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 15:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete only since it is a residential street. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 22:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable street -- Francs2000 01:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete roadcruft --JAranda | watz sup 01:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maria eugenia

Vanity bio and a load of bullocks as well. 66.191.124.236 06:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as combination vanity (which has finally been made a speedy d criterion) and nonsense. Deltabeignet 06:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as above. Edwardian 07:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Steedman

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mengatia Polanthus

Neither google, nor any of the taxonomic databases I've checked, seem to know any "Mengatia". Eugene van der Pijll 17:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable. It's been nearly three weeks since I tagged it as unverified and requested that the creator (Cygtig) provide sources; he hasn't returned since, and his only other edit was vandalism. — Haeleth Talk 18:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above comment and nominator. (And it should be Mengatia polanthus with a small p anyway.) Anville 18:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete zero Google hits for a plant? I think not. Hoax or mis-spelling. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax. *drew 22:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metabee

Minor Anime character, not notable or encyclopaedic. And before the game fans get going, I Googled, this does not look to me to be an important anmie, and I would have flagged it for a merge into Medabot only there isn't one, which suggests that perhaps I am right in thinking it is not notable. You may disagree - that's why we have a votign process :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 13:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Anville 18:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Smerge per WP:FICT into Medabots, which does have an article. It isn't a particularly important anime, but it did get a fairly sizable English-language push in the wake of Pokémon. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike McCue

Not notable, probably vanity. Google search Remy B 18:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. -Andrew 18:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. This google link which searches for michael mccue as well as mike shows some more results, but is it notable enough? Does Wikipedia have an article about the youngest person elected in US history, doesn't appear so. Delete as not quite notable enough. -Andrew 15:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. My attempt to clean it up a bit edit conflicted with this nomination. The information is verifiable, if not notable. No vote. JPD (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the cleanup, the reference definitely helps with determining the notability of the person. As for me, I think it definitely shows the person is not nearly notable enough to warrant an article. Remy B 19:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It wouldn't be notable except at the subject's age, this is very impressive. At least here in America. 24.41.12.37 02:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


Mike McCue (1986? - ) is an elected member of the Finance Committee in Freetown, Massachusetts.

  • No Vote/Comment. I've been watching this since yesterday half-amused, half-surprised, and finding it altogether bizarre. I'm going to refrain from voting, and please by no means think I'd be the least bit offended if it gets deleted; but as far as it being a vanity article, I wouldn't have had to guess at my own year of birth... (it is 1986, tho, if anyone was remotely curious. I haven't fixed it because I don't think it would be right for me to edit the article). Sahasrahla 20:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Just out of curiosity, how did you know there was an article about yourself? Remy B 05:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
      • A friend of mine had told me about it, and I've now begun to suspect he was the one who created it. Therefore, I apologize to everyone that this has happened. Please do not misinterpret these actions as me thinking that I'm a noteworthy subject. Sahasrahla 06:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Non-notable, though being elected so young is interesting. If he was confirmed as the youngest elected american I'd feel differently because 'youngest ever' is much more notable than 'one of the youngest'. GhostGirl 13:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Being in today's news only guarantees that tomorrow you'll be wrapping fish or meat or vegetables (if local health regulations allow it) Ejrrjs | What? 16:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete In addition to being non-notable, this person has attempted to rewrite history erroneously in a few other articles (The Tonight Show, Ernie Kovacs, Steve Allen, Jack Paar), and has been cited by other users for miscellaneous other infractions. I really wonder if sock puppetry isn't at work here in the original creation of the article. Telestylo 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Taking over one's father position on a minor town council does NOT make this person notable.

Writing "Joy to the World" at age 16 IS notable. There is a difference.Ryoung122 01:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete. As I said before, I didn't write this, and I don't believe the subject to be notable any more than anybody else does.
  • Delete per above arguments. Dottore So 10:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Kirill Lokshin 21:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mini Geo 125

Probably a vanity article on a non-notable muscial group and local TV show. The only other online reference I found is the group's personal website MK2 07:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monica Kaufman

  • Non-notable news broadcaster plus last line makes it more like vanity Delete --JAranda | watz sup 01:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it's either vanity or spam. Ben Aveling

But wait, there's more:

User contributions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
For 66.56.61.58 (Talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

Namespace:

(Latest | Earliest) View (previous 50) (next 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500).

    * 22:22, 20 July 2005 (hist) (diff) WSB-TV
    * 22:18, 20 July 2005 (hist) (diff) WSB-TV
    * 22:43, 22 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Glenn Burns
    * 00:03, 22 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Glenn Burns (Who's Glenn Burns)
    * 00:02, 22 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Jovita Moore (Who's Jovita Moore)
    * 23:56, 21 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Monica Kaufman (Who's Monica Kaufman?)
    * 09:02, 21 May 2005 (hist) (diff) WSB-TV
    * 06:11, 21 May 2005 (hist) (diff) WSB-TV
    * 06:09, 21 May 2005 (hist) (diff) WSB-FM

No other contributions by that user.

WSB-TV and WSB-FM look OK, but Glenn Burns and Jovita Moore also seem dodgy.

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable enough. —Brim 04:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability not established. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm from Atlanta...these are real people on the news, but who cares? Wikipedia is getting out of control!
  • Delete Local news people are generally not notable; aside from that, this article has no content Dbchip 06:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Necessary. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Necessarily

You will probably not be surprised to find that this page is a dicdef. 66.191.124.236 07:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nuno Fonseca

  • Delete substub, no indication of notablility, not found among the first several Google hits on this name. -- * Delete Jmabel | Talk 06:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep [8] shows he's notable enough to get an article in a specialist magazine. He comes up with a small number of Ghits which isn't bad for someone in under-represented Portugal. Maybe just managing to work for 40 years is notable for illustrators? Dlyons493 Talk 07:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. There's a difference between being an illustrator for 40 years and working for 40 years. I've met plenty of people in Hollywood who say they've been an actor for years but really worked as one for weeks... Ifnord 18:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No claim to notability. For any common career, working for 40 years is not notable. Verifiable accomplishments are notable, no matter how long they took. None are given here. --A D Monroe III 22:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There is a Nuno Fonseca who might just scrape in, but I don't think this is him. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OGTV2 - From Tha Hood to Hollywood

Puportedly a Snoop Dogg album, but not listed at all in the allmusic database. Most likely an unnoficial underground bootleg of some sort. Delete. --FuriousFreddy 01:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete An album of this title apparently exists (by Ice Cube) but this is not it. And I'd delete any album which sells fewer than a million copies anyway. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and JzG,yk?. Ifnord 18:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination dr.alf 23:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It is the second part of an existing soundtrack of an existing DVD film with the same title. It is true that it is spread mostly in Japan but that's because GFL Records has a major popularity and support there and like so we can state that 1 million copies can be easily sold in a country with a population of 127 million (response to Just zis Guy, you know?). The first episode can be checked here (French Site with trailers), and the second one here (Japanese site). These are references for the films but this is the first step to prove that the films exist (so soundtracks exist). For links to the soundtracks please visit the reference sections of the related Wikipedia articles'.Lajbi 12:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment that one million copies can be sold is not in doubt. A band on AfD recently claimed that their debut EP had sold over 50 copies - they are in the UK so a million could be sold there, too. The question is, how many have been sold? Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "old library" and Old Library

Minor location in about two episodes of Teen Titans (animated series). As the title indicates, it was not even given a name. Delete as non-notable fancruft. --InShaneee 23:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Also a very odd title for an article. Flapdragon 23:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft. Notability not visible with the naked eye. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete fancruft. dr.alf 00:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Political correctness in the United Kingdom

POV fork, mostly redundant with Political correctness, should be merged with that page--chris.lawson 02:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect, as nominator. May be useful later on should the original page on PC-ness ever grow to the point that we have to have separate articles for PC-ness in individual countries, but right now, there's no reason for it.--chris.lawson 02:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as suggested, but I can verify only one of the examples. Article was originally a bigoted rant. Gazpacho 03:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete. No obvious value. Ben Aveling 03:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing worth merging. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Merge and redirect, pc in the UK isn't distinct enough to merit a separate article, article was created to push a POV. The "thought shower" example is sourced and worth merging GhostGirl 08:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC) - Convinced by Just zis Guy, you know? below. So there's nothing to merge. GhostGirl 12:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No need for it. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - no need for a separate article. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is nothing here worth merging, and no obvious need for a redirect. The "thought shower" comment appears to be one of the Telegraph's periodic digs at political corrcetness (for non-Brits, the Daily Telegraph is a conservative - and indeed Conservative - newspaper), I see no evidence of any widespread currency of that usage, and I am a British school governor. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Do not merge. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing to merge. Marcus22 14:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per SlimVirgin and Just zis Guy. encephalon 16:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless and unencyclopaedic. Palmiro | Talk 20:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, not worth keeping, totally unencyclopedic dr.alf 23:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unencyclopedic nonsense --Wordmonkey 17:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Postipyló

Delete. Not notable, even by the WP:MUSIC guidelines. Zero matches on Google, no releases, no record deals, nothing on All Music Guide. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. *drew 06:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just another smalltime band lost in the ubiquitous muck of myspace.com... --anetode¹ ² ³ 06:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Is there no end to the number of non-notable bands? Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by RHaworth as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Power goh

Doesn't merit its own article under guidelines at WP:BIO. Fails the Google Test. -Nameneko 06:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as per {{nn-bio}}. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. I have tagged it as such. NatusRoma 06:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Vanity bio. *drew 06:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] President of poopie

Non-notable quote from family guy. Delete --anetode¹ ² ³ 02:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Stewiecruft. Gazpacho 03:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Gazpacho. *drew 04:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. — JIP | Talk 08:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. encephalon 16:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. enough said. Deano 22:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom dr.alf 23:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Preaky 04:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  Denelson83  21:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Psychophilosophy

It's an original research. Already deleted from the Italian Wikipedia in August, 2005 for the same reason (see here). Marcok 00:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 00:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Edwardian 07:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is user:Linux 2005's only contribution and is in line with the stated interests on the user page. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Noted on the author's user page - his signature is "Lino", which coincides with the mention of "philospher Lino Missio", making this a vanity entry. A Google search reveals a few people (Kent, Kramer, Tan Man Ho) publishing as if this is an established field of study. In general concept, it seems that a number of legitimate academics in philosophy are also involved in psychology, marrying the two disciplies. However, this article doesn't convey that concept. It's the article, not the concept, that merits deletion. ERcheck 14:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 15:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Preaky 03:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --F. Cosoleto 10:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quickie Album

crystal ball article about an album by an nn musician we don't even have an article on. And apparently their only previous distribution has been on myspace? User:Zoe|(talk) 07:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. NN, vanity GhostGirl 13:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete yet more band vanity. Burn it! Burn it all! Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 14:29, 7 November 2005 (EST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Random insanity

New nomination of new content: now about a group of Monty Python wannabes which fails to establish notability and fails a basic Google test, in fact it looks suspiciously like WP:VAIN nonsense. For the avoidance of doubt, I vote delete. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. *drew 15:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; google for "random insanity" + "alex green" returns 5 unique results, for the record. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Randy Bourne

Vanity bio. Close to A7 speediable, but does claim an IMDB entry. Link in the article is broken, but this Randy Bourne at IMDB.com shows only a single non-notable role in Peggy Sue Got Married but has no bio info at all. 66.191.124.236 05:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Acting hopeful with one minor role to his credit and an unpublished biography of Brian May of Queen. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 05:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity, sad to read --anetode¹ ² ³ 06:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per anetode. I nearly cried GhostGirl 10:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As vanity, it does little to flatter the subject. Whatever, it fails WP:BIO. And I can't be alone in thinking that someone called Randy should think twice before getting caught up in questionable sexual practices, at least if they want to escape ultimate ridicule in the popular press... - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD?
  • Delete as per above dr.alf 00:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Also, FWIW, whoever created this article was using an IP address User:217.155.197.19 that shows only four edits, all in the same day, two of which were vandalism. - Dalbury (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with relevant info merged to Fabian Society. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendations for reform of the monarchy

  • Delete per nomination. - 65.28.2.172 23:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Although there's no reason given in the nomination, I agree--delete. These are policy proposals, not an encyclopedia article. Meelar (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. A footnote in the Fabian Society, perhaps. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Fabian Society. Aecis praatpaal 00:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Hough Bursary

Seems to have been created only to validate David Michael Clarke (also up for AfD). Google turns up 41 hits, but I'm not sure on the criteria for articles on awards (how notable must the award be?). The award is named for a (supposedly) notable photographer, so you'd think you'd get more than 41 hits. Locke Cole 09:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rick W. Vanover

This is apparently self-promotion, but gets 36,000 Google hits. x42bn6 Talk 08:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable. GhostGirl 13:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete apparent vanity. Asserts notability, but that's not really substantiated on investigation, to my mind. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the name, when constrained with quotes doesn't get 36,000 results, with or without the middle initial (14 and 103 respectively). -- Kjkolb 14:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Self-written. Check the article history page. --BillC 15:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delet per nom. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 15:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as self-promotion. Carioca 22:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.  Denelson83  04:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rowtan

A journal of an anon IP. Delete. Owen× ☎ 18:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as something strange and exotically non-encyclopedic. Anville 18:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Harsh, but fair. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; wikipedia is WP:NOT a free web space provider. I suggest the author to create a webpage in one such providers, for example geocities, and move the article there. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fiction, as stated in the first sentence of the article. ♠DanMS 21:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity journal. Wikipedia shouldn't be used for this purpose. *drew 22:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ruby's Fashions

Vanity article. Several Google searches found nothing about this Ruby Mau. Where is "Catdom"?

  • Delete Speedy delete based on patent nonsense and sock puppetry from the author. Gazpacho 06:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not delete. Ruby Mau isn't overly famous and isn't on Google yet. (the previous unsigned comment was made by 71.35.100.233, who incidentally is also the author of the article in question)
  • Until she is... speedy delete. Edwardian 07:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Catdom is a large country. Duh. Please do not delete this wonderful article about beloved Ruby Mau of Catdom. (the previous unsigned comment was made by 71.35.100.233, who incidentally is also the author of the article in question)
  • Don't delete, Ruby's great. (the previous unsigned comment was made by 71.35.100.233, who incidentally is also the author of the article in question)
  • Catdom is not exactly a country, or on maps. Do not delete. (the previous unsigned comment was made by 71.35.100.233, who incidentally is also the author of the article in question)
  • Don't delete, I love Ruby's Fashions! (the previous unsigned comment was made by 71.35.100.233, who incidentally is also the author of the article in question)
  • This is Shontom Mau, her sister. I am on Google. Typing Shontom in Images will show me, typing it normally will show my site Shontom's World. Do not delete my sister's article. (the previous unsigned comment was made by 71.35.100.233, who incidentally is also the author of the article in question)
  • I'm begging you, don't delete this! (the previous unsigned comment was made by 71.35.100.233, who incidentally is also the author of the article in question)
  • Delete as vanity article about business of dubious existence. - Pasiphae 07:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete page and a block for the user as well Ben Aveling 07:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, might very well be a hoax. (Left comment on user talk page to tell him to stop voting) --JoanneB 07:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • ONE: I didn't do all those, or create the article. I have a ton of friends over, including my sister who were commenting. TWO: It's not a freakingm hoax. I can't believe you'd even think that. Why would it be?
Let's see... it refers to a store in "Tacoma, WA, Catdom" run by "King Shontom's sister," who works for "Catdom Human Costumes, Inc" and likes fish treats? I know some furry roleplaying forums where people would really get into that, but it doesn't really sound like an encyclopedia article. - Pasiphae 07:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppets, blatant who-gives-a-rip vanity and horrid, bloodcurdling ad cliches. Joy. Censure user, reset all Wikipedia servers and salt the earth. Or simply delete with the help of our friendly, professional staff! - Lucky 6.9 07:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Advertising, sock-puppet participation. *drew 08:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the article, burn the socks. Average Earthman 09:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Research turns up several businesses named Ruby's Fashions. None of them satisfy the WP:CORP criteria, and the business that this article purports to describe isn't even one of them. The article cites no sources and is simply unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G 11:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Del per Uncle G. encephalon 16:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G and Pasiphae. --Metropolitan90 16:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Where to begin? Obvious hoax, so delete as unverifiable. I can't tell whether other voters are just being straight-faced, but based on the article itself and comments above, this is an article that purports to be by a cat, whose sister operates what is apparently a cat fashion boutique. Possibly a dead cat (per comment above, "My website, Shontom's World"). Does this rise to the level of BJAODN (bad jokes and other deleted nonsense?) Dpbsmith (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Hm... That's a good idea. It is pretty amusing. - Pasiphae 23:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scarlet Divide

Non-notable vanity band page, per WP:MUSIC GTBacchus 05:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Band vanity. *drew 06:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --anetode¹ ² ³ 06:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 18:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "Scarlet Divide" band scores the coveted zero Google hits, the benchmark of non-notability. Can't we have a "STOP: Before you create this..." warning when creating new content? There are uncountable hundreds of non-notable band vanity pages in AfD! Or maybe we could make it a speedy criterion? Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seeuthere

Advertising for a commercial service ERcheck 07:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. ERcheck 07:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete even if I believed their caim (which I don't) this is an ad. Burn the advert! Burn! Burn! Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom dr.alf 00:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/ad, per nom FRS 00:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shirley Temple Explosion!

Nominate and vote for speedy deletion per CSD G1 as patently absurd nonsense.Delete as original research per UncleG's comment below. - Sensor 00:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Seconded. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 00:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not patent nonsense, which is text that is irredeemably incomprehensible, not simply text that is silly. Please do not abuse the speedy deletion criteria. This article that by its own admission is promoting a phrase made up by a schoolchild is original research, which is not a speedy deletion criterion. The place for this is the author's own web site, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Delete. Uncle G 00:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure seemed incomprehensible to me. Fine, then. Delete as original research. - Sensor 01:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Text such as "The thought randomly came to me while in Mrs. Hall's American History class." is comprehensible. The article is written in English, with reasonable spelling and punctuation, and has content that conveys meaning. There's a distinction between nonsense, in the sense of untruth or fabrication, and patent nonsense. Only the latter is speedily deletable. For the former, we wield our verifiability and no original research policies and come to AFD. Uncle G 01:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Your point is well-taken. However, it seems somewhat odd to have such intense debate over whether an article containing a sentence like "I was excted [sic] with myself I introduced my new-found ridiculousness to my best friend Alaina Musich" should or should not be considered patent nonsense when it is plainly obvious that the article is a gag and irredeemably silly. I suppose this is better left for the debate over deletion reform. - Sensor 01:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like nonsense to me --Henrygb 01:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete slowly. Kappa 01:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense Olorin28 01:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete public domain nonsense. Gazpacho 02:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete quickly It smells to me like someone has deliberately written something stupid and signed a classmate's name at the bottom. ICBW. Ben Aveling 03:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point, I took out the names. Kappa 03:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why was this marked as a speedy deletion and nominated on AfD, before the speedy deletion tag was found to be improper? -- Kjkolb 04:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, self-admitted neologism and original research. — JIP | Talk 08:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Just does not belong in an encyclopedia. it's vanity, and irrelevant to anything. GhostGirl 08:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under G3 as silly vandalism. This is plainly not an attempt to coin a neologism or anything like that; it is an attempt to vandalize Wikipedia through the addition of a silly article. --Aquillion 09:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete G3 per above. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, G3 as per Aquillion's comment on "silly vandalism". ERcheck 14:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete though I may have to find some reason in the future to use this term. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 15:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Article Merge content with Natural Born Kissers. Both unanimous Karmafist 17:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simpsons parody of Casablanca

One-shot joke from a single episode of The Simpsons. Wasn't even part of the episode's main plot. Andrew Levine 20:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this page. However, the article has some merit in that it tells about a recurrent theme in the series. Since keeping all episodes of The Simpsons series seems agreed, I would suggest moving the parodies in the relative episodes, and adding a short paragraph about them somewhere in the main article of the series. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 21:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Burn all fancruft. Burn it now! Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possible fancruft. *drew 22:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Natural Born Kissers. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Angr. Peter Grey 16:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)===Sindicate=== Delete per nom. Nn band. LichYoshi 10:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 2/0 Karmafist 16:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] South Park Missing Episode

Homemade parody of South Park made by a bunch of college students. Not verifable or encyclopedic. —Cleared as filed. 18:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Kirill Lokshin 22:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Space Dogged/Feud for Sale

This strange entry lists two different episodes (or perhaps shorts) from the Ren and Stimpy cartoon. I would say non-notable, I don't think every episode should be kept from every TV show (merge it all together). Ifnord 18:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Speed Badminton -Greg Asche (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedminton

This looks like an advert for a commercial product. Although there are Google refs for Speedminton, a lot of them go to www.Speedminton.xx (various domains) and I can't see much evidence of widespread playing. As ever, I reserve the right to be completely wrong. That's why we have votes. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes it does look a bit self-promotional. I'm not sure. This could be one of those things that takes off, or dies away completely. I'll vote delete, but I'd almost want to put this on a "wait and see" list. — RJH 16:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • For the avoidance of doubt, I vote delete and bring it back when the IOC recognises it :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree :

A lot of german newspapers and magazine have talked about Speedminton and presented it as a new sport, not a mere commercial product. According to the german news agency Deutsche Welle : "Played until recently, [...] the game has now made its breakthrough as an official sport." "There are around 6,000 active Speedminton players in Germany." ( http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,951494,00.html)

According to some sources, there would be 80 000 occasional players in germany. The equipment is similar to other sports equipment (rackets similar to squash rackets) and is sold in sport shops. Speedminton is played in Badminton Clubs. --145.226.1.30 14:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Pro deletion :

=> Speedminton and Blackminton are commercial names.
=> As far as I know, Speedminton GmbH is the only company in the world which sells the Speedminton equipment.
=> You can't play Blackminton without buying special equipment from Speedminton GmbH.

Cons :
=> If you refer to articles in newspapers, rules, equipment, players (who are sportsmen), etc... it is a real sport.
=> There are other articles about unrecognized sports (for instance : DDC Frisbee) or even commercial products (Rubik's Cube) in Wikipedia
=> You can play without buying the equipment from Speedminton GmbH : Speedminton can be played with squash rackets and a conventional shuttlecock.
=> Speedminton is a german sport. German wikipedians are certainly the best informed to know if an article about Speedminton is a commercial self-promotion or a serious article. And the german article about Speedminton in Wikipedia.de is online since 1 July 2004...

I propose to remove any reference to the name "Speedminton" (the official name of the sport is "Speed Badminton") and to the company Speedminton GmbH. (Therefore, the article must be renamed "Speed Badminton"). --Jeremie 17:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


I changed the article. I removed any reference or link to the company Speedminton GmbH. The article is also more precise about the importance of this sport in and outside Germany. I added a link to a german speed badminton association. I didn't removed completely the word "speedminton", because the sport is more well-known under this name, but I put a ® to emphasize the fact that it is a registred trademark. --Jeremie 20:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by RHaworth as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 13:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spencer_Lewis

Seems to be a total vanity (it is a copy of the user's page of that same name) delete, if it is not vanity, can someone please give the page some real substance? dr.alf 00:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No notability. —Brim 04:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This may make some Merkins hate me, but I don't think any fraternity or sorority is notable enough that all its members are automatically notable. — JIP | Talk 08:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Starsiege. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Starseige

Delete All information at Starsiege. Nothing new or notable added. LichYoshi 10:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Family Guy. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stewie Live

At most this should be an exlink at Family Guy.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tania Pavlíchienko

There was no notable female sniper by the name of Tanya Pavlichenko, there was a famous sniper Lyudmila Pavlichenko that is probably who was intended to be the subject, I looked into a few sources and googled for "Tanya Pavlichenko sniper" in Russian and English - she was never known as Tania. I could make it a redirect, but it is better to remove the wrong name altogether to avoid confusion abakharev 09:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks like user error. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. Someone just erred. No need to redirect. --Irpen 01:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete mistake. --Ghirlandajo 07:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Kirill Lokshin 22:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taoh Ren

Hoax, no such person exists; the "history" of the individual listed in the article is fictionalized and impossible (Lu Bu never joined this individual, neither Yuan Shu nor Yuan Shao ever had Sun Quan as a general). Perhaps redirected to Tao Ren from Shaman King?--Confuzion 20:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, this article is indeed nonsense. Andrew Levine 20:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--I suspect this comes from the video game Dynasty Warriors. Meelar (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --JAranda | watz sup 00:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tatarbunary

article is incomplete, needs deletion or improvement Davidrowe 01:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. Please only nominate articles for deletion that you want to be deleted. If you want an article cleaned up (which includes everything from expansion to outright rewriting), then use one of the wide range of cleanup tools that are available. Uncle G 01:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Tag for improvement and Keep. Google confirms it as a real place, though nowhere I'd want to holiday ("heavy metals in excess of national limits", "pogroms and disturbances", "lynchings", "beaten to death in police custody") Real fun place, but real. Ben Aveling
  • Comment: this raises the question of whether an article on a topic that deserves an article should ever be deleted, no matter how awful or short it is. Sometimes editors only seem willing to work on an article when it is threatened with deletion. Usually the article is about something that people feel strongly about, like a school or a city, otherwise they get speedied or deleted through AfD, even when they are notable enough for an article. When an article has to be completely rewritten and the current article doesn't provide any useful content ("X is nice" or something), should it be deleted even when it is a notable topic? -- Kjkolb 05:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest it should be decided on a case by case basis, which is what we're doing. You're free to vote delete if you feel that this page isn't worth a stub. Ben Aveling 05:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • That question has long since been answered. For the truly "awful" articles we have the speedy deletion criteria of patent nonsense, user tests, and short articles without context (which includes the "xe is nice." example), so that we can get the redlinks back and start afresh. If an article (on a topic that satisfies the relevant inclusion criteria) is meaningful and has context, then Wikipedia:stub is where one should head. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Uncle G 11:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: but when it is something people feel strongly about, like a school or a city, most people won't speedy it or vote delete on AfD no matter how bad it is. I would say that this article was clearly something that would be deleted (it's been cleaned up). Had it not been a city, it would not have been cleaned up and would have been deleted, possibly speedily deleted. In fact, editors are chastised for nominating articles like "X is a high school in Y." Stuff like that would be a slam dunk speedy on almost any other topic. So, should we not nominate schools or cities at all? -- Kjkolb 11:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as verifiable town. I've incorporated some detail (Google is your friend), notably http://www.ukrweekly.com/Archive/1998/379813.shtml. No authority for Alexander the Great (not that I looked very hard) so maybe the original author can come up with some sources. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 12:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Town is notable enough for an article, and has a reportable history. There's also a interwiki link to the Ukrainian language WP. --BillC 15:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. --Metropolitan90 16:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Preaky 04:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. MCB 02:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I see a consensus to keep. Any objections to pulling the tag? Ben Aveling 09:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • not hereDavidrowe 09:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 2-2 --JAranda | watz sup 00:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TeamXbox

Article about the goings-on in the forums of an Xbox365 fansite. In July it was tagged as a speedy and deleted four times, but the entry had virtually no content at that time. --anetode¹ ² ³ 18:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • As written, delete, but the site seems pretty notable. According to the site, Threads: 265,611, Posts: 5,029,307, Members: 95,230. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Relisting. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 09:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep recognized by Microsoft in Xbox.com with banner links and the biggest not-official Xbox site. --Mateusc 14:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and mark for serious overhaul by someone who knows what they're on about. Forum appears extremely notable within the Xbox and Xbox 360 communities. Saberwyn 23:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Technically Tech

NN podcast. Google search for "link:technicallytech.com" and "site:technicallytech.com" produce zero results. No Alexa data at all. I suspect it's using Wikipedia to boost PageRank, promote site. As per WP:WEB, Delete cheers -- Perfecto Canada 15:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Phoenix (rap artist)

Delete per nom - probable vanity page. Non-notable on Google. LichYoshi 09:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was this is deleteing. - Mailer Diablo 02:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This Is Exploding

Band is not yet notable enough, doesn't pass WP:MUSIC Aecis praatpaal 00:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • delete as bandity. — brighterorange (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if not speedy delete. Consists of just one sentence. Non-notable. *drew 00:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is Deleteing Pete.Hurd 20:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 both artoc;es. - Mailer Diablo 01:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ulster air and Callie group

An article about an airline which does not currently exist, nor can any information be found in news sources. The airline industry is a volatile one, and it is quite likely that this airline will never exist. Likewise the Callie group (parent company which is launching the airline) article cannot be verified by news sources, web searches or local phone directory searches. Not notable. Both articles only links in are from the other article. WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thanks/wangi 15:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Kirill Lokshin 22:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle Jones and the Dynamite Express

Probably a vanity article on a non-notable muscial group and local TV show. The only other online reference I found is the group's personal website MK2 07:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Article created also created on George Chilcott at about same time also up for afd. Suggests self-promotion/vanity.ERcheck 15:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I also nominated the related Mini Geo 125 article. MK2 06:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 20:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - ulayiti (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] University of Openness and University of Openess

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance of Conflict of Interest?

There appears to be some good information ( for example: http://twenteenthcentury.com/uo/index.php/HotTipsForEmailers ) and easy peer supported forking and linking redundant components of the campus to allow for rapid expansion as demand grows.

I am concerned that this request for deletion, although probably motivated by the stubbiness of the article or concern that this was a promotion entry, may be viewed by others as fear of competition and undue influence by the Wikimedia Foundation. Since this project appears to peer based (perhaps based upon mnet, gnunet, groksters et. al. and other emerging peer technologies) and encourages participants to set up and manage their own servers it has the potential to scale up rapidly once it hits critical mass.

Considering the methods whereby Wikipedia and Wikimedia starts as attempts to bolster a failing dot com and then work organized by the cabal off the mailing without participation at the meta site (which was being used to stall energetic newcomers with busy work .... or perhaps as a site to harvest others notes, homework or entrepreneurial efforts) I think we (Wikipedia) would be well advised to bend over backwards to avoid the appearance that we hampering or discouraging other volunteer/participatory sites prototyping other organizational and business models. We do not wish to present the misimpression that we view the planet as big enough for only one wiki and we intend to own/control that wiki/modern grid.

I vote NO. Do not delete competitions article. Rather I intend to embrace and expand the stub while I keep an eye on the site and explore its material, processes, licenses, etc. user:lazyquasar

  • Request for information. lazyquasar, I wouldn't read too much into the nomination for deletion. I very much doubt the nominator was trying to suppress any competition - he probably thought the article was a hoax. So did I at first. However, I'm not sure now, and I seem to be going round in circles trying to establish whether it's a joke or not. Can anyone help on this? --A bit iffy 12:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Not me. I do get the impression that this is real, but then there is this page[9] that is part of the Uo library[10]. - Dalbury (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus, so I'm relisting this. -Greg Asche (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. It's mostly a list of departments. Expand it into something more encyclopedic and I may change my vote. Durova 00:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Possibly hoax. Cannot find university address. --Vsion 10:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. After thinking about this, I've decided it is either an elaborate hoax, or fancy dress on some study and discussion groups, in either which case NN. - Dalbury (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned music artists

Page is a how-to for artists to get signed with labels, and a really poor one at that. 66.191.124.236 07:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Edwardian 07:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The article will only induce creation of more nn group music article on Wikipedia. *drew 07:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic and per *drew. Punkmorten 09:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per *drew and Punkmorten. encyclopedias are no place for how-to guides GhostGirl 13:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom., it's the only way. Otherwise they will get signed and want their deleted vanity pages restored! Burn the non-notable band vanities! Burn them all! Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. What a terrible page, absolutely no notable information. 14:14, 7 November 2005 (EST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Via Violenta

With only a single self-released EP in the Summer of 2005, the band does not yet meet WP:MUSIC. 66.191.124.236 07:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 articles except Auditory imagery, which has no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 01:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Visual mental imagery, Mental imagery, Auditory imagery, Motor imagery

This may be a copyright vio (though its claim of permission prevents a speedy), but certainly looks like original research. Can anybody more qualified sort through this one? I'm suggesting delete. Dvyost 06:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

As I'm the original Speedy lister... It does fall under Speedy Criteria > Articles > #8:
  • An article that is a blatant copyright infringement and meets these parameters:
    • The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material, excluding tags, templates, and minor edits
"The following entry is excerpted and adapted from Kosslyn, Ganis, and Thompson" and posted by user:KosslynLab so 1) only 1 of the 3 editors is not enough to declare its got permission. (so its copyvio) 2) its vanity 3) its OR 4) user spammed with several other articles that are vitually identical content: Mental imagery, Auditory imagery, Motor imagery. Nuke them ALL and while we're at it block User:KosslynLab who hasnt been back since posting (aka no major loss)  ALKIVAR™ 06:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I think you're right that it's probably a copyvio, which is why I'm listing here; but as long as the author makes an "assertion" of permission, which (s)he has, we can't really speedy it yet. Don't worry; leaving it here for a few days with a tag won't hurt anybody. Let me go round up those others you mention... --Dvyost 07:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio. Chunks of it may be salvageable, citing the Nature Neuroscience article as a proper source, but as it stands, it just won't work. Anville 15:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio. Tedernst 19:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless the copyright release can be verified, Delete - 70.146.91.110 17:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC) - This was me. I keep losing my login. - Dalbury 17:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't have time to fix this now, but it really doesn't seem right to move the votes from one article to look like votes for them all; the above users only voted on one or two of these articles, not all four. What's the matter with keeping these as separate discussions? Also, Auditory imagery had text before Kosslynlab touched it (see page history)--that text should be preserved regardless of copyvio findings. Keep Auditory Imagery but remove copyvio text; Delete the other three. --Dvyost 00:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, but delete the final few paragraphs which are (as pointed out above) some combination of original research and vanity. The topic of auditory imagery should make an excellent wiki article eventually, so please don't delete: wiki really ought to have an entry here, but let's focus on making the entry a good one. Robinh 08:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment I don't think this qualifies as original research since the source article is a review article, which ought to be a summation of the state of scientific knowledge on the matter at the time of writing, and therefore encyclopedic. That being said, I have real doubts that Macmillan has relinquished their copyright on the article so that it could appear in four chunks on wikipedia. The journal prints nothing but neuroscience reviews, if this permission is the publisher's policy, it's quite conceivable that every article of every issue would appear on wikipedia. I wonder if Kosslyn (Dept of Psych, Harvard U.) is aware of, and endorses, the actions of Kosslynlab? Pete.Hurd 06:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • relisting. Need more votes for deleting 4 articles. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all but auditory imagery, and revert that, but it's a tough call. This is clearly a valid subject, but this series of articles is massively problematic. They read like original research, smell strongly of copyvio, and fail to establish a significant basis outside of a single book. It looks as if the length of the articles is out of all proportion to their interest to a general audience, and it's not immediately clear how to get from this mess into a single encyclopaedic article on mental imagery, which is what is probably needed. If the original author were motivated to distill these down into that single article I would vote to keep that, I think. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vitreal

Pointless biography of a non-notable person. —rebug (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete pointless biography of possibly fictional non-notable person. Google for Vitreal Thorkuast gives zero hits other than mirrors. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedy with nn-bio? dr.alf 00:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I considered tagging it for speedy deletion, but it's old enough that perhaps there's some merit to it that I just don't see. Just giving this article the benefit of the doubt. —rebug (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Wikipedia conspiracy"

This is original research. It is meta too, so if anywhere, it belongs on Wikimedia, but I don't think it does.-- JoanneB 14:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I don't think that it does either. It's original research, and all it does is state the obvious -- SoothingR(pour) 14:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for original research. ERcheck 15:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable and actual phenomenon. Pointing to evidence within wikipedia itself is not original research. Needs expansion and more specific examples. zen master T 15:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Pointing to evidence? I can't see any evidence that backs up the author his opinion in this article. -- SoothingR(pour) 16:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Evidence can easily be provided in the form of wikipedia edit diffs. I agree the article needs rewriting, perhaps retitling and citations added but it most certainly shouldn't be deleted. Maybe it should be moved to the Wikipedia namespace. Regardless, in my interpretation the "essay" is an accurate statement of facts regarding wikipedia. zen master T 18:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Constructing a novel theory synthesized from raw data and then publishing it first in Wikipedia is exactly original research. Please familiarize yourself with our no original research and Wikipedia is not a soapbox official policies. Uncle G 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOR. This is a POV essay, not an encyclopedic article. encephalon 16:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ashibaka (tock) 17:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per encephalon and SoothingR. POV with nothing of merit and no evidence. There's other namespaces for this kind of thing, and the user openly admits writing the article to see how long it takes to get deleted. GhostGirl 17:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Could be userfied (many editors posted their opinions about wikipedia on their userspace), but the author is an anon. I wonder, why the quotes?... Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:31, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. I would have suggested a redirect to astroturfing if the name had not been in quotes. --Allen3 talk 22:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The sources in this case can be easily cited - simply use the relevant Wikipedia discussions as references. It is a phenomenon and one that deserves documenting in an encyclopedia. Bandraoi 23:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Documentation of such phenomena has to be published (and peer reviewed) outside of the encyclopaedia first. Please familiarize yourself with our no original research official policy. Uncle G 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The article presents a novel theory that has not been published outside of Wikipedia and peer reviewed. This is original research, plain and simple. Delete. Uncle G 01:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - total BS.jucifer 01:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Original Research abakharev 07:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR and POV essay. MCB 08:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wimberly Allison Tong & Goo

Nothing other than (badly written) advertising for non notable firm Maccoinnich 14:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advertising, not notable. *drew 15:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete advertising Pete.Hurd 20:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yackum

I would've spedied this, but I didn't have the "this will definately fall under WP:CSD" feeling, so I've listed it here. I don't know Chinese, but why a common phrase would be only used in one city is beyond me. -Nameneko 06:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Edwardian 07:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dictdef, non-notable (according to the article itself). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 22:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax - it's a very weak joke about Chinese-American pronunciation of "you're welcome". Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 23:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic dr.alf 00:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yoshiharu Tatsumi

Incorrect title, new one correctly titled existing

  • Delete per nomination. - I wasn't aware of the 'Renaming' process initially, and created the correctly titled "Yoshihiro Tatsumi" article separately, therefore being that this is still in existence - as it was at time of writing - this article should be thus deleted. For proof of his true name then go to "www.Amazon.com" or "www.DrawnAndQuarterly.com" (Previously unsigned comment. 17:38, 6 November 2005 by Lordrsb)
  • Delete, misspelled title, correct Yoshihiro Tatsumi already exists, not useful as a redirect (I doubt it's a common misspelling). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 16:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 21:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.