Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 14 October 16 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] October 15

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:49, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 02 Rock 'n' Roll Riot Tour

nn rock tour from three years ago. article text looks like it was pulled off site advertising the concert. nom&vote delete. Gaff talk 23:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No claim to notability. In fact, no readable content. --A D Monroe III 03:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Indeed, reads like an advertising poster. Either some form of shameless promotion or simply worthless. Cool3 03:54, 16 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Rich Farmbrough 10:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 10061092961

The subject is not notable there are infinte number of integers having to prime factors abakharev 13:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, I'm getting tired from voting to delete non notable numbers.Rhetoricalwater 14:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. NNN (non-notable number). This one seems even more non-notable than most. Plus, per WP naming convention, years, not numbers, have all numeric titles, as 2005, 1945, 476 and 3. This article should be about the year AD 10061092961. Redirect to 10061093rd century!? --A D Monroe III 15:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Barely notable. Title makes it look like the article is about a year. --Optichan 17:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's pages like this that need to be speedy deleted. We really don't need to even have a vote on this, do we? Masterhatch 18:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Very few numbers deserve articles (e, pi, the golden ration, etc.). This is not one of them. I agree, that some guideline should be put in place to speedy delete such articles. Cool3 03:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as NNN per AD Monroe. Xoloz 12:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Totally uninteresting number. Title makes it look like a year. Boot the wretched thing. Reyk 02:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Real number, NPOV and verifyable.
  • Delete this one really is nn as far as we know now. Rich Farmbrough 10:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    In fact I cant help wondering if it was a case of WP:POINT. Rich Farmbrough
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Rich Farmbrough 10:35, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 10173

Not notable there are infinite number of integers having two prime factors abakharev 13:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. NNN (non-notable number). This one seems even more non-notable than most. Plus, per WP naming convention, years, not numbers, have all numeric titles, as 2005, 1945, 476 and 3. This article should be about the year AD 10173. Redirect to 102nd century!? --A D Monroe III 15:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Barely notable. Title makes it look like the article is about a year. --Optichan 17:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete do i really need to comment why? It seems pretty obvious. Masterhatch 18:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • either delete or redirect iff there is an article on the Zipcode. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article has no information beyond what is obvious from the title. Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Boring number. Looks like a year. Reyk 03:01, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Gareth Hughes 21:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 5ideways

commercial vanity and non-notable Gator1 18:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 18:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is basically advertising — and is already mentioned in the author's article K. Sandra Fuhr (which should probably also be AfD'd). Given that the article doesn't even know which day of the week the comic will be published on, it's not too surprising that Alexa does not register a traffic rank at all — there are approximately 8 billion more notable websites than this. -Splashtalk 20:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the advertising. -- Captain Disdain 00:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I did not create the article for advertising purposes, K. Sandra Fuhr only recently unveiled the project, which is why Alexa doesn't register the page, as it's 3 days old. My intent in creating it was the same as that for any other author, to credit their works. If you all feel that it would be better served to list this and ANY other project that Ms. Fuhr has created on the web, I don't object to it. I do re-iterate, this was not created as an advertisement. If it is the consensus to delete, I vote instead that this and any other pages for Ms. Fuhr's creations be made into one page with her biography, as I've seen with many other authors. Bo-Lingua 23:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Comics have to be notable to be listed here. As this comic is 3 days old, I'm pretty sure it's not yet notable. In the future, when it is notable, it may be relisted. I've copied the articles to Comixpedia.org --Tedzsee 00:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I apologize for my ignorance of criterion. As author of the article, and that the vote seems unanimous, delete it. Thank you, Tedzee for pulling it to Comixpedia, and maybe it will return here, eventually. Thanks, all. Bo-Lingua 01:48, 21 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I have discounted the opinion of one "voter" whose contributions so far have almost exclusively been to AFD discussions and VfU discussions. I continue to find it improbable that a new user will so quickly find AFD and consider it more likely than not that this may be evidence of sockpuppetry.

The author of the webcomic raised several arguments in favor of the article but failed to persuade the other participants in the discussion. While the Alexa rank was not reported in this debate, my own research shows it to be very high. See here.

I am going to call this one as a "delete" decision but without prejudice against recreation if/when the webcomic achieves the recommended level of notability. Rossami (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 8 1/2 by Eleven

None notable webcomic, probably made in violation of WP:POINT by Jamie McGarry after a rather bitter afd debate at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Able_and_Baker. The author of the webcomic is User:Tedzsee and participated in that debate, please take a look at the comments made. The article states no assertion of notability and google also gives hardly any relevent links to "8 1/2 by eleven", certainly no valid notability claims. - Hahnchen 17:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a comment... I agree with you that this comic is not particularly notable, unless you're looking at Alexa rankings as the only sign of notability (which is a big if, given past votes in this community). However, one thing I'd like to point out is the following (and keep it in mind that I am not asking this in a confrontational way, despite the tone of the question... I am simply curious): since when are articles supposed to establish or prove notability? Articles should document a notable subject, but they should not exist simply to prove that subject is notable. Check out this particularly pathetic webcomics stub for example. Now, I think this comic is notable, but the article certainly doesn't do a very good job "establishing" it. Should the stub be deleted just because of that? No. The article should be left and added to over time. Anyways, just a thought. I'd be interested in your response if you want to reply on my talk page or here (although here might clutter up the AfD a bit). --Tedzsee 06:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey Hahnchen! Just wandering around the deletion pages and noticed my comic was up for deletion. I didn't know an article had been created about my comic at all. As it's my comic, I'm not going to vote or defend it vehemenently. I will, however, make the following points for others to consider. Please note that these points will argue both for and against the notability of this comic:

  1. arguing that this comic is notable: The assertion by the nominator that Google does not give any relevant links to "8 1/2 by Eleven" is incorrect. The first hit on a Google search for "8 1/2 by Eleven" results in this comic appearing, a search for "8 1/2 by Eleven comic" shows several pages of relevant hits, and a search for "Lucas Teodoro da Silva" (in quote marks) returns three pages of links about this author. The search "8 1/2 x 11" points to the US standard paper size.
  2. arguing that this comic is notable: the Alexa rating for this site is 346,728. While this is below WP:COMIC's required rating of 200,000, it is better than recently deleted comics like Able and Baker (Alexa:1,117,031) and Built for Comfort (Alexa:2,235,134) by a significant margin.
  3. arguing that this comic is notable: The author of this comic, Lucas TdS, is one of the administrators of Comixpedia.org, a growing online resource about webcomics. This site does have the an Alexa rating of better than 200,000.
  4. arguing that this comic is not notable': The article does seem to have been created in response to a sarcastic comment I made in a deletion debate arguing that it would be difficult to delete this article based on this comic's popularity. The creation of this article probably violates WP:POINT. Please note, however, that I had nothing to do with the creation of this article by its said author and did not instigate its creation on purpose!!!
  5. arguing that this comic is notable: Comic has a deep archive (219 strips) and a year-and-a-half publishing steady 5 days a week (it has not missed a day).
  6. arguing that this comic is not notable: Molotov's assertion is probably the closest to fact -- the comic is popular in terms of raw readership numbers and Alexa numbers (more popular than some other Wikipedia-documented webcomics, but is not mentioned by any comic critique sites, probably because of its relative newness to the comic scene (only a year in print). However, this would suggest a lack of notability within the webcomics community, despite its relatively high readership numbers on the net itself.
  7. General Comment regarding the idea to redirect to US standard paper size. As the comic title is written out half in numerical (8 1/2) and half in regular english (eleven). I would suggest that a redirect for this article to the article on US standard papersize is a bad idea for two reasons:
  • If someone came here looking for the comic and was redirected to the article on paper size, they may get confused.
  • No one is going to type in "8 1/2 by Eleven" when they are looking for "8 1/2 x 11"... would you suggest we create a redirect for "Eight and a half by Eleven?" No.
  • At some point in the future, this comic may gain notability. Its readership numbers and Alexa ranking are already almost high enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. At that point, having a redirect would be terribly inconvenient and confusing.
  1. General Comment regarding the article itself: except for the picture, this article is a copy of an article found at [1], which may be a more appropriate venue for such an article.
  2. General Comment regarding the assertion that the article not giving links to the website is grounds for deletion: obviously the article would need to be improved if that was the case, however that hardly qualifies as a reason for deltion.

--Tedzsee 21:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC) I've deleted a few of my comments because I figure that if I say I'm going to stay out of the debate, I should actually not comment any further. You can look at the history if you REALLY want to see what I wrote. --Tedzsee 17:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Tedzsee: "However, this would suggest a lack of notability within the webcomics community, despite its relatively high readership numbers on the net itself." This, I believe, is the key thing here -- it just hasn't made enough of an impact (not yet, anyway; obviously, I have nothing but good wishes on that front). Delete. -- Captain Disdain 00:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The above comments seem to indicate that the comic is an up and comer on the webcomic scene. The article is factually sound and I am normally reluctant to vote delete on articles where notability is arguable. I agree with Tedzsee above that it is not the job of an article to prove notability; however, it is the job of supporters in an afd debate to do so. As such, Iwould like to see the arguments of an objective party for the notability of the subject. Until then, I, personally, can reach no decision. Cool3 20:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep OK, I know I'm not neutral. This one's going quite well though, so I thought I'd better show my face! The fact is, there's no guidlines for webcomics on wiki other than Alexa, so this should probably be kept. -- Hijamiefans
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge — the vote did not reach a clear consensus — 2 votes delete, 2 votes keep and 2 votes merge — there is recognition that the article as it stands is sub-standard and there is little scope for much expansion — all useful content is to be merged with Sara Evans and the page is to be kept as a useful redirect to that article. --Gareth Hughes 14:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Real Fine Place to Start

Unsalvageable POV based article Cdyson37 | (Talk) 17:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to Sara Evans Dlyons493 Talk 18:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but certainly clean up, and possibly shift focus to the album, not the song. It's a notable song, that was at the top of the country charts for 2 weeks. The album is also notable, having been #3 on the Billboard charts for all genres. Just FYI, POV level isn't a criteria for deletion-LtNOWIS 18:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. All the interesting information about this is already mention in Sara Evans. The overwhelming majority of this article is not even about this song (yes, it's a single song!), preferring instead to wax POVical about the singer. With the fluff removed, there's nothing left that isn't said more cleanly in the singer's article already: and that only takes one line. -Splashtalk 20:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite reads like a fan site. Cool3 20:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge it into Sara Evans and forget about it--Ewok Slayer 01:43, 19 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] After School Knife Fight

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, official site is a MySpace page. A google search for their "record label" Ball Punch Records gives 3 hits. Punkmorten 12:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --JAranda | watz sup 05:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Xoloz 12:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 09:38, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amaxment

Vanity, but even if not, needs to be cleaned up and tf to WiktionaryStaffelde 11:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC) delete per nomination Staffelde 12:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom Dlyons493 Talk 13:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 09:30, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE, per A8. -Splashtalk 21:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amelia Henry

Not particularly notable; not particularly helpful information; created by a vandal --Nlu 05:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Turns out, it's also a copyright violation. --Nlu 06:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyright infringement. Whether as one of the hopefuls for this season of the Apprentice, she is notable enough to warrant an article is also a matter for some debate. In my view, only the winner would meet the notability criteria. Capitalistroadster 07:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as a copyright violation. This one could actually be considered a commercial content provider. -- Kjkolb 13:38, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 20:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ana Teresa López Vives

Non notable student and website. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete. nn.--Gaff talk 00:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete vanity. maybe someday the website will be notable enough, but the founder is certainly NN at this time. Youngamerican 05:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Jesse 18:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity --Rogerd 03:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity --Leonardo Alves


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apostrophe (Band)

nn - does not meet inclusion guidelines set out at WP:MUSIC Haeleth 13:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. Tempshill 14:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • —Michael Z. 2005-10-15 15:55 Z
  • Delete performances at three different high schools does not qualify as a national or international tour. No other indications of coming close to WP:MUSIC. --Allen3 talk 02:22, 21 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arm0nia

Non-notable, defunct open source software project. Freshmeat ranks them very low indeed; their website was last updated in 2004. — brighterorange (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Relist. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete defunct, and never was very funct in the first place. -DDerby-(talk) 03:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per brighterorange. --Allen3 talk 02:25, 21 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bad eating habits

I fail to see how this band will ever pass the criteria listed on WP:MUSIC. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. Ganymead 06:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 12:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. *drew 05:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:52, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bam Morgan

nom&vote delete. nn. wrestler Gaff talk 22:54, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Banned From Life

Web forum with 900 registered members, and a core group of "less than 50 members." tregoweth 03:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. tregoweth 03:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but don't vote for your own AfD nomination please. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • An odd comment. Virtually all admins count the nomination as a vote, if they feel they must merely count votes. Seperating the vote from the nomination is fine, since not all nominations are for delete (since some newbies misunderstand the point of AfD). -Splashtalk 21:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. (And frankly, as long as WP:AFD says "Consider creating the first entry, for example: *'''Delete''' per nomination. - ~~~~ to begin consensus gathering," I'd say there's nothing wrong with him voting for his own AfD nominations. I know I do.) -- Captain Disdain 04:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's actually why started doing it. tregoweth
  • Delete non-notable. *drew 05:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-nontable. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete We'll probably never have a specific "forums with X members are notable" standard, but this is definitely below all reasonable criteria. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Btm 22:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. NN. - Sensor 02:57, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 10:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Basquerade

Hoax, no relevant Googles ( Souls Of Mischief ), not in OED Dlyons493 Talk 00:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Gaff talk 00:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, apparent hoax. Kappa 05:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ganymead 06:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax. Banes 10:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Optichan 15:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Jesse 18:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am reluctant to use a google test as the be all end all; however, a social occurrence of such purported significance would have more google appearances. If, however, the author can provide some form of substantiation, I would support keeping the article. Without any such substantiation, I have no reason to believe that the article is not pure fiction. Cool3 04:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -Haon 14:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. If not in OED, that confirms it. Not in Merriam-Webster either. A somewhat amusing hoax. - Sensor 02:48, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bethel Christian Ministries

Article reads like a mission tract; not an encyclopedic tone. No content changes have been made since original post, only template additions. the iBook of the Revolution 22:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree with delete.--Gaff talk 22:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising and/or copivio of this here. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad. Xoloz 12:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as ad --67.166.178.60 20:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified/unverifiable --redstucco 09:04, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bored and Evil

Non notable webcomic, found here. It's forums can be found here, with a massive 54 members, split between 5 different comics. No assertion of notability either in the article, or could be found on google. - Hahnchen 17:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep [2] apparently somewhat notable. Image:Smilie.gifMolotov Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
    • Hello? Please try a more restrictive google search, and have a look at the actual links. Most are webcomic crosslinking. There have been no major coverage by any respected (even in the webcomic world) journals/magazines/newspapers. Was your keep vote based purely on the google search? What makes this website stand out from all the other websites out there? - Hahnchen 18:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Instead of jumping to conclusions, and insinuate that my vote was based only on technicality (which you have no way of knowing) let us just wait for more votes to come in. I may be wrong - you may be wrong, time will tell us. Thanks : ). Image:Smilie.gifMolotov Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
        • Easy tiger. You need to put speech marks around it, or Google searches for every instance of each of the words "bored" "evil". It's not surprising that there are millions of such instances. It's not unreasonable to suppose that your reasoning is based on the Google search you conducted since you offer no other justification. If you were thinking other things but didn't write them down, people aren't going to be able to guess. -Splashtalk 21:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
          • please stop playing Devil's advocate every time I vote "keep" on an article. I am not trying to get into debate, I am only trying to address my opinion - which I think should be plausible without comments under what I am saying to tell me that I am wrong. I respect your opinions, but somethings are a little too serious. I vote delete on most articles, and I think I have enough decision making capacity to vote yes or no. Again, thanks...but sometimes, no thanks. Plus that, I was concentrating more on Google hits that were obviously related to the topic...which I thought was others would obviously do because the rest are pretty irrelevant. Thanks. Also note that the first hits dealt with the topic at hand.Image:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
            23:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I'd have replied sooner, but have cut down time from the wiki. I just thought that the external link you gave was your justification of keeping. Apologies if you took offence, happy editing. - Hahnchen 13:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The correct Google search gives 127 useful hits, and a substanital proportion of them do not apply. Alexa rank is off the bottom of the scale. Since there appears to be no reliable third-party sources in amongst the Googles, there is no reason to suppose this has any influence outside it's small sphere. -Splashtalk 21:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable webcomic fails google and Alexa tests. Dragonfiend 22:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just isn't notable enough in any way that I can see. -- Captain Disdain 00:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Changed my vote after some reserch, now seems not notable! Bwfc 12:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • how do u delete an artacle
    • I would think the admin will delete this and any other articles Vfd'd. Bwfc 23:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

what?

  • Delete after thorough review of the article, I change my vote. I still don't like being argued with constantly for every opinion I have on this site. Image:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
    00:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. Xoloz 12:21, 17 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete and Move to Wiktionary — 4 votes delete, 3 votes move to Wiktionary (of which, 2 votes delete here), 1 vote keep and 1 vote redirect — Gareth Hughes 14:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "burger munch"

Obscure neologism NeilN 13:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn-neo, or dic-def at best. --Daveb 13:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • move to wiktionary, abstain on keeping in wikipedia. Kappa 14:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, few Google results are even close to the given definition. -- Kjkolb 01:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Terrible article, notable subcultural phenomenon mediated by Usenet and the Internet; history back to 1992. There was once only one burgermunch (usage is split as to one word or two); there are now hundreds or thousands. I wonder why the author left out the BDSM community, which is the origin of the event. Alternatively, merge to one of the BDSM articles. (Oh, and if kept, it needs the name normalized.) MCB 07:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge Honestly, I can't believe it wasn't up for a speedy deletion. Masterhatch 10:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Relisting, as closing right now would be diffacult. Meanwhile... Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 22:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 22:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Munch_(BDSM). Bikeable 00:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to wiktionary: While I will not comment on the importance or lack thereof of the term, I will say that every single phrase does not deserve an encyclopedia article. So, either delete it or move it wiktionary. Cool3 03:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Move - per Cool3 - Bwfc 23:25, 16 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BZPower Staff Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Category:Chester City FC

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cinco de Ocho

If we can cite a source that shows Jesus delivered pistolas to the Frito Bandito, I'll post a picture on my user page of myself wearing nothing but a toga made of corn chips. brenneman(t)(c) 04:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Racist garbage. Delete with extreme prejudice. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Not delete for extreme prejudice? brenneman(t)(c) 04:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hoax and a half. Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 04:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't understand with what substancial evidence you back up your disrespectful and ineffectual qualms... I would be very interested to see what (if any) evidence demonstrates a lack of cogent content. For a holiday that I have several times participated in (and know my town is not the only), I find it disgraceful that you would throw such rag-tag nonsense about. The claim that this is a hoax is not just false, it's disrespectful and insulting. Mastab
    • Source Mexican Immigration & Popular Culture by David Maciel cites Cinco de Ocho, I believe... I am sorry I cannot provide a page Mastab
      • Both of these are unsigned edits by User:Mastab, whose edit history primarily includes promoting the Cinco de Ocho holiday and having his edits reverted (though, to be fair, most of said RVs were undertaken by Aaron Brenneman). Aforementioned book does exist, but Googling for "cinco de ocho" brings up nothing useful. Delete badfaith hoax but willing to change mind if presented with solid evidence. Marblespire 05:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I will attempt to do so [by which I mean provide solid factual evidence]. I apologize for not making more official posts. I am still fairly new to the wikipedia community. How might I go about posting additional comments while including my Username as you guys have previously? Mastab <- My wanna-be tag
  • Delete unverifiable nonsense --Anetode 05:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment At least give me some time to provide further evidence. The information provided in the article is a conglomeration of various beliefs, myths, and traditions observed by people both in my town and about the wider global community. I have provided this article with the best intentions, and would appreciate it if people could be a little more lenient in their rulings... as soon as a find a chance to investigate more in depth, I will do so. I plan to make a trip to my local library early tomorrow morning so as to provide you all with verifiable quotes from assorted texts. I hope you all have the patience and maturity to act rashionally, as you have thus far. - Mastab Will someone please tell me how to set a Tag!?
  • Delete, silly hoax. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as obvious hoax. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense hoax. Mastab, do you really think that you are going to convince anyone that there is a holiday in Mexican mythology based upon the Frito Bandito? --Metropolitan90 16:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Quite possibly yes. By the way, it is not a holiday in Mexican mythology as you have stated, though it now marks a new occurence within the mythological realm. I concur, that would be nonsensical garbage, as the Frito bandito wasn't around until the 1960's. However, it is a "holiday" that is celebrated every October the 13th in various homes across the country and in the wider global community in protest to the discontinuation of Frito Bandito. The mythological story that comes along with the holiday may be infactual, however, I don't see anyone providing better. As I have stated before, the contents of the pages "is a conglomeration of various beliefs, myths, and traditions observed by people both in my town and about the wider global community". I am now off to the library to gather about further resources to support my claim. I cannot believe I am spending so much time defending an article who's deletion would not affect me, but rather thoughs who feel they may gain something from the information provided. I will return shortly. Thanks by the way for the advice Anetode. Mastab 16:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Throwing my vote in for hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax kill it with fire. DS 18:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Seven of Nine. What? Oh, sorry, delete as preposterous hoax, and let's keep an eye on this author's edits. MCB 23:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    I have nominated the two other related nonsense articles for Afd:
    Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pistolas
    Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pistolos
  • Delete Me vale madre! Es un chiste! Yo vivo en Tampico, en el norte de Mexico. Aqui, no hay 'Dia del Cinco de Ocho' - este es una chinga de mierda! Eddie.willers 04:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense hoax. *drew 05:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Excellent candidate for WP:BJAODN or Uncyclopedia. --Clay Collier 06:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Thanks for the Contribution Seniore Eddie Willers of Tampico Mexico. I ecspecially appreciate your statement.. of este es una chinga de mierda. Spanish or not, that translates to "this is a 'fuck of shit' ". I do not believe that kind of language and disrespect is in order in this setting. Regardless of the dialect in which it is spoken. I will cease posting/editing further articles to comply with the many complaints I have recieved as a result of my first (and last) contribution to Wikipedia. If you guys cannot appreciate the practices of another generation, then it's your loss. Whether it's a matter of faith or morals, the fact that you people would dare to critisize these practices is undermining to our society and the common good of the people (minority or not). Thanks. Mastab 06:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • You refer (several entries above) to "Mexican Immigration & Popular Culture" by David Maciel as your source which cites this holiday. This appears to be a reference to the book "Culture Across Borders: Mexican Immigration & Popular Culture" edited by David R. Maciel and María Herrera-Sobek (Amazon.com finds no other similarly titled work by this or any similarly named author). Fortunately, Amazon.com makes available online the entire index to this book. There is no entry in the index for "Cinco de Ocho" [3]. By the way, the article under discussion claims that "The crisis hit rock-bottom when, at one point, four out of every three Mexicans was a bandito" (emphasis added). Pardon me if I find it hard to believe this. --Metropolitan90 09:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even good enough for BJAODN. Rossami (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I bet the only reason we didn't speedy this is because the article was actually written, spelled and formatted properly. ~Mbsp
  • Comment Also not mentioned in the index is Cinco de Mayo, a celebration into which the book delves substantially. As the saying goes... don't judge a book by it's cover... Don't judge it by its index either. Agreed the four out of every three Mexicans is unrealistic... a sentence structure mistake. Forgive me for my crime against humanity, that will be corrected to as it should be... 3 out of 4. Keep throwin the hardball... Mastab 16:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: We now also have Cinco de Neuve, created by a username that attempted to vandalize the AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pistolos. I'm attempting to get it speedied. --Clay Collier 22:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you. It is really frustrating when additional articles pop up in order to mock and degrade my own. I fully support any actions you take. Mastab 23:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This page was vandalized by User:Amdahlj who removed some votes and changed others from Delete to Keep [4]. I have since reverted his changes and reinstated the changes made after his vandalism; please review this page to make sure your votes say what they were intended to say. --Metropolitan90 23:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Amdahlj is the critter that pulled the same trick on the Pistolos discussion. He's already been warned once about vandalising AfD discussions. He should be blocked as a vandal if this continues. --Clay Collier 01:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete crap --Rogerd 04:52, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect — 9 votes redirect (delete/redirect included), 4 votes merge, 3 votes delete and 1 vote abstain — the page will be made a redirect to Comixpedia --Gareth Hughes 15:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comixpedia.org

A POV essay about how Wikipedia has refused to accept WP:COMIC as gospel disguised as an article about a website with an Alexa rating of 348,296. As the article stands it fails WP:NOR and if cleaned up it does not meet WP:WEB standards for notability. 207.136.11.122 00:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- it appears to be a mirror of [5], the article presents a one-sided criticism of Wikipedia, it unsalvageably fails WP:NPOV, and in its current form, has no place in the article namespace. --Mysidia (talk) 01:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


  • COMMENT from author... this is not a POV Essay. The critical commentary in the article is intended to document the creation of a webcomic encyclopedia and the reasons for such a creation, not to argue a point. In fact, the article is not critical in and of itself, but rather documents criticisms that have been raised. This documentation takes the form of both paraphrasing and quoting cited sources. At no point does the article itself make an argument about Wikipedia. If it is interpreted as doing so, that was not the idea and I apologize. However, actually reading the article should show that this is the case quite clearly. Many of the reasons the Comixpedia encyclopedia was created had to do with the feelings of failure that existed in some way or another by members of the Wikipedian community in regards to the WP:COMIC.


As for the idea of this site not meeting web standards of notability, please take into account the following:
  1. This comic encyclopedia is linked to by several pages in the Wikipedian webcomic project pages as an alternate venue for webcomic pages that are found to not be sufficiently notable for this encyclopedia.
  2. This site is owned by Comixpedia.com, a site that is notable enough in the webcomic community to both have an Alexa rating of "181,818" and be listed in Wikipedia.
  3. The site has only been operational for 2 months, which serves to deter it from having a high Alexa rating.
  4. The site was born out of criticisms raised by the writer Eric Burns of the popular Websnark blog site. Both of which are listed in Wikipedia and are seen as notable in the webcomics community.
Additionally: As for the argument that this piece is "original research" article and fails to meet WP:NOR standards, this is a baseless accussation. All the facts documented in the article are available at one of the following sources:

These sources are cited in the article itself. Rather than hitting delete so early, why not suggest improvements to the article if you feel it is not adequate.

ALSO OF NOTE: the idea that this article is a copy should not be a problem under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Obviously, I hope that this article will be added to by the Wikipedian webcomics community. Another idea: If you feel the article is not worthy on its own, it may be a good idea to merge the information contained in this article with that in Comixpedia.com's article, as the sites are owned by the same company... in fact, it appears someone has already created a section in that article for Comixpedia.org (not me), so perhaps this information can be merged and incorporated there if editors feel that this article is not worth its own page.

--Tedzsee 03:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete Molotov (talk) eImage:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif
  • Abstain - I'm ambivalent about whether Comixpedia.org is an encyclopedic subject or not, but this is, as written, overly self-referential to Wikipedia, as it seems to focus more on the controversy that lead to the creation of WebcomicsWiki than the actual creation and history of WebcomicsWiki. The POV issues can be fixed, but first the article needs to be rewritten to be more about the site and less about the (largely unimportant in a larger sense) controversy. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Response: Regarding your above comment... That has to do with the fact that the site has been up for only a short while. As the site grows, this will obviously (hopefully) be resolved. Also, as writing about the creation of the site would be undocumented-- THAT would certainly qualify as original research, and thus make this an unencyclopedic article. I tried to write the article using sourced material to avoid it being judged as original research and failing the WP:NOR provision. As I said, it probably makes sense to just merge this with the appropriate section in the Comixpedia article more than anything. I'd do it myself now, but I don't want to open myself to criticisms of running or whatnot. --Tedzsee 04:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Merge with section "Comixpedia.org" of Comixpedia article. Just to make my vote official. --Tedzsee 04:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete & redirect to Comixpedia, as that article's summary of the comixpedia.org wiki is sufficient --Anetode 06:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. Why even bother arguing on this one. This is not encyclopdia caliber stuff. The author should take up his beef with the public relations department or somesuch and really, spare us all the pain of this debate. WP is not a crystal ball.--Gaff talk 10:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

What's with the personal attacks. I HAVE NO BEEF! sheesh! This article documents the formation of a service that was created. That is all. my goodness, you people have a stick in your eye or something. --Tedzsee 15:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
For the comfort of Tedzee and everyone interested in this debate, I will withdraw my vote and abstain from further discussion. I have striken out my above comments, which were not meant intended as personla attack.--Gaff talk 08:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Perhaps I took the comment too personally? However, it was written quite harshly. Either way, thank you for your positive attitude prevailing. --Tedzsee 22:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete ranting and create a new redirect to Comixpedia. No encyclopedic content to salvage here. —Cryptic (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
How is it ranting? It documents a series of ARTICLES written. Those articles were essays found on the site Websnark. What you interpret as ranting is sourced material. --Tedzsee 21:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Cryptic. Article is unintelligible to anyone but Wikipedians; can't stay in mainspace. --A D Monroe III 15:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
As rewritten stub by Splash, conent is now okay, but I now vote to delete based on being non-notable. --A D Monroe III 15:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Forget it. I will add the appropriate material to the main comixpedia article and delete all the rest. --Tedzsee 15:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with comixpedia. Wow Tedzsee, sorry you've had to go through so much of this of late. Merge it into the comixpedia article as a separate section, having a .org and .com article, both run by the same company seems kind of superfluous. I kind of like the webcomic wiki, I've mentioned it loads in various Afds, and although it's new, I would bet that it becomes a haven for the webcomic community. - Hahnchen 16:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Tedzsee. not to be taken personally, but I fail to see the need for seperate articles. Jesse 18:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    I don't take anything personally. In fact, I didn't know that a .org section had been created in the Comixpedia entry when I created this article. Otherwise I simply would have added the info there. So, in fact, I agree that two articles aren't needed. What I do take personally is accusations that I tried to write a biased article or something. It certainly documents a bias, but I don't think the article itself is biased, and it does provide valid information about the reasons behind the creation of the WebcomicsWiki. Notice that the wikipedians who are real visitors of the WP:COMIC section of the site are the ones who are providing the most valid and knowledgeable discussion. Those are: Hahnchen and A Man In Black (conspire | past ops)
  • I've replaced it with an NPOV-stub. Article space is emphatically not where we carry rants on Wikipedia guidelines. Do that either on the guideline's talk page or in your userspace. I nevertheless would strongly delete my own stub because it's a brand new website that has yet to meet any kind of notability bar. -Splashtalk 21:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    Once again, I would suggest you read the article. You emphatically argue that the article is a rant, I emphatically argue the opposite. The site was formed because of disagreement with Wikipedia guidelines. The original article documents that disagreement with cited sources and points to 2 outside articles. The original article does not attempt to say who is RIGHT or WRONG in the dispute. Also, replacing the article with a stub does not allow voters to see the original article. --Tedzsee 23:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    I did read the article. I don't participate in AfD without doing so. And rewriting the article has turned into something that is at least not s writing out of someone's disagreement with a Wikipedia policy. Everybody has a history button, and is able to use it with a click of a button. It is everyday practise to rewrite an article during AfD, and is positively encouraged. As I said, such commentary on one persons view of a formative guideline belongs either on that guideline's talk page or in userspace. We avoid self-references in article space, and even if we allowed this one, it would be a hopeless POV article since it wouldn't include any other POV. If it did, it would immediately duplicate the proposal's talk page, so we go full circle. -Splashtalk 03:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Comixpedia article. -Sean Curtin 07:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Comixpedia --Rogerd 03:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Comixpedia. Regarding Tedzee's precedent below, I actually think it's better to just say something was founded by disaffected Wikipedia members. If you have criticisms of Wikipedia guidelines in an article, you can't make it NPOV without including the other side also. And Wikipedia articles are not the place to argue about Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore I can't really see how to include the original discussion of concerns while keeping the article in line with Wikipedia policy. -- SCZenz 16:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Comixpedia. There's hardly enough left of the article to even call it a merge. -Abe Dashiell 12:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Please note:

  • PRECEDENCE: I recently found precedence for this sort of article at Wikipedia. Please see Star Wars Wiki. It both references Wikipedia and notes the same sort of complaints that I document in my article. The difference? My sites are sourced and relevant material is cited to document the dispute. If anything, I'd say the other article is more unencyclopedic. Either way, neither article is presenting an argument that Wikipedia is bad... they're just saying that because of certain frustrations users decided to go elsewhere. --Tedzsee 02:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, as there's nothing left to merge. Saberwyn 03:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I found amusing that some people think comixpedia.org is nonotable and pov when there are many reason to say it is notable and not Pov. Oblivously some people don't read debate. As a mattter of fact, our ranking for 1 week aveage is 99,133 which clearly make us more notable than asserted.[7]--Kiba 23:46, 21 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyberyogi

The article seems to be questionable -- not heard of anyone named Cyberyogi behind the myth, and cannot find any sources that support the idea. Google search for Cyberyogi turns up 500 unrelated results - it seems to be a claim not notable enough to merit its own article. --Mysidia (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. non-notable, no possibility for expansion. GTBacchus 00:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. --Allen3 talk 02:43, 21 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Mathews

Appears to be non-notable. No Google reference to the Indian Immigrant Initiation. Several to Daniel Mathews but do not appear to be in reference to this particular one. CambridgeBayWeather 05:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This is very offensive to the two members of the community who decided to publicly acknowledge Daniel and his efforts. We will be continuing to upload more information on both Daniel and the Indian Immigrant Initiation. -- Geordanh 10:28, 2 October 2005
    • KEEPGeordanh 06:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Geordanh
    • We have finished putting up the page on the Indian Immigrant Initiation, please read through that if it is any form of cross reading you are seeking to learn about. Geordanh
    • Can we yet remove the deletion tab? It makes the article look like it is made by some hoodlums Geordanh
      • comment Wikipedia is (or: tries to be) an encyclopedia, not a place where dedicated community service is rewarded by public acknowledgement. I suggest you create a webpage for him. --Aleph4 10:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete appears to be bogus article. MONGO 06:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unable to find any independent references to show notability. --GraemeL (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 14:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. While this initiative sounds commendable, there are no third party sources to verify this information. If the author/s could cite sources such as media coverage to verify this information, it would be a different case. Capitalistroadster 17:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. Xoloz 12:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 09:39, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darkhardware

I think this article should be deleted

  • No content (except for a link)
  • A request for Cleanup of Nov 2004 went without trace on the article

Unless of course someone tells me that the site is so improtant to turkish cultural life that it has its place in wikipedia. But then, there should be a lot more content, and not just a link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eptalon (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Undecided. Might meet WP:WEB, in that I think their forum claims 18326 members (see the bottom), but I don't read Turkish so can't be sure. I haven't even tried to search for media attention. On the other hand, Alexa rank is only 80,895, and we won't really lose anything by deleting this sad little substub+external link. —Cryptic (talk) 11:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost a speedy for little or no context and has been marked for cleanup since November 2004. If somebody wants to expand it from a substub, let me know and I'll reconsider. --GraemeL (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete just a random website among 8 billion other random websites. It hasn't had any external examination that can attest to any possible factual insertions and so it must stay as it is, which is virtually a substub. -Splashtalk 21:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 09:41, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 10:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Madore

Non notable mathematician and amateur computer scientist with no major academic work done. (This is not a personal attack, I'm a personal friend of his.) David.Monniaux 00:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not quite A7, but close. --CastAStone 00:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

*Interestingly, he is listed as the inventor of computer language Unlambda. Unlambda survived a VfD about a year ago. One could argue that this warrants keeping him. On the other hand, the link to Unlambda's homepage is dead. Perhaps better to delete both the inventor and the language, if infact dead. --Gaff talk 00:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Google search on unlambda gives 36,900 votes. Have to disagree with nom's claim that no major academic work. I vote keep.--Gaff talk 00:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    Unlambda is not an academic work. It is a computer implementation of a well-known academic concept (SKI combinators, a form of lambda calculus without lambdas) that David originally wrote as a half-joke. David.Monniaux 02:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    Must admit I'm dum as a rock on this topic. seems to me that even if it was a "half-joke" that is widely used that may warrant his article being spared from the scrap heap.--Gaff talk 10:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    It is not used for anything practical. You do not program anything practical in Unlambda, unless you're doing it especially to make a point that all Turing-complete languages are equivalent. David would surely tell you the same. :-) David.Monniaux 17:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep <pseud>Surfaces de del Pezzo sans point rationnel sur un corps de dimension cohomologique un seems notable to me</pseud> (well it might if I knew anything about the area). Seriously, [8] isn't a completely nn publication list. Dlyons493 Talk 00:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
With that kind of criterion, any person working in higher education or research, including myself, deserves an article. I don't think I deserve an article. David.Monniaux 02:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you do! - [9] and working at ENS cannot be dismissed out of hand. I feel the Madore article is not clearcut - there's some notable work being done in his general area but I'm not competent to judge if his is. Then Unlambda gives him wider claims to notability. So I'd give him the benefit of any doubt - wiki is not paper. Dlyons493 Talk 07:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
In terms of number of papers and numbers of citations, my publication list is better than that. And I certainly don't warrant an article. And I work for an establishment that can claim two Nobel Prize winners in the last five years, but that makes them notable, not me. Average Earthman 18:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keeep notable for writing Unlambda. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, writing Unlambda grants him some degree of fame or notoriety. Kappa 05:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not quite sure this meets the bar. Gamaliel 09:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • what bar? please be specific.--Gaff talk 10:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The bar for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 17:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What if the article just said This guy wrote Unlambda. Would that be enough or should his name be absorbed into the article on Unlamba where he could be listed as its dreator. I'm not a programmer, so I have no idea how important a computer language he wrote. Any experts want to weigh in?--Gaff talk 08:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keeep His Unlamba work is notable. Banes 10:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep based on above. Marskell 16:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this article is linked to by several pages. It needs to be expanded, but it does have notability. Jesse 18:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain because I am personally involved. The argument I see in favor of "keep" is: Unlambda is definitely worth having a page (I certainly didn't expect it to be so popular when I created it, but there it is), and I generally find it good policy to have a page (if only a stub) for the author or inventor of any work of any kind mentioned in the Wikipedia itself. The argument I see in favor of "delete" is: the category "French mathematicians" (don't know how to link to this!), as it is, is utterly ridiculous (some people a zillion times more important than I am do not have a listing there). On the whole, I tend to think that the page shouldn't have been written but, now that it is, it might as well remain (basically, there were more important pages to write, and there are also more important pages to delete!). Just to clarify two points: I did not write the page (and I do not know who did), and David.Monniaux is indeed a friend of mine. --Gro-Tsen 19:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Question from a newbie: what is the value of a weak keep vote other than to leave the administrator who gets stuck making the final call feeling like they are out on a limb? Shouldn't votes be either keep, delete, or abstain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaff (talk • contribs) 03:33, October 16, 2005

That is a good question, but I don't see it as one being answered in a single AfD. I personally don't like them either, but you should bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. -Greg Asche (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: we have a stub on brainfuck's creator, and Unlambda is equally notorious notable. Haeleth 20:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but expand stub. Unlambda makes him notable. - Sensor 02:55, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Death Note. Physchim62 17:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Death note

This should be deleted, or at the very least, redirected to Death Note. I'd bet every penny I've earned that this was created only to add further attention to the Death Note LiveJournal community debacle. cma 02:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • How about a redirect to Death certificate. Lets deal with real things on WP. Not abstract who-haw.--Gaff talk 10:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Not in the hospital I work at. I'll withdraw my vote to delete and let it get redirected wherever.--Gaff talk 08:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Death Note. --Optichan 16:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per nom. Jesse 19:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as there is already a perfectly acceptable article located at Death Note. cma 01:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Rogerd 03:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Mysidia et al. --168.12.253.82 14:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Death Note, which is a far better article anyway. - Sensor 02:29, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deuce (character)

This article seems to lack relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.87.148 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Redirect to Jerkcity, I suppose, though that may well be worth nominating, too. —Cryptic (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Don't see a need for a redirect. Dlyons493 Talk 14:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 09:41, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP The Land 15:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dhasan River

Borderline nonsense, no context. Delete. Alr 22:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Now that it has been rewritten, keep. Good job, Allen3. Alr 00:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Real river in India. The article has been rewritten as a simple geography stub. --Allen3 talk 23:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite. (The original, however... whoo!) Good job, Allen3. -- Captain Disdain 00:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand Allen3's rewrite about notable Indian river. It helped mark the borders of the land of the Chandela according to the Britannica. Capitalistroadster 00:42, 16 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (4 keep, 3 delete).Robert 15:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disgaea characters

Delete - According to A Link to the Past, articles such as these are not notable/encyclopedic due to the fact that the characters only appear in one game, such as those of Final Fantasy VI. For a discussion, see User talk:A Link to the Past#Excuse me? ~ Hibana 02:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep a list is a perfectly acceptable way to organise minor or single-game characters. The Disgaea: Hour of Darkness article is already too big to merge them back into. Besides, Disgaea 2 is coming soon anyway, so the "one game" argument won't be valid for long. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, having an article for the characters is perfectly acceptable per WP:FICT. Kirill Lokshin 17:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as preferable to seperate articles for each of the characters --TimPope 09:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete on grounds of content: Wiki is not GameFaqs. The page contains capsule bios that could be easily merged into the main Disgaea article, but the special-attack data and stats don't belong here. -Marblespire 11:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --Mateusc 03:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 09:40, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 03:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doha, Urdu

Problem: Content is 'hello' Molotov (talk) Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif

Hope you dont mind, but ill go and delete the entire article now; it meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 03:43, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Gareth Hughes 21:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Draken

Dash has written an article about his own imaginary race. That is a kind of about-myself articles. Sorry dash... -- CannibalSmith (159.148.138.159) 06:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I disagree, I have heard of Drakens before. Namely in the game "Draken". His entry fits the description to a tee. - Trapical 05:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, nn vanity. I believe Trapical is thinking of either Drakan or Drakkhen. (If there is a notable game called Draken, still delete unless the article is rewritten from scratch to be about the game.) —Cryptic (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 14:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 09:45, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dubai dream

Vanity and non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather 05:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

  • delete --Ixfd64 05:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, promotional. Real book, but impressively abysmal Amazon sales rank of 1,219,396, I can't find anything about the publisher except their online storefront, and the book was published September 30. —Cryptic (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 14:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 09:45, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dubism

its true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.242.211.189 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Delete, nonsense, and I rather suspect a {{nonsense}} tag would stick on it, though some of it is sort of coherent. —Cryptic (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 14:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is about a religion whose holy books it states to be "the Duble, the Dorah, Dubdas and the Du'ran", one of whose tenets it states to be "There Is No Pie", and whose characters it states to include the "Muffins of Doom". This is an obvious parody. Furthermore its edit history shows that it is a parody being constructed here on Wikipedia directly. Ironically, the article appears unrelated to the fact that people who have ceased to be Jehovah's Witnesses refer to practitioners of that religion as "dubs" and the religion as "dubism". Delete. Uncle G 14:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per Uncle G. Xoloz 12:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 09:44, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DUMMY

BJAODN? Not an encyclopdia article. Gaff talk 20:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - nn item from some game? Dlyons493 Talk 21:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, a game item. A non-notable game item, at that; I suppose this could be merged into Animal Crossing, but as the topic is so insignificant, I don't really see much point in it. I'd rather delete. -- Captain Disdain 00:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete so specific that it would almost seem out of place in a video game strategy manual. Cool3 19:22, 21 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP The Land 15:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E-rate

Tagged as having no context (A1 CSD), but it has enough that I can easily make out what it's about. Whether it's really an advert or not, is for AfD to consider. -Splashtalk 23:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, assuming it can be expanded, it's a notable program. Also, the federal government doesn't do much advertising on Wikipedia, as far as I know. ;-) -- Kjkolb 14:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep/Expand perhaps get data from this page? E-rate is a notable program, very important to schools and libraries in the US. Jessamyn 20:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Rhobite 02:16, 16 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect — 3 votes for redirect to electricity, 2 votes delete, 1 vote keep --Gareth Hughes 15:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electrism

neologism Salsb 01:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

  • keep --MarSch 17:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, dictdef, and I don't think it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion - Google print turns up only two independent instances conveying meaning. Might be worth a transwiki anyway to let them figure it out, though. —Cryptic (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This appears to be nothing to do with the "electrism" espoused by Viktor Schauberger, which is the only "electrism" that research turns up that isn't just one-person crank physics or that isn't simply synonymous with electricity (as is the case in the mainstream physics writings that I've found). A merger seems inappropriate, since the article content appears to be wrong. The few mainstream physics references that I can find give the term in contexts that imply that it was a 19th century term (with "magneticity" being an alternative name for "magnetism" and "electrism" being an alternative name for "electricity") contemporary with Michael Faraday, not a recent coinage, prior to the advent of the concept of electromagnetism. Redirect to electricity. Uncle G 15:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to electricity, per Uncle G. GreetingsEarthling 17:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Uncle G. Xoloz 12:14, 17 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep — the article has been translated into English. Although it is still a stub, the grounds for AFD have been dealt with. --Gareth Hughes 15:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elisabeth Jordan

Article is entirely in Spanish. Perhaps move to eswiki? after notablity established.

  • Delete or Move to Spanish Wiki--MONGO 13:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: article claims that Elisabeth Jordan was one of the winners who got to form the musical group Bellepop on the Spanish version of the reality television show Popstars and later became an actress on a television series. Apparently this is true; see IMDb. If this article is kept, move and redirect to Elisabeth Jordán to conform to Spanish orthography. --Metropolitan90 16:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment — I'm going to list this on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English (it should have been sent there first). I'm going to leave this AFD open, so that translators can comment, and so that, if it's not translated within 2 weeks, it can be deleted immeadiately. --Gareth Hughes 22:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article has now been translated into English. I didn't transwiki the Spanish version, as it was a bit fancruftish. I also haven't moved the article to the correct orthography, to avoid disrupting the AfD. No vote.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elkhart Musical Instrument Company

  • Delete, NN. Four Google hits only, and shares significant (useless?) information with Harry W. Pedler Company and American Manufacturing Company. All of these articles are about unremarkable (hence NN) and near identical companies. Budgiekiller 15:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No claims to notability. --A D Monroe III 15:29, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ElNacho

Seems to be a vanity page. Molotov (talk) Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Gareth Hughes 15:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emu Bay shale

  • Delete, to specific to be encyclopedic. Citizen Premier 21:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The article and its links speak for themselves. PAR 23:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • the article is none, it's more a small number of facts. one or two sentences and it could be a stub (but thats no reason to delete within a short period of time). --Saperaud 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if it's a Lagerstätte then it's certainly notable. Lots of ordinary geographical/geological features have articles anyway, don't they? Should be recapitalized "Emu Bay Shale" though. DopefishJustin (･∀･) 02:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, much more needs to be written of course, but there is no reason not to have an article on an individual formation. In fact I plan to create individual articles on the various formations that make up the Colorado Plateau. The reason: I'm tired of repeating the same level of detail for each geology of ... article for the region. Different formations have different extents and crop out in different areas so any one place may share some formations: geology of the Capitol Reef area, geology of the Canyonlands area, and geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area all share some, but not all, formations. Having separate full-sized articles on each formation means that I can have a summary in the geology of ... article that is specific to that particular area (formations have different thicknesses in different areas and are made of different combinations of various members; even those members have area-specific features). --mav 04:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Definite Keep No reason to delete and it's not too specific, especially not for Wikipedia. --DanielCD 21:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be one of only two sites for Redlichiida. I've expanded a bit and put it in categories to help the right people see it. Definitely needs expansion by someone who knows though. --Scott Davis Talk 14:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Scott Davis's rewrite as place of geological interest. However, there are two images on the page copyrighted to Dave Simpson which could be of concern for copyright. Has Mr Simpson given his permission for these pictures to be used on Wikipedia? Is there a special place for copyright violations regarding pictures?Capitalistroadster 18:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The image page contains "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed.". This text comes from the Wikimedia Commons {{Attribution}}, so I presumed it to be acceptable. I note the corresponding template here suggests to the uploader using {{Cc-by-2.0}} instead. --Scott Davis Talk 23:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Dave Simpson has given permission for the use of the image. PAR 23:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Keep Image:Smilie.gifMolotov Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
  • Keep, as one of two sites with fossils of the first arthropods to appear in the fossil record. Average Earthman 20:10, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep — I've expanded the article to a three-point dab. --Gareth Hughes 17:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enste

One sentence isn't good enough... Have lengthened some, but still not sure if it's a keep bjelleklang 23:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but modify. A check on Google and de.Wikipedia shows that this is a small city in Westphalia, not a dynasty as stated in the entry. Jtmichcock 13:20, 15 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eriq Wities

Delete, appears to be more of a user page, person in question doesn't seem to be too famous (only about 141 google hits, few of which seem to refer to him).

  • Incomplete nomination, listing now. No vote. --MarkSweep✍ 21:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article claims that he's a filmmaker and that he's big in Taiwan and San Diego county, but unless we see some references to notable works or proof of sufficient fame, I'd say this article's a goner. -- Captain Disdain 00:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy or delete. Denni☯ 01:17, 16 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Errolesque

Not in common usage, even it if were it would be more appropriate to wiktionary. GreetingsEarthling 17:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. WINAD for a start, and mnost of the 34 useful Googles are Wikimirrors anyway (at least 9 of them, according to my browser) so there is a vanishingly small amount of usage that we can rely on to establish that this word is actually in wide acceptance. Since I'm not really of the mind that this can be expanded to an article that talks about the history and abstract concept of the word, as an encyclopedic article would demand, it should go. -Splashtalk 20:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Splash. Xoloz 12:23, 17 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eusoe and The Principality of Gwynedd Newydd

This place does not even exist, and does not appear in any published work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SFGiants (talk • contribs) 04:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Indeed it does not. Neither does its spinoff article, The Principality of Gwynedd Newydd, which I'm combining here. No relevant google hits. Delete both. (This afd nomination was orphaned, listing now, etc etc) —Cryptic (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 14:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. They both confess to being figments of an (overactive and underoccupied) imagination. Wiki is not a braindump. -Splashtalk 21:09, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eversummer Eve

Webcomic, found here. Alexa gives it an atrocious rank, but I would guess most traffic comes from Wirepop, on which its archives are hosted with others. Wirepop gets a ranking of just over 150,000. I still don't think the webcomic is notable enough, at best, it would best be included in a Wirepop article. - Hahnchen 02:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to comixpedia, that's where this belongs. Ilmari Karonen 16:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable web comic, even by our lax standards. Transwiki if you like, but please don't vote that way for non-Wikimedia wikis or expect an afd closer to do the work for you. —Cryptic (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Relisting. Not enough discussion. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 22:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If somebody wants to transwiki this somewhere else, that's fine with me, but if that leads to wikis outside Wikimedia, it's kind of a stretch to assume that someone here's going to do it. -- Captain Disdain 00:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, NN. See User:SCZenz/Webcomics. -- SCZenz 16:02, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Execution_and_murder_rates_countrywide

Rubbish, POV article, heavily biased, unsourced.

  • Delete virtually no information of an encyclopedic nature.--MONGO 13:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Also countrywide in title is inherent systemic bias. Dlyons493 Talk 14:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but would keep if it could be salvaged. Image:Smilie.gifMolotov Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
  • Delete. POV, original essay, comment rather than facts, US-centric title and badly written. Average Earthman 20:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Recommended only as part of a low-content diet. Can be used to increase your POV level. Consult a brain surgeon before keeping. -Splashtalk 21:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Country? Which country? Saberwyn 04:50, 16 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] False Alarm (Russian band)

A non-notable band: fails to meet WP:MUSIC. -DDerby-(talk) 19:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. — JIP | Talk 16:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless it can be established that they meet inclusion guidelines. -R. fiend 16:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:R. fiend. Punkmorten 21:29, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy DELETE as attack. -Doc (?) 09:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fifi box

Problem: article created by a vandal for vandalism; I added a speedy tag as wellImage:Smilie.gifMolotov Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Five pound electron

Trivial result of special relativity

  • Delete. Gazpacho 07:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, arbitrary topic. Kappa 07:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, trivial, silly. GTBacchus 09:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Interesting, but contextless nonsense. How about an article on the 2.272727kg electron? --Cactus.man ✍ 09:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete crap --Rogerd 04:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This looks like garbaaaage. But are there any expert physicits around to comment on the topic prior to deletion of the stub?--Gaff talk 10:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • comment This may well be a good example to include in an article like special relativity, but at the moment I'm unconvinced it's deserving of its own article. I'm also having trouble figuring out what it's saying, because it's lacking enough technical information (which means I'm having trouble believing for sure that it's factually correct information and this isn't a hoax/imaginary item). For instance, "weight" is just a description of the force due to gravity, so is this saying that the electron's had enough momentum imparted to it that it strikes a target and the impulse in the collision is five pounds of force, or is it saying that the electron's accelerated to such a speed that it has a relativistic mass with regards to the earth (I'm assuming this is going on on earth) that earth's gravity is able to impart 5 pounds of normal force on it? The Literate Engineer 16:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, now has a happy home on BJAODN. Alphax τεχ 14:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's pointless. But good for a laugh.--Vertigo200 16:26, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Foohon

non-notable online videogame slang Dalf | Talk 09:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Does not seem notable except to a eew thousand people who play this game or hangout with eachother on IRC. Dalf | Talk 09:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable at all. -DDerby-(talk) 03:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 09:01, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Full flavor

Fails criteria of WP:MUSIC: no albums, no indication of local importance. Chick Bowen 22:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete article fails to demonstrate notability --Isolani 22:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As Isolani says. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 00:09, 16 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moot, as I speedily deleted this as a biography with no claim of notability. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gageendal

dude with a MUD character

  • Delete. Gazpacho 06:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable fictitious character. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:30, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Get up the yard

  • Definition and quite detailed Etymology of a Hiberno-English expression which I think is local to Dublin and possibly ephemeral of the 70s-80s; I've never heard of it. There are no references. A different etymology is suggested here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; No original research Joestynes 21:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Joestynes 21:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm well familar with the phrase, being a Dub and all that. It belongs in Wiktionary, though .. - Ali-oops✍ 21:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ali-oops RMoloney 23:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This kind of article is original research until proven otherwise. -Splashtalk 03:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am the author of this article and would like to respond to criticisms: It is maintained that it should be in Wiktionary but the article is more than a definition, it explores at length the origin of the term and is as much a social study as a definition. It is certainly not local to Dublin as it is heard throughout Ireland. Nor is it ephemeral to the 1970s-80s. It is very much in use today. There are no references because I know of none: I went to the school in question where the phrase arose and witnessed its origin, development and growth personally. It was not in use prior to the 1960s. The link suggested by a critic to an alternative etymology offers no proof of its speculation about "yardarms", which were not an item in common conversation at the time the phrase arose, in the 1960s. Yardarms were common in antique conversation. The development of "Get up the yard" was something I witnessed personally: it is the only word or phrase I have seen from its inception. Odea 02:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • umm - then it's 1) original research and 2) non-noteable? It's certainly not in common parlance in Ireland today, BTW, other than maybe with Dustin the Turkey - Ali-oops✍ 03:06, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GNAE

This is blatant advertising spam. Even if it were completely rewritten to avoid the self-promotional tone, it hardly seems noteworthy. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as obvious advertising. And phew...I was worried this was a European branch of the GNAA, at first. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio from [10]. Unfortunately outside 48 hours speedy time. --GraemeL (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all blatant copyvios, speedily if possible. Capitalistroadster 00:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Rogerd 04:53, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn/Kept Marskell 16:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gravedigger

Problem: Dic-def. Image:Smilie.gifMolotov Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
 04:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I agree, it's not a great article right now, but surely this is a real profession? Maybe they call them graveyard technicians now or something, I don't know, but surely there's enough knowledge about the profession of gravedigging to fill an article? I think this article needs work, not removal. (Obviously, if there's already an article about this under another name, then a redirect would be the way to go -- I couldn't find one, though.) -- Captain Disdain 04:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep some of the nominations baffle me. This article is clearly a stub, but any reputable encyclopedia in the world has an article for "gravedigger". No question that the article needs expansion/improvement. Check and see if Britannica has an article before nominating.--Nicodemus75 04:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have expanded the article to include notable people who have worked as gravediggers and gravediggers in arts and literature. The latter includes the gravedigger scene from Hamlet - one of the most notable scenes in theatre. There are also notable people who have worked as gravediggers including two blues musicians who have Allmusic.com articles and have recorded several albums and performed national tours. Sid Smith, the author has won a Whitbread Prize in literature while the Pappenheimer Family were unfortunates wrongly accused of murdering seven pregnant women and improbable acts of witchcraft, tortured and burned alive during a witchcraft scare in 1600. Capitalistroadster 06:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Nice one Cap' Alf melmac 14:00, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gravite.tk

It appears to be a non-notable website. --Mysidia (talk) 02:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn, Wikipedia is not a website directory. - Pureblade | ☼ 02:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Molotov Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk) e
     03:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable. tregoweth 03:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. *drew 05:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and vote for having votes for inclusion in the future.--Gaff talk 10:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN - someone removed the AfD - I restored it --Rogerd 03:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Sensor 02:31, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 15:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holden Dapenor

Possible hoax. A search for Holden Dapenor on Google returns 0 hits.[11] Delete unless sources are provided for verification. --Allen3 talk 22:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Please check the edit history of this AfD when closing, there is evidence of possible chicanery in the form of valid votes having been edited out.[12] --Allen3 talk 12:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Added recently to the article: "See also: A stupid joke by members of the internet community www.totse.com". So yes, definitely a hoax. Delete accordingly. -- Captain Disdain 00:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as probable hoax see Captain Disdain's comment. The lack of Google results also shows distinct verifiability problems. Capitalistroadster 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it is a hoax, check out [13]. If you don't want to check the link, basically a member wants to name a road near him Holden Dapenor road (Holding Da Pen0r, link holding the penis) so others made stuff to support him. It's a fine joke, but a fraud as far as wikipedia should be concerned.
  • Anon user 65.95.230.15 has removed at least one vfd from this page (mine), and possibly others as well. Still say delete as google doesn't return a single result on a search for Holden Dapenor, or Dapenor alone. Delete unless reliable sources can be found. bjelleklang 12:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Temporarily OK so its a hoax. We could at least keep the article until after the vote. It would be too funny to have a street named Holden Dapenor. --AGruntsJaggon 05:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Even though it's a hoax, it has no notability outside of the forums or the fake little biography. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 05:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I ment to that we should keep the fake biography. It wouldnt be seen only by forum goers, it would be a street name where only one of the forum members works. After the street is named there is no reason for any of this to be here. The intention of this article was solely for credibility to get people to vote for the name. There was no intention to trick regular wiki users, and if left alone would have taken up its own little space until the vote. [I would like to note that I am taking no part in revert wars or in deleting other users comments]--AGruntsJaggon 06:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • To be used as a tool to perpetrate a real-world hoax would damage Wikipedia's reputation considerably. To do so knowingly would be inexcusable. We cannot keep this article in its original form for that reason. In Merovingian's truthful version, it's merely totally non-notable. Haeleth (not logged in) 08:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Then it should be deleted. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 08:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • So forget about it for awhile. If no one had said anything then it would have run its course and been removed. But whatever, I'm arguing a moot point. --AGruntsJaggon 05:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I know, and I trust you. I doubt the street will actually get this name. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 06:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)*FAP*
  • Locke: despite the rather unfortunate fact that DaPenor's name does have some rather ...interesting... implications to it, Holden was a true pioneer, ask any historian who has studdied the colonization of Michigan. his legend clearly has been altered, but if you have ever been to some of michigan's lesser known museums, you can still see several maps with "Holden DaPenor" signed in the lower left hand corner, proof that this cartographer from the 1800's existed.
  • Captain Shimsham: "Very true. I have seen on of Holden DaPenor's Maps in person in the museum in Michigan."
  • Binary Pirate: "While there is not much information to go on, Holden was real and did (to the best of my knowledge) do the things said in this article. Keep it. YA RLY
  • Comment: I tried to clean this up and restore the deleted votes. -- Kjkolb 13:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

i did about holden for history, and even visited one of the outhouses he used.

Anyone who wants to delete this article is doing the State of Michigan a disservice. Even if it is a fake it deserves to be kept for its humor value alone.

This is REAL


  • Pingy*: Holden Dapenor needs to be recognized as a influential member of American history. Without him, we would not have the Michigan that we have today. Besides, this can be used as historical evidence for reports for instance.
  • Berrien County Historical Society: Holden Dapenor was a real man. Although some facts are misrepresented, he was a cartographer in pioneer-era Michigan. There has been hardly any information widely released about him, hence the lack of results in search engines. We are hoping to change that, and bring Dapenor's achievments to light.
  • If this person is real, and of great importance to the history of Michigan, then explain the following: Why does not a search on the term Holden Dapenor return ANY related results on Google, Altavista, Lycos and Yahoo? If this is a real person, he should be mentioned somewhere, at least once on the billions of pages indexed by google! If this article has any humouristic value, it should be stated clearly in the article that it is a hoax! Still say delete, unless an authorative source is found, and referenced! bjelleklang 20:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Berrien County Historical Society: Every subject in Google has to be brought up a some point. Sites don't just come up out of nowhere. Information has to be transferred from records to websites. This hasn't been done yet, and that's what we are working on.
  • Even so, if a person is significant enough (as the article claim), he is likely to be mentioned by other sites, and not only on local historic sites! Google has per today more than 4 billion pages indexed, and should contain at least one page where the person is mentioned, as should the other search engines. If an article can't be verified, it does not conform to the sources policy or the verifiability policy, and thus, should be deleted as we have no way of knowing if this is is true! bjelleklang 21:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Note the external links at the bottom of the page. The relative obscurity of Holden has this far ensured that his exposure is limited to a few small geocities sites and such. This article is an effort to educate people about a great man.
  • Delete as non-verifiable. The references in the article are not from reputable sources. Even if we could assume good faith and suppose the guy is real: even in that case, this should still be deleted for now. It can always be restored when reliable references are available. Not but that the totse thread makes that really rather difficult to believe... Haeleth 21:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that the presumed hoaxers have now created Holden Depenor too, with broadly similar content. I've redirected it to Holden Dapenor for now; presumably it can be deleted at the same time. Oh, and this discussion page continues to be vandalised regularly too. Is there no way we can speedy this? :/ Haeleth 00:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Libel Do not lie, deanos. The edit to Scrat's_missing_adventure was to change the word "min" to "minute". I clicked the "Random Article" button, and ended up there. I found something I could improve, and I did. Do not try to ruin my reputation by implying I was starting a hoax at that page.

HallofMirrors 01:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Google shows not even the slightest trace of recognizing Dapenor. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 04:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


  • No, You don't even live near Michigan, Mero. We've said before in the biographies that the guy is only known locally, and we recently decided to make his former presence known on the internet. You have vandalized the page.
    • Of course not, but I have full documentation of the TOTSE users' construction of the hoax. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 05:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
      • ..., you're begging the question. Please state your parameters.

HallofMirrors 06:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

        • I can post the creation of the hoax, if you'd like. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 06:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Even if he is a local hero, let's take a look at some things....:
Michigan has approx. 10 mill. inhabitants. The place where I come from (Sandnes, Norway) has approx. 55.000. Even so, a search on a local 'hero' of ours (Jonas Øglænd) return 600 results on google, and the only thing the man did was to produce some bikes about a hundred years ago. My point is that even if he is a local man, he should have been mentioned somewhere on the net, if not, the article is to be removed due to Wikipedias policy on verifiability and original research! You claim that the man is who he is, so it is up to you to provide us with a reputable source, instead of trying to blaim the lack of sources on the fact that he was a local hero... Bjelleklang - talk 06:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The entire thing is staged. It cannot be verified, since it's a hoax. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 06:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - The creator of the thread who is also the one who came up with the idea to name the road is also an admin on totse. However creating a web-hoax and a wikipedia page was not his idea. No one in charge at totse condones any vandalism here. --AGruntsJaggon 06:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete admitted hoax; puppetfest. Xoloz 12:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep temporarily at least until the vote goes in for the road. just think of how priceless it would be to be driving along a road named Holden Dapenor Street. (Anonymous comment posted by 24.194.244.40)
  • NOTICE The article discussion page is receiving a huge amount of vandalism.


  • Delete, the article is pointless now, I may make a new one about him clearly stating that he was a hoax with information on his "life and works" after it's deleted. But heck, all of my articles are immediately added to speedy deletion because someone felt my changes weren't important enough. So maybe I won't. HallofMirrors 02:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


  • I took it upon myself to edit the article to include the hoax, while preserving the truth (that it IS a hoax). I hope I saved it. HallofMirrors 02:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you Mero for fixing spacing. HallofMirrors 03:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure. Even impending deletions deserve to look their best. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 03:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it should stay exactly the way it is now, with the admitted hoax pretext, and the original article. I think it deserves that status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.91.20 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It may deserve a place in the hall of fame at WP:-O; I'm not sure it's been notable enough to stay in the main namespace (for example, it didn't fool anyone for long, or attract any comment from those not directly involved in the efforts to spread and/or suppress it). Besides, it's already on Uncyclopedia, isn't it? ;) - Haeleth 11:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the hoax.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everyking 11:08, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hopeless Riot

bandvanity, never signed, no major tours

  • Delete. Gazpacho 06:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity --Rogerd 04:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. — JIP | Talk 16:05, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Shit--Allen3 talk 00:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human Shit (band)

Just another unheard of band (the article even admits it), who has not done anything to stand out from the rest of the thousands of other bands that shared the same fate. Appears to be a duplicate article in attempt to evade a previous deletion request Fsdfs 01:22, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I Think They Like Me

Delete -An adverstising link to Yahoo musicDakota 00:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • (Speedy) Delete - I'm sure this qaulifies as spam in most people's dictionaries, there has to be a rule to speedy something like this. — Kjammer ⌂ 02:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete NN- --JJay 03:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, speedy. This is just blatant advertising. -- ���Captain Disdain 03:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • SPEED DELETE --Tedzsee 03:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete! Ganymead 06:11, 15 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep — but I'll add a cleanup tag, and expect the interested parties below to do the cleaning up --Gareth Hughes 16:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinability Theory of Truth

Um... I honestly have no idea. I'm getting a slight whiff of OR, or possibly copyvio (although Google doesn't turn up anything for a few randomly-selected strings, it could be from a textbook). False alarm? DS 13:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This article is non-neutral and unsourced. However, have a look at correspondence theory of truth, in particular its "see also" section and references. Research is needed to determine whether this is an accepted theory alongside the others. Uncle G 14:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • note that the link in the "see also" section was added by the author. ---DDerby-(talk) 20:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite Tarski's theorem certainly exists and the article is plausible (at least to a non-philospher). However the context that would make it encyclopedaic is missing. Maybe merge to Theories of Truth or some such? Dlyons493 Talk 14:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote confusion. to be honest, I've not heard of this (and I'm the sort of person that should have). But, this article attributes such a view to Gottlob Frege. I will try to investigate this a little further. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 16:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • We await the results of your research (as does the article ☺). I haven't found anything in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Uncle G 19:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • correspondence theory of truth is in the standard dictionaries. This article seems to be related to Tarski's semantic theory of truth but I'm out of my depth here. Dlyons493 Talk 20:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
        • It's not the correspondence theory that is at issue here, though. It was the indefinability theory that I searched SEP for. Uncle G 15:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, I talked to my friend who knows more about this stuff than I do. The general feeling is that such a position exists, and I correctly attributed the view to Frege. It is not terribly well regarded, because the argument for it rest on a mistake, but nonetheless, it exists. I vote keep, but with a cleanup tag. (If this gets kept, I'll try to tell the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy about it so they can clean it up, I don't really know enough about Frege to do it myself)

. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep This appears to be a legitimate topic in philosophy. It is poorly written as an encyclopedia article, however. It should have a history of the idea, including who originated it, when it originated, why it originated, what schools of thought are in opposition to it, etc. Deletion is too drastic. It does need cleaning up. I am not the person to do it, as I am also out of my depth here. (comment by Rohirok)
  • Comment: if this turns out to be nonsense, delete the red link for the lowercase version of this on the truth article. -- Kjkolb 08:18, 16 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 02:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Immigrant Initiation

Non notable club for Indian immigrants to Vancouver.-- GraemeL (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unverifiable. Dlyons493 Talk 14:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 09:38, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interflop

It seems to be a non-notable website, negligible google hits for interflop.com. --Mysidia (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a rogue group! Not that I want to enrage these bad boys, but delete it just the same. -- Captain Disdain 00:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Carabinieri 13:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Fire Star 02:49, 17 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete — already performed, but vote not closed --Gareth Hughes 16:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jer jer

Delete - Made up by a group of kids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.77.33.201 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 6 October 2005

Comment: Malformed AFD nomination, listing onto the deletion log. — Kjammer ⌂ 05:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Article has no context. Tagged. --GraemeL (talk) 13:23, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect' to Proto-Indo-European roots as per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indo-European root word articles — work already done, closing --Gareth Hughes 16:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kert-

nom&vote delete or move to wiktionary (I don't know how to do that). What is a "hypothetical Indo-European root word"? Gaff talk 20:15, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Killzone PSP

Appears to be non sense. Image:Smilie.gifMolotov Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
 17:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Among other things, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. GreetingsEarthling 17:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per GreetingsEarthling. Thunderbrand 18:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable that the game is being developed. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --J. Nguyen 18:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agreed. It isn't even really known if this game is in development. --Homestar14 8:59, 17 October 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, obviously. DS 20:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Klied

Problem: N-n notable, verifiable or encyclopedic. Image:Smilie.gifMolotov Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)

  • Is this crap? Yes. Yes, it is crap. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 04:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Anetode 06:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Blizzard-cruft. Punkmorten 12:22, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kosijama

Band vanity - I'm Icelandic and I don't think this band is important enough to have an article. Introgressive 13:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Relist. Needs more discussion. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 22:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • ...it's a band? Right now, the article doesn't even tell us that much. Unless someone can establish notability, delete. Being an art group in Iceland is not in itself particularly significant. -- Captain Disdain 23:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No claim to notability. In fact, virtually content-free. --A D Monroe III 03:14, 16 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy KEEP (nomination withdrawn). -Doc (?) 22:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lark News

commercial vanity and non-notable website. Not as widely read as Onion Gator1 18:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Withdraw Nomination - Gator1 18:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- not vanity I am article author, and am not affiliated with Lark in any way. Certainly not as widely read as the Onion, but how many such sites are? I started the article because I recently heard about Lark from friends (also not affiliated with Lark). The article's external link [14] (from June 2004) says that they have 15,000 hits per month, and discusses how Lark has bigshot readers in Hollywood. Sounds at least notable to me, although of course not so much as the Onion. Google search for "Lark News" (in quotes) gives 105,000 results. --Staecker 19:13, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete — vote tied: 2 votes delete, 2 votes redirect — it is my opinion that a redirect is unnecessary here, and so am deleting --Gareth Hughes 16:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of chemical properties

Delete, unless it is massively rewrited with much more detail. Otherwise chemistry would probably do the trick. Citizen Premier 02:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Keep (see my talk for full explanation) Wikibofh 17:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of NFL Draft Busts

Nomination This list constitutes sports trivia, and sports trivia list, especially one that relies on arbitrary decisions of which fan's opinion is right, is not an encyclopedia article. It should also be deleted as a matter of consistent application of policy and principle, in light of the impending deletion of several other U.S. professional sports draft-related lists. The Literate Engineer 18:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep I do not understand why this is considered to be POV. If there is a player that has failed to succeed in the NFL and he was drafted in the first round of an NFL draft, There is no doubt that the player is considered to be a bust. Yes, I know that there a limits to the labeling of players as busts (for example, I won't label Daunte Culpepper as a bust because he is having the worst season of his career and it is a slight possibility that he succeeded because he had Randy Moss. However, there is no debate as to whether or not Ryan Leaf or Tim Couch are busts). I can understand that there is a opinion gap on who's a steal or not a steal. I just don't see the bust as being a POV issue. Hossmann 15:40, 15 October 2005.
  • Merge to List of Sports Flops better off there. --JAranda | watz sup 20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, inherent POV, addresses the reader. Rhobite 02:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the POV issue/arbitrary nature of the criteria is actually secondary to the main problem of the list just not belonging on Wikipedia, especially not as its own entry. That alone, to me, is reason to delete it; the concern that it is going to be perpetually POV/"fuzzy" on its inclusion/exclusion criteria is just icing on the cake. The Literate Engineer 04:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is far better than the Sports Flops one (and that survived the deletion voting). Besides, merging this and the List of NHL Draft Busts into the sports flops article would make one massive article that loses all practicality. The best think is to set strict criteria for players to be included. Masterhatch 06:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per The Literate Engineer (don't forget to use the subst:afd tags, it caused the edit link for the nomination to got to a template page). -- Kjkolb 08:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Subjective list without criteria, ergo unencyclopedic. Xoloz 12:24, 17 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (see my talk for full explanation) Wikibofh 17:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of NFL Draft Steals

A more-or-less empty list with inherently POV criteria. (Related to this is the ongoing AFD of List of NHL Draft Steals.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. This article needs two things namely criteria for determining who is a steal and verifiable sources for the claims. Capitalistroadster 09:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Someone beat me to the punch, I was going to post this to AfD. Even if the criteria that Capitalistroadster talked about is reached, the barebones content in there doesn't merit an article of its own. Karmafist 14:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It is POV. Then you would have to list current popular NFL stars or Hall of Famers that were drafted past the 1st round which is a lot. Also, what is consider a steal? Is Randy Moss consider a steal because he dropped around the late 1st round. Where does it stop? --J. Nguyen 16:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This list constitutes sports trivia, and sports trivia list, especially one that relies on arbitrary decisions of which fan's opinion is right, is not an encyclopedia article. The Literate Engineer 17:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --HappyCamper 17:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if an agreement to what criteria is needed for a player to be added to the list, then I see no reason why this article can't be kept. If this article is considered POV, then why isn't List of NFL Draft Busts considered POV? Why are only the "Steals" up for deletion and no the "Busts"? I say keep all if an agreement can be reached for which players meet the criteria.Masterhatch 17:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I am the creator of this article (and the List of NHL Draft Steals, another disputed article, as well), and I understand that this may be POV to some people (due to the many definitions of a bust or a steal that people have). I am sorry that I haven't updated the NFL Draft Busts and Steals pages as of late... I really don't have the time to pour into making this list as I did with the NHL pages (I was in summer vacation then and add a part-time job (20-30 hours/week) to that as well). The lack of time for me to develop this page has allowed it to rot into this state. I will try to get some guidelines for an NFL Draft Steal and an NFL Draft Bust up soon. I know that this can be fixed... It just needs manhours and research. As an example, look at the Films considered the worst ever. It was often debated whether it was legittimate or it was strictly POV, but the contributors to the list started to crack down on what could come in to the list. If I (and others) can crack down on what comes into these lists, I feel that this list can thrive in the Wikiverse. Hossmann 15:30, 15 October 2005
    • Comment: According to this list, Kurt Warner was a "steal" in the NFL Draft when he wasn't even drafted and most importantly not a considered prospect to be drafted. That is the reason is why I didn't take this "list" seriously. --J. Nguyen 23:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I can understand why you cannot respect this list. If you see my List of NHL Draft Steals, there is a separate section called "Undrafted Steals". My plan, if this list stays on wikipedia, is that I will take Kurt Warner (or any other undrafted steal in the NFL) and shove them onto this list. Hossmann 23:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as it is Incomplete list 3 names only --JAranda | watz sup 21:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Hossman. Lists have no need to be complete at all times. Kappa 22:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, but is this list worth completing? I believe the answer is "no". The Literate Engineer 21:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, inherent POV. Also addresses the reader, currently no content. Rhobite 02:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I may be the biggest NFL fan alive (both literally and metaphorically), but this list is inherently subjective without criteria, ergo unencyclopedic. Xoloz 12:08, 17 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (see my talk for full explanation) Wikibofh 17:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of NHL draft busts

Nomination: For same reasons that List of NHL Draft Steals should be deleted (and for the sake of consistency), this should be deleted. Specifically, the very fact that the opening sentence admits the topic is by nature unencyclopedic makes, to me at least, a very compelling argument for excluding it from Wikipedia. Concerns regarding its seemingly arbitrary inclusion criteria are also influencing me. Finally, I'm not moved by the fact that it's part of a wikiproject, as I don't think the fact that an entry's editors have formally grouped themselves together with a collective name entitles them or their articles to a looser reading of WP:NOT, particularly section 1.7 and the overarching principle that Wikipedia is not to become an indiscriminate collection of information. This, I feel, is essentially cruft, and cruft is cruft, and being part of a wikiproject shouldn't be treated as some sort of imprimatur on cruft. The Literate Engineer 18:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Inherently POV-based distinction, no matter how lengthy the lead-in text is and how many italicized phrases it contains. -The Tom 00:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, same as NHL draft steals. Inherent POV. Rhobite 02:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, same as NHL draft steals. However, this is a bit different because the criteria can be changed very easily too something along the lines of "this is a list of first-round draft picks who failed to play at least 50 games in the NHL". Croat Canuck 03:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep While I agree that it can sometimes be difficult to determine which players belong on this list, there are plenty of players that can only be described as "Draft Busts". For example, can you really call Neil Brady any thing but a draft bust? While this article borders on POV, I feel that there are enough relevant players who belong on this list to make it NPOV. Is it possible to keep this if it was cleaned up and strong criteria was set for players to be included? I really think that this is a relevant list. For an example of an irrelevant list see here List of oldest MLB players. Now that list is unneccessary and POV. Masterhatch 03:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with List of Sports Flops better off there --JAranda | watz sup 04:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • comment How on God's good green Earth is List of Sports Flops not up for deletion? How is it that Sports Flops are less POV than NHL Draft Busts? Let's compare: "List of Sports Flops": an incomplete simple list of players from many leagues with no stats or other information vs. "List of NHL Draft Busts": an almost complete list of which the players' stats are mentioned and a comparision to other players from the same year is made. I say clean-up the NHL draft busts article and keep it. List of Sports Flops survived the deletion process, so I have hope for this article surving. Masterhatch 06:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for pointing out the sports flops list to me, yall. I'll be giving that its second nomination shortly. The Literate Engineer 15:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: if the list of NHL (NFL) draft busts have to go, then so do all of these List of commercial failures, List of flops in entertainment, List of military disasters, List of political flops, List of famous failures in science and engineering, and List of commercial failures in computer and video gaming. There is already a precendent set on Wikipedia for this kind of thing. Why are sports exempt? While the NFL list needs a lot of work, the NHL list is pretty good. With some criteria setting, I see no reason why this list can't be kept! The aforementioned lists are just as valid as a list of draft busts. A player drafted 2nd overall who plays only 10 games and scores nothing can't be anything but a bust. Let's be consistent and either keep all or delete all. If it isn't POV to list video game flops, then it definately isn't POV to list Draft Busts. Masterhatch 17:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per The Literate Engineer. -- Kjkolb 08:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV. --fvw* 04:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The very nature of sports involves superlatives that can be considered a matter of opinion, between players and teams widely believed to be "great" or "mediocre" and the subjectivity of performance in general. That being said, there is in fact a reasonable consensus opinion, undisputed in the discussions taking place concerning the article, and a similar consensus in the hockey community at large. RGTraynor 06:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Subject list without criteria, ergo unencyclopedic. Xoloz 12:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I understand that some of the busts on this list may be debatable, but I feel that this isn't POV because the definition of a bust is pretty much solidified. For example, everyone believes that Brian Lawton, Doug Wickenheiser, and Alexandre Daigle are nothing but busts (although some could say that Daigle may be redeemed due to his comeback with Minnesota) and all of these players have had, in some cases, successful careers. Why are they busts? They are busts because, as the definition on the Draft Bust page says, they are "A first-round draft pick who has failed to live up to the expectations levyed upon the player when their respective team drafted him" At the same time, players like Jason Bonsignore, Alexandre Volchkov, and Neil Brady are busts for obvious reasons (like failing to solidify a spot on an NHL roster at any time in his NHL career). As you can see, the bust is pretty much a solid definition and there isn't much of a range for POV. The steal, however, is a different story and has caused uproar on this site. I believe the first sentence of the paragraph is pretty misleading. If I have time, i'll change it. --Hossmann 23:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ccwaters 23:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, inherently POV. Jkelly 00:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Even fvw and Rhobite thinks it needs to go. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:12, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (see my talk for full explanation) Wikibofh 17:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of NHL Draft Steals

Delete This page should be deleted for a few reasons. 1) It is a matter of opinion 2)It has no formula or clear, precise definition about the difference between what makes Player A a steal and Player B not 3)different users have different opinions on who should belong on the list and who shouldn't, and therefore this article is easily disputable. If there ever can be a set formula for this article, it would be a great article because it is an interesting topic, but it just isn't fact enough to be considered in an encyclopedia Croat Canuck 04:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Very Strong Keep yes, sometimes it can be disputable for who goes on this list, but most of the time it is pretty obvious. Before this article was made, the original author posted an inquiry here about whether people thought it was a POV subject or not. That discussion can now be found here. Croat Canuck, I am wondering why you didn't post your concerns on the talk page to the draft steals article. If you had, I am sure that the users involved could have come up with a more exact definition of which players should be included and which ones should be excluded. Masterhatch 05:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep & merge the introductory paragraphs with NHL Entry Draft --Anetode 05:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The very fact that the opening sentence admits the topic is by nature unencyclopedic makes, to me at least, a very compelling argument for excluding it from Wikipedia. Croat Canuck's concerns regarding its seemingly arbitrary inclusion criteria are also influencing me. Finally, I'm not moved by the fact that it's part of a wikiproject, as I don't think the fact that an entry's editors have formally grouped themselves together with a collective name entitles them or their articles to a looser reading of WP:NOT, particularly section 1.7 and the overarching principle that Wikipedia is not to become an indiscriminate collection of information. Cruft is cruft, and being part of a wikiproject doesn't, or at least I believe shouldn't be treated as some sort of imprimatur on cruft. The Literate Engineer 06:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think that this article will need to list verifiable sources saying that player A has performed much better than anticipated at a draft and is a steal. The criteria for determining who and who is not a steal also needs to be tightened up as it seems arbitrary at the moment. For example, players from the Soviet Union are excluded for reasons that don't seem obvious to me. Capitalistroadster 07:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a list with POV criteria. I don't know enough about hockey to know if this has anything worth merging; if it does, merge it whereever. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: IF this list gets deleted, then this (List of NFL Draft Steals) should too. Masterhatch 08:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the NFL article, i'm putting it on AfD now. I'm somewhere between Delete and Rewrite on the NHL article. Alot of work was put into it, and it can be salvaged, but right now it reads like an essay, it has a POVish title, if it were shorter I think any decent content could be merged without much rancor. Clean up the title and the essayish sounding parts, and I'll move to Keep. Otherwise, Delete from me. Karmafist 14:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep For those of you who just jumped in on the bandwagon to delete this page, I am the original author that Masterhatch talked about in his statement. Even though I have forseen this arguement about the whole POV factor, it seems that I was unprepared for the onslaught of *Delete statements on this discussion. Let me try to explain myself as clear as possible. I added this list onto wikipedia because I thought that this would be considered as an "educational tool" for the newer fans who did not know a bust from an apple or a steal from a pear. Yes, there are times where an addition to this list is debatable, but I personally feel that the ones I added were core components to successful teams (I'm talking about a playoff run... so don't add Bob Kudelski on this list) and were or are solid players at the NHL level. For an effort to fix this list (from disputable additions), I will find any players that I feel are debatable additions and will post them up on the discussion board for the people to vote upon (I will try to do several of these after I post this message). Hopefully, I explained this list's purpose on Wikipedia and persuaded a few people to change their minds about this list. I am surprised by the deletion or the list. Not because of why it's being deleted, but it about who is deleting this list. If you look at this list's history, you will see that Croat Canuck contributed to list a little less than a month ago. Seemingly ironic, he added a handful of extremely debatable steals himself (which I swiftly deleted, as I explained why I deleted them on my user discussion page). Hossmann 20:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Even the title itself is POV. --Nlu 23:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as inherently POV, unsalvageable article. MCB 23:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per CroatCanuck's reasoning. I'm a hockey fan, and I understand very well how the likes of Dominik Hasek and Martin St. Louis deserve notability for being tremendous players while going under the eyes of scouts, but there's no way to write this kind of article without abandoning empiricism in favour of opinion. I suppose you could do something like "members of the Hockey Hall of Fame drafted in the second half of the NHL Draft" and that would be legit, but this article isn't. -The Tom 00:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV from the very first sentence: "The definition of a "steal" in terms of the NHL draft is hard to truly implement on an encyclopedia". Any article which spends several paragraphs giving instructions on how to edit doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Rhobite 02:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The very nature of sports involves superlatives that can be considered a matter of opinion, between players and teams widely believed to be "great" or "mediocre" and the subjectivity of performance in general. That being said, there is in fact a reasonable consensus opinion, undisputed in the discussions taking place concerning the article, and a similar consensus in the hockey community at large. RGTraynor 06:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm as big a sports fan as anybody, but this is too subjective without criteria, ergo unencyclopedic. Xoloz 12:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ccwaters 23:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is not POV, if a player was drafted low and has a good career, then it is pretty clear cut --Rogerd 03:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Please objectively define "low" and "good." You just used two very subjective terms in a supposedly objective statement. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Jkelly 04:22, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about masturbation

Way too specific list. --Conti|✉ 17:11, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete topic too specific for an encyclopedia --DDerby 17:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. P Ingerson 17:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, interesting list. Grue 17:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and get rid of the "this list may never be complete, but you are welcome to add.." introduction. Hedley 17:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Extreme keep. "Too specific" is not a valid reason for deletion. Its both interesting and unusual. Plus, if it really were too specific you wouldn't see dozens upon dozens of songs about masturbation listed. —RaD Man (talk) 18:30, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting list. Dave the Red (talk) 18:54, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as covered by many songs. N-Mantalk 18:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meelar (talk) 19:19, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even though I have added songs to this list in the past. I'm not sure this list serves any encyclopaedic purpose other than being trivia driven. Megan1967 19:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per my copied-and-pasted determination that the fact that this is a common song theme makes this a notable list... also, won't work as a category, because most of the individual songs are not notable. -- 8^D gab 19:59, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless and utterly nonencyclopedic. --Angr/comhrá 20:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete all three of these song lists as trivia, topic(s) not encyclopedic and inclusion of some songs not verifiable. Apparently any song that mentions masturbation or contains allusions that someone thinks refer to masturbation can get listed, without verification of the songwriter's intent. For instance, when I was young and shallow enough to listen to Billy Joel, I thought "Captain Jack" was a drug song, an anti-drug song, rather than having any onanistic content. Wikipedia is not a music guide or a collection of insignificant lists. But I would have been entertained (albeit not informed) had I found these lists on a music-discussion website. Barno 20:54, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as random trivia. We could never stop categorizing songs and creating lists based on those categories. Where are List of songs about animals, List of songs over 4:55 minutes long and List of songs listed in Wikipedia lists? — Asbestos | Talk 22:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with masturbation and be done with it. I, too, am sick of all these song lists. Soon, people will argue as to how obscure of a song you can list, and there'll be accusations of band promotion, and the internet itself will collapse. I would say delete, but this list is actually semi-interesting, and could be worth-while in the masturbation article. --Asriel86 23:43, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivia. --Carnildo 23:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neither masturbation nor songs are too over-specific topics -- their combination is neither so overspecific, nor so general as to make such a list needless. It'd be better though if the songs were listed by year -- we'd get some more interesting cultural info from that, like knowing who the first singer/band was who talked about such a subject. Aris Katsaris 01:47, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep When I think about this list, I touch myself. Klonimus 01:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Arbitrary scheme of clasification. Drini 01:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep nothing wrong with trivia. - SimonP 01:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as pointless subdivision of songs. Radiant_* 09:51, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fairly interesting, so keep, but I think it's a bad idea for thousands of these lists to crop up. Fantom 10:00, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this and thousands of other song lists. Rad Racer | Talk 17:43, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Asriel. Zscout370 02:00, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. "Too specific" is not a valid criterion for article deletion. --Gene_poole 04:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's a perfectly valid criterion. That said, this one looks like a keeper. Some of the songs on this list are culturally important because of their subject metter (e.g. Pictures of Lily). On the other hand, someone needs to check the list to make sure that it is only a list of songs about masturbation, not one which simply mentions it. Mentioning this kind of thing is all too common a fad, but writing a song about it is something different. Chris talk back 17:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - there are far too many totally unencyclopedic lists already. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia. Whats next? List of songs about apples and oranges? This is just silly. -- Egil 17:49, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep so damn bored i'm going blind...  ALKIVAR™ 18:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This list is useful. — J3ff 02:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I like this list! --Oarias 05:01, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Please justify beyond "too specific" Lotsofissues 13:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, just the right amount of specificness. Kappa 22:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I believe 'too specific' would be more along the lines of List of Songs about Masturbation in a Car or something. Comic 08:56, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Myles Long 20:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete — 10 votes delete, 3 votes keep, 1 vote weak keep — probably unmaintainable --Gareth Hughes 16:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about sex

unmaintainable. nom&vote delete. Gaff talk 22:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete more liftcruft --JAranda | watz sup 22:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable and recurrant song topic. Kappa 23:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yeah, a lot of songs are about sex, but that's kind of the problem -- this is like having a list of songs about love; the volume's just too great for any such list to be meaningful. -- Captain Disdain 00:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete what are the criteria for whether a song is about something? Inherently POV. Dlyons493 Talk 00:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it can be useful if you are trying to make a playlist or whatever.
  • Keep, could be a header for gathering more specific sublists (e.g. List of songs about oral sex, List of songs about losing virginity, List of songs about sex with a panda).  BD2412 talk 01:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete useless listcruft —Wahoofive (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete eternally unencyclopedic in its content, and most songs merely mention sex rather than make themselves about it. And who is to determine whether the song is about sex, includes sex, insinuates sex, suggests sex, uses metaphors about including suggestions to sex...... -Splashtalk 03:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This list would be never ending. Break it up, subcategorize. Karmafist 17:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Splash. What is it with Wikipedia and song lists? -- Kjkolb 09:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Potentially interesting and useful since sex in music is a major topic of study, especially with regards to older recordings. (I just heard an Ann-Margret song from 1960 that in many ways was more sexually explicit than anything from 2 Live Crew). This needs some major organization and sub-categorizing. I would also support this being changed into a category if there isn't already one. 23skidoo 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Splash. Xoloz 12:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Splash. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 02:14, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep — 60% keep, and this process should failsafe to keep. However, this article needs attention. If you voted keep, I expect you to make it a worthwhile article. --Gareth Hughes 17:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about video games

More useless unencyclpedic songs Listcruft and some of the songs are not even about video games Ex:Lil Flip-Game Over Delete --JAranda | watz sup 19:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Gaff talk 19:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Well, that rap song did sample a Pacman sound but I agree that he wasn't definitely rapping about video games. ;-P --J. Nguyen 20:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, wikipedia users should be able to find examples of songs about video games. Kappa 21:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep interesting and informative list of this often-overlapping culture. Some cleanup needed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft —Wahoofive (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons stated by Starblind. -- Captain Disdain 00:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a reasonable basis for a list (confession: I've edited it) --TimPope 09:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and enforce notability guidelines per the List of webcomics. Otherwise we'd have to list the thousand+ songs on OCRemix and other VG remix sites, rendering the list unmaintanable. Nifboy 14:05, 17 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 16:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs whose title appears more than twenty times in the lyrics

A song can easily be made with it's title occurring more than 20 times. People will flip through their CD, vinyl and tape collections and find lots of songs like that.

  • Delete since this trait is rather common in songs; rendering the topic subtrivial. Not to mention the list is rendered unmaintainable as well. --SuperDude 04:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete in accordance with the nomination, SuperDude's comment, and of course WP:NOT section 1.7 regarding indiscriminate collection of information. The Literate Engineer 04:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I find this rather silly delete Image:Smilie.gifMolotov Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk)
     04:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all lists of songs that do not establish some sort of plausible and substantial artistic commonality between the entries. And... why 20? flowersofnight 04:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Its sad just how much energy it is taking to delete stuff like this. Its going to become a major problem. Maybe there should be more steps to be got through to post an article in the first place? Like article gets submitted, then needs vote to create rather than vote to delete? In any case, this ones gotta go.--Gaff talk 04:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Just think, if more people voted on Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs this might be easier in the future —Wahoofive (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Who dreams these articles up; please get a life. Storm Rider 05:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment this article has been up since 15 March 2003. There are many, many edits to it and perhaps that should be brought to consideration prior to its deletion. This list represents nothing but a collection of trivial facts. While it might be of interest to some, it just does not impress me as the kind of stuff appropriate for an encyclopedia. Perhaps that is an overly deletionist approach. I dunno.--Gaff talk 06:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I quote (from the link above): Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. They feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge.. this list is like the colours of apple sauce. Overly-long, potentailly unupdatable, trivial (why could it not be 25 times? or thirty? Do we need a separate article for all of them?) and thus deletable. Batmanand 06:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete an unmaintainable, trivial list with arbitrary criteria. Yeesh. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Batmanand. I hate to delete something that people have put a significant effort into, but I don't think these song lists are appropriate for an encyclopedia. Can it be moved to a user page or offsite? -- Kjkolb 07:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Meaningless trivia. CalJW 11:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Utterly pointless. How about a list of songs whose title appears more than 10 times, and 50 times, and 3 times - it's a completely arbitrary selection and totally useless. --StoatBringer 12:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah. There are many other similar articles that could be created. Delete --Optichan 16:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless listcruft. Punkmorten 12:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • RETAIN. If you're going to keep articles on moronic and useless topics like whether we really went to the moon or not, then you can't argue for deleting this one, which is truly factual even if it's trivial. Wahkeenah 17:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but...who would ever go to an encyclopedia to find out a piece of information like this?--Gaff talk 17:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Who are we to presume to tell readers what they should be allowed to look for or not? Wahkeenah 17:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
        • WE are Wikipedians. WE have limitted server space and bandwidth. WE have a deletion policy, which anyone is welcome to add to. WE, therefore, have perfect right to say what should and should not be in our encyclopaedia. Batmanand 11:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete More useless listcruft --JAranda | watz sup 19:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as trivial listcruft. I really wish the time and energy put into stuff like this was devoted to real articles. MCB 23:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If you deleted all the useless articles on wikipedia, you could save a bundle on disk space, on the TRS-80 this website runs on. So much "listcruft", so little time. Wahkeenah 23:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not useful. *drew 05:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can explain why twenty is such a magical number that the existence of this list won't demand complimentary lists for songs that repeat the title nineteen times (or twenty-one times, etc). -Sean Curtin 07:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete there are some possible interesting criteria to make lists of songs out of, this is not one. --TimPope 09:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since it seems clear that this article will be deleted, I'm wondering if it might set the record for the article that existed the longest before being deleted (as noted above, it has endured for more than two and a half years). Given that most deleted articles are only a few days or weeks old, that has to be noteworthy. Andrew Levine 22:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is the very definition of a trivial list. Xoloz 12:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Archive, then delete. I actually find the list interesing. If anybody can, send/link me a copy of the page before it's deleted. --G VOLTT 00:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Unmaintanable. Also, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I appreciate that someone went through the trouble of counting the number of times a song's title appears in the song (which activity, at the same time, I find somewhat odd), but this is really the epitome of trivia. - Sensor 03:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • RETAIN (mostly because there is only one vote for that so far), and to whoever was asking 'who comes to an encyclopedia looking for this kind of thing', how many people are directed here by search engines, that may not know where to be looking. (I confess I got to the page through an internal link, but the title did interest me enough to follow it.) just some random surfer
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete — vote fell 2:1 delete. There wasn't much interest in this. It certainly looks like autobiography, and the subject isn't even mentioned in The Last Express. --Gareth Hughes 18:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Moran

This article is an Auto-biography Agnte 21:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This IMDb page [15] shows no notability, being an production coordinator or post-production coordinator. Delete. -feydey 22:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Creator of The Last Express, an award-winning game. Denni☯ 01:14, 16 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 22:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Match Game 73 82 PICS

Seems like the primary purpose of this page is an image gallery, not an actual encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not mere collections of photographs or media files. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. There is no information in this article, and it verges on a no-context speedy. Note that none of the images have tags or sources are thus 7 days from deletion themselves: they are also unlikely to be fair use in this context. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: that applies to stacks of images as much as anything else. -Splashtalk 20:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think the pictures in themselves, even if they were to remain on Wikipedia, are worthwhile unless they actually provide the readers with some kind of contextualized and relevant information. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 00:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT an Image Gallery --JAranda | watz sup 04:57, 16 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 17:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Math/business

Obvious cut and paste job (copyvio?), albeit badly written. It's neither about math nor business, but "combination of mathematical and business courses". It apparently relates to specific courses in a specific study center (university?), which is not named. At the very least, it obviously requires a massive cleanup, but I can't see what that would achieve.TheMadBaron 11:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - probably University of Waterloo, Canada. They should know better. Dlyons493 Talk 13:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete useless --Rogerd 09:29, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 17:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MI9 (EU intelligence unit)

Unencyclopedic Article. No sources, little information. Edward Grefenstette 17:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Edward Grefenstette 17:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--I can't find any evidence that this actually exists as described in an article. There appears to be a British intelligence service focused on covert operations and PoW escapes that goes by this name, however. British military buffs? Meelar (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • We have MI9 which seems to be ok, but this obviously shouldn't redirect there since it had nothing to do with a not-then-existent supranational entity. -Splashtalk 20:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete too secret. Unverifiable irrespective of how I google, and full of purely speculative claims about other highly secretive things. This is a confluence of WP:V problems and WP:NOR problems. -Splashtalk 20:55, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete — I would not say that the voting below represents a consensus (3 votes delete, 1 vote keep). However, as the original creator of the article expressed a wish that it be deleted, I am inclined to follow that lead. If this article can be recreated with substance in the future, it might be a keeper. --Gareth Hughes 18:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael McLarney

Vanity, nn. Delete --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep notable enough. Xoloz 12:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete We have to ask: how much could be said about him? Directing a small, new film festival isn't much. The talk show is the only thing that could be considered notable, and that was on a community cable channel, and apparently short-lived. For the purposes of Wikipedia, Mr. McLarney is not a notable person. -DDerby-(talk) 03:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As the creator of the article, I will support the wiki community in its (more impartial) decision. The consensus seems to be "delete". Carolynparrishfan 13:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm, hard call. He's not someone I've personally heard of, but being program director of a film festival, even a small one, doesn't put him far outside of my keep/delete greyzone. I could potentially be persuaded to vote keep if the article were a bit longer and told me more about him. (However, what high schools his kids attend is information that absolutely doesn't belong here at all.) Carolynparrishfan, is there more that can be said? Is the article expandable? No vote at present; when we approach closing date, I'll vote one way or the other based on whether the article's been convincingly expanded. Bearcat 19:38, 18 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 17:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Vasiliev

Delete - No sources provided. If claims made for him were true, Comrade Vasiliev would almost certainly have been made a Marshal of the Soviet Union, and he wasn't. Caerwine 17:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

    • I apparently was looking at the wrong article - it is not well written, so I say it needs a "cleanup" at the least. Image:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
      00:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup Mikhailov Vasiliev is notable at Stalingrad. The article needs cleanup - written by non-native English speaker. Dlyons493 Talk 18:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Could you give us the basis for your claim? Are you from Stalingrad (sic) or something? -Splashtalk 20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • No, I think I've got this muddled. What I was referring to seem to be codenames used between Stalin (Vasiliev) and Vasilievsky (Mikhailov). Dlyons493 Talk 21:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have been unable to find verifiable information about "Michael Vasiliev" having any significant role in the Russian army see [17]. "Mikhailov Vasilievsky" comes up with Russian ice hockey players see [18]. Aleksandr Vasilevsky, supervisor of the Stalingrad front had a middle name of Mikhailov and we already have an article on him. This name is so far removed from the real name that it is useless as a redirect. Capitalistroadster 18:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Merely finding some Google hits isn't meaningful unless you check that the Google hits actually apply to the topic of the article, which they largely do not in this case: the first hit is this article. On the other hand, the absence of Google success that Capitalistroadster finds renders the article with serious verifiability problems. The article is also largely written in the absurd which makes taking its topic seriously the more difficult. -Splashtalk 20:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Google for "mikhail vasiliev army" or 'михвйл василиев" turns up no relevant results. the iBook of the Revolution 22:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Wacky claims, no references, lack of verification and bigass POV problems... Yeah, delete. -- Captain Disdain 00:49, 16 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a re-creation of previously deleted material.--Scïmïłar parley 17:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Middlesbrough Soccability Football Club

This page has already been deleted and has now re-appeared with no explanation. Delete again! Keresaspa 16:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment Apologies for including the previous thing but I'm new at this deletion game. Anyway, at the risk of repeating myself delete Keresaspa 16:43, 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete — redirect seems unnecessary as search should go to the club. This club is real, but perhaps should have a section in the main article. --Gareth Hughes 17:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Middlesbrough Soccability Football Club

Consisted of an infobox only, tagged for cleanup since July. I added context, but is this club notable? 60 Google hits for Middlesbrough Soccability (without quotation marks) suggests it isn't. Punkmorten 15:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Suggest redirecting to Middlesbrough F.C. as they share the same badge and are presumably connected (never heard of them or soccability for that matter). If there is no connection then delete. Keresaspa 15:14, 17 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minten

Entirety of the article at the time of nomination: A large family hailing from Ontario, Canada. Many highly successful people have come out of the family over the years. The family is largely into farming, and they have a rich farming background. They create thousands of jobs each year for people who are less fortunate then themselves, and are very community orientated people. Googling for "minten ontario" returns 368 hits, the first three being "Untitled Document", "Ontario Farm Animal Council - Meet the OFAC Team" and "CM Magazine: The Little Math Puzzle Contest". I'm sure they're nice people, but this has "vanity" written all over it; even if highly successful and famous people have come out of the family over the years, that doesn't mean the family itself merits an article of its own... -- Captain Disdain 03:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 03:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete vanity, no notability. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Btm 22:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. *drew 05:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified, vanity, NN. The Rockefellers they aren't. - Sensor 03:00, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 17:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mulrovian empire

No relevant googles, looks like a hoax/fanfic by a user:Brynrycrft who has no other contributions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • "The Mulrovian Empire is the sucessor of the Galactic Empire in the world of Star Wars after Darth Vader[ Anikan Skywalker} cut down the Emperor at the end of Return of the Jedi. As the Emperor had been impotent since his battle with Mace Windu in the Revenge of the Sith (some may say that the impotence is Mace Windus revenge, ha ha) he was unable to sire a sucessor." Uh, yeah. Delete, please. -- Captain Disdain 00:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Delete now. Delete quickly. Delete and keep deleting it until all memory of it is lost. The end. --A D Monroe III 03:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, unsourced. -LtNOWIS 22:05, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Transwiki and Delete — the article is now at s:Murder of Levi Jones. --Gareth Hughes 19:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Murder of Levi Jones

I dont know how this page survived since Jan but its a obvious copyvio but cant find it over the web so i need to place this here . Strongest Possible Non Speedy Delete for this junk --JAranda | yeah 03:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: is the book so old that copyright is lost? It has "1880" on there. Is there another reason to delete if it is no longer copyrighted? -- Kjkolb 06:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Um, yes, if it's out of copyright, it belongs on Wikisource. I will therefore vote accordingly. Transwiki to Wikisource and delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I was too tired to read the whole thing looking for something salvageable. -- Kjkolb 08:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource and delete as per Zoe. -- Kjkolb 08:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki/Weak KeepMuch of the book is available here: [19] already. No copyvio, according to that site. Now that the copyvio is cleared up, does this still have enough encyclopedic content that someone might actually search for to stay? I think it might... --CastAStone 17:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Relisting. Not enough discussion. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 22:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I have read through the article and consider that it might be worth transwiking. The Johnny Appleseed similarly contains a transcript of a similar story that should be transwikid. It seems from the article that Johnny Appleseed was the man who warned US troops that Mr Levi was murdered during the war of 1812. This should be mentioned briefly in the Johnny Appleseed article and the rest should be Transwiki'd to Wikisource. Capitalistroadster 00:52, 16 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 17:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muttworld

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, no AllMusic entry, very few google hits (even fewer when excluding Wikipedia mirrors). Punkmorten 12:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --JAranda | watz sup 22:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 09:38, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep — there is no clear consensus (5 votes keep, 3 votes delete). However, the majority is for keep, and that's a failsafe stance. Some users noted that this might be a relevant stub from which an article might grow. I'll add cleanup though. --Gareth Hughes 19:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nadi Jodhidam

Problem: Does not appear notable, Google suggests a different spelling [20], and there are no relevant findings in my opinion. Seems to be Original research as well, if I am wrong, hopefully somebody can correct.Molotov (talk) Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif
 03:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nonsense. --rob 03:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hold on a minute. Get somebody that knows something about hinduism to offer an opinion on this one. If it truly is nonsense, then delete. Otherwise merge into appropriate hindu related topic or list as a hindu stub. Just because we are not familiar with a cultural reference does not make in nonsense.--Gaff talk 10:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment I know firsthand that it is fairly popular in Madras. It is a form of predicting the future. The concept behind it is that the fate of everyone is already predicted many thousands of years ago. There are different branches of this based on predictions by different sages, the one by Agastya being the most famous. The guys who make the prediction have these predictions written in dried palm leaves, one leaf for each individual. If you go there for consultation, they will ask you for your details and find a leaf which matches the things that have already happened in your life, and read out/interpret the rest of the contents of the leaf to predict your future. How scientific it is is anybody's guess. Tintin 15:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete, unless the article is significantly improved. A three line stub of this sort does no good to anybody. Tintin 15:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep--according to Tintin, this is in fact a good topic for an article, and the stub will expand over time. Indeed, I already know more about the topic than I did before. Meelar (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Nadi Jothidam is the spelling preferred by google, and articles of either spelling refer to astrology, not palm leaf reading. This appears to be a real phenomenon, but I'm not certain how valid the article is as it stands. I'd like to keep it, or maybe Redirect to Nadi Jothidam, and definitely it needs some expansion, but it does seem notable. Jesse 19:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
You will get many google hits for 'Nadi jyothisham' and 'Nadi jothisham' as well, and sometimes with the alternate spelling naadi ! Jyothisham (with minor differences in spelling) is the word for astrology in most Indian languages. Tintin 19:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tintin.--Gaff talk 08:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Even though, I wouldn't call it a science, there are a number of people who believe in these predictions and their accouns seem irrefutable (perhaps they're tricked). As for the name, I'd prefer Nadi jothidam (the pronumciation would be naa-di joo-thi-dam [o as in over]). -- Sundar \talk \contribs 03:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but major cleanup and stubbification needed. - Sensor 02:37, 20 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 15:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nefarious stp

bandvanity, no google hits

  • Delete. Gazpacho 06:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no google hits. Punkmorten 12:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:54, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 — this is a minor character, and, according to WP:FICT, should be merged into the relevent article. This character has a paragraph in Tomb of Dracula. Making this a redirect to that article. --Gareth Hughes 19:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nimrod (dracula)

useless comiccruff, (minor charactor in one comic) already merged down once with a redirect, then rexpanded, but no one will ever search for this. CastAStone 20:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable to fans of Marvel comics. Kappa 22:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Really? He appeared twice, and the second appearance was a retelling of the first appearance. He's a footnote in the history of a more important character, and that's it. His listing in the entry for Tomb of Dracula is all that the character needs. Redirect to Tomb of Dracula to prevent recreation as a separate article. -Sean Curtin 06:53, 16 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert 15:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ottawa municipal election, 2006

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Delete --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia isn't origional research. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep of couse. Just like any future election. And tell me what part is original research? Everything can be sourced. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Possible mayoral candidates is original research, not all of those have announced they are running. The published poll is out of date with no source as well. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The list of candidates comes from the poll. I will try to find a source for the poll. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Despite the poll, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
          • The poll is actually sourced. It says very clearly it's in the April 30th Ottawa Sun. Go look it up. There is nothing on this page that makes predictions, so I dont see how it is a "crystal ball". -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
            • You should have provided a link, I still maintain my nom. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
              • You don't have to link every source, as long as there is a source. Not everything is on the internet, you know. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, contains verifiable and important information. Kappa 23:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep based on what WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball actually says, and what it gives as an example. --rob 00:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Added comment: I would like hear why someone thinks this is more "crystal ball" or "original research" than U.S. presidential election, 2008 which is used as an "appropriate" example in WP:NOT. Info about a 2006 event seems even more predictable than a 2008 event. Also, there is far more speculation in the US/2008 article. Obviously, a municipal election is less "notable" than a national one, but I haven't heard that as a reason for the nomination. Here's a quote from that US/2008 article "Vince McMahon, owner and CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, appeared on his 2005 SummerSlam event in a Presidential limo with a McMahon for President banner although it may have been simply a humorous sketch given the event's location in Washington, DC.". It seems both articles can use improvement, but both are easy keeps also. --rob 01:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa -The Tom 00:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup as there is verifiable information to go into the article such as the boundaries commission. Candidates should be added when they either announce their candidature (preferable) or as potential candidates when there is speculation. Capitalistroadster 01:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep CJCurrie 01:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per rob -- this is the sort of thing that Wikipedia can do particularly well — mendel ☎ 04:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiable and of current interest. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. does not say we do not cover future events. I improved it, but it probably needs a less provocative name. At the moment its main effect is probably to create frustration by giving people hope that doomed nominations have a chance of passing. CalJW 15:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, eh as per above. Spinboy, ya hoser! Roodog2k (Hello there!) 15:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep & comment I would like to express regret concerning the above hoser comment. It was not meant as an attack on Spinboy. It was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek reference to Bob & Doug McKenzie and all things lovingly Canadian. Next time, I'll keep my sense of humor to myself. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 18:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Might as well get the perfunctories out of the way ... :) E Pluribus Anthony 02:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per the various above comments. --GrantNeufeld 00:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • An article expressing what's known or widely perceived about a future election isn't being a "crystal ball", it's being a resource for information about that election, which will get duly updated as more specifics become known. We already have 39th Canadian federal election. We already have United States presidential election, 2008. Both of those are valid articles. This, too, is perfectly valid (albeit on a smaller scale, but we've done municipal election coverage before). If the article were predicting a winner, in advance of even knowing who the official candidates will be, then "crystal ball" would be a valid argument. As the article stands, however, it's just a snapshot of how a campaign that's only a year away is beginning to shape up (and how else would I have learned that Alex Munter is currently the voting public's first choice for the mayoralty?) Keep it. Bearcat 18:28, 21 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 15:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outline of a deadman

Non-notable band; two teenagers from indiana. Carbonite | Talk 17:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per nom. Carbonite | Talk 17:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above Cdyson37 | (Talk) 17:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable. Sango123 17:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, no easily found google entries. ∞Who?¿? 17:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, non notable band vanity. Titoxd(?!?) 18:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom.Gator1 18:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not meet notability guidelines. Sliggy 19:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSIC Big Time --JAranda | watz sup 05:03, 16 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 10:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pandilla graphica

NN vanity piece from this zero-google possible hoax. If the image is any indication, the "gang" better keep their day jobs. JJay 00:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - JJay 00:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-encyclopedic, not notable. --HappyCamper 00:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. non-encyclopedic, not notable.--Gaff talk 00:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete For all the reasons above. --CastAStone 00:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete More of an ad than an article. Brisvegas 01:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. Banes 10:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nom Jesse 18:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -Haon 14:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Sensor 02:49, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy DELETE absolute nonsense -Doc (?) 18:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Peters

vanity, nn Dlyons493 Talk 14:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, plus it's utter nonsense, and just plain bad. --A D Monroe III 15:42, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete — no votes for keep, and, as for votes for transwiki, I'm sure that if the creators want it somewhere else, they will move it themselves. --Gareth Hughes 23:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pinocchio and FooT

Webcomic with no alexa rank, found here. Google shows up no assertion of notability. Can someone verify the "facts" mentioned in the article? Some sort of tribute to an underground comic in the 70s, looks like a hoax, I certainly doubt its notability anyway. - Hahnchen 03:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete from the article: "The comics circulated through several schools in Salt Lake City..." Oh, come on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to comixpedia. It's a well-written article about a non-notable webcomic. Ilmari Karonen 16:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Dragonfiend 05:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Relisting. Not enough discussion. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 22:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As for the transwiki part, my comments on the Eversummer Eve AfD also apply here. -- Captain Disdain 00:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- SCZenz 15:54, 18 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 on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 23:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poonanner

South Park trivia. merge infor into South Park article and then delete. Gaff talk 21:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Don't merge this kind of thing into main articles like South Park. Please, think of the users. Kappa 21:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no merge, not encyclopedic and think of the users. feydey 22:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. What users? Denni☯ 01:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Users wanting to read about South Park who don't need this bloating their downloads. Kappa 01:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Xoloz 12:32, 17 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 on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete — cannot verify notability, creator of article is unhelpful. --Gareth Hughes 23:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Porno World

Hoax? No google hits for "Porno World" + "Tarat Mourat". Also delete Image:A12.jpg and Tarat Mourat. Gamaliel 20:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This Is a new writer. unsigned comment User:Nois, author of the article
  • Delete unless someone can provide references. No listing on Amazon, which implies this is unpublished (or self-published, I guess, but self-published books aren't encyclopedic, are they?) Haeleth 20:58, 16 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 Merge with Pot Noodle --Gareth Hughes 19:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pot Sweet

Short lived and little remembered doesn't bode well for notability. Really can't see how this is useful! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Pot Noodle. Btm 22:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Btm. Denni☯ 23:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable commercial product, and nothing like a pot noodle. Kappa 00:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. --JAranda | watz sup 02:38, 16 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 on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Promenade (vivaYork)

nn bus-stop in Vaughn, Ontario. nom&vote delete. Gaff talk 21:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, it's a terminal, not just a stop. Should be kept like all those Singaporean terminals we kept recently. Kappa 21:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn terminal and those Singaporean terminals barely survived AFD anyways. --JAranda | watz sup 21:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Just because we've foolishly kept some does not mean we need to compound our error. Denni☯ 01:19, 16 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 on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted at 09:38, 16 October 2005 by user:DragonflySixtyseven. Closing the discussion. Rossami (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of loungevania

NN web forum.

  • D Fawcett5 23:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I also added {{nonsense}} speedy delete tag. --Nlu 00:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. *drew 05:49, 16 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (deleted by Thunderbrand) -Greg Asche (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rhanve13

Delete as game-cruft. - Pureblade | ☼ 02:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Note Speedied Image:Smilie.gifMolotov Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif (talk) e
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 — the vote fell 3:2 delete. However, this does not seem to match the criterion of WP:OR, and those who voted keep raised valid points against deletion. --Gareth Hughes 20:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Right-socialism

nom&vote delete. I may be totally off-base on this one, but looks like a bunch of original research to my eye. At best, this is a woefully inadequate encylopedia article in need of serious attention. Any experts in the audience please comment. Gaff talk 10:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep looks like a woeful article to me, i've heard the term mentioned before, even if this particular article started out as OR it can be improved.  ALKIVAR™ 10:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: the term gets very few original Google results past the first page, except for irrelevant ones, like "right, socialism" or "right. Socialism". Also, there are no matches on Google News. It's probably a very non-notable neologism and/or original research. I'd reconsider if someone can find a few instances of mainstream usage or a scholarly paper on it. -- Kjkolb 14:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete OR --Rogerd 09:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Stub created because needed to illuminate Japanese militarism articles. If there is a more standard scholarly description of this aspect of fascism, let's move the page. There are Google hits for "right-socialism", "right-socialist" showing this is not a neologism. (Nominator has been a WPdian for all of a week, BTW, and already has one of those sillier barnstars ... and they wonder why AfD has a lousy rep. A stub is a stub, and WP is founded on them.) Charles Matthews 09:44, 21 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 --Gareth Hughes 20:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Root32

nn/ad Qaz (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Site is not in Alexa's top 100,000 (cf. WP:WEB), and article is copy/paste from [21]. Haeleth 13:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable ad/spam. CambridgeBayWeather 13:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete does not meet proposed WP:WEB standards. --GraemeL (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The article is copyied from Root32 that User:202.63.62.181 claims to hold copyright of. See Talk:Root32. CambridgeBayWeather 14:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Remy B 15:19, 23 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. A pair of external links without even the trace of an article is pure spam, which is vandalism per WP:VAND and a speedy per WP:CSD#G3, and with a bit of a stretch per A3 too. -Splashtalk 21:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] .Root32 Internet

ad and nn company Qaz (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per non CambridgeBayWeather 13:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per submitter. --GraemeL (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this article should have gone through speedy deletion. Masterhatch 17:56, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 00:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ruffiansoldier

Vanity page. Jake 05:52, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 'Delete --Gareth Hughes 20:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seven-leaf clover

Fictional and not notable for any real purposeGator1 19:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 19:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and add a half-sentence mention to the relevant episode article/section. Almost all of this article is dumped from a proper article on real clover and is of little to no interest here. -Splashtalk 19:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mostly copied across from clover, with a very little extra on a non-notable fictional item. - MPF 13:24, 20 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 15:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sex blog

NN. Unencyclopedic. Advertisement. nom&vote delete. Gaff talk 21:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Ditto. You could say the same about any blog. StephenJMuir 22:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn -Greg Asche (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • An article with no actual content, one that only exists to promote a single blog? Delete. -- Captain Disdain 00:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, redirect to blog. Rhobite 02:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn *drew 05:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and every other term made up by 84.121.35.52 (talk · contribs). He's been creating nonsense on various wikis over the last week. Angela. 04:09, 17 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 20:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shakesbeare

Non-notable. However it is a group not an individual, so it escapes CSD. --202.156.6.62 20:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delelte as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 08:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A thoroughly encyclopedic and factual article. The subject may not be as notable as say, The Declaration of Independence; however, numerous short works have been published under the Chet name and the article is useful. TedTanner 20:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep great article 151.199.124.23 19:05, 22 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 00:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shotgun Golf

BJAODN, sport invented by the now late Hunter S. Thompson, as far as I can tell no game of it has ever been played anywhere on earth.  ALKIVAR™ 09:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination.  ALKIVAR™ 09:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. CalJW 11:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is just silly. Rjayres 14:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Junk --JAranda | watz sup 22:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 09:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination --Condorman 09:08, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 20:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Side Project (band)

No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC, few google hits, no Allmusic entry (although they list an easy listening group by that name) Punkmorten 12:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --JAranda | watz sup 05:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 09:38, 18 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 --Gareth Hughes 20:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smoking Car Productions

This article fails the Company inclusion guidelines. It has been created by members of the company Agnte 21:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, they produced The Last Express. Kappa 21:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, one game made i.e. not notable and per nom. Company inclusion guidelines. feydey 22:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- they made one game and went away. (As for The Last Express, boy, that article could certainly use some NPOV.) -- Captain Disdain 00:22, 16 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 Redirect to Sonography --Gareth Hughes 20:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (sonography)

page heading is in parenthesis (sonography). Needs its proper heading Sonography, which currently redirects to an unrelated site Night writing. Can somebody with the know-how fix this problem then delete this article heading. The content of this article, although stubby, looks fine. Gaff talk 20:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone moved the content from the article to Sonography, so this could be deleted I guess. I don't really see the need for a redirect, who is going to go to put parenthesis' around an article name... -Greg Asche (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep the redirect, when linking it's not intuitively obvious that [[ belongs inside (. Kappa 21:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Sonography - Bwfc 23:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I haven't been here a week but I already know that if you don't want to put the parentheses outside the brackets, you would do this: [[Sonography|(sonography)]]. TECannon 08:46, 23 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 Merge — the content is already at doughnut, so keep as redirect. --Gareth Hughes 20:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sprinkle doughnut

nom&vote delete or maybe just merge into doughnut article. I'm not seeing enough substance here to warrant an entire article for each variety of doughnut. Call me deletionist. This is somewhat contradictory with my wanting every star included (see AfD on 56 Aquilae) Gaff talk 04:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge sprinkles with doughnut, mmm... Anetode 05:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, genres of donut are less numerous than stars in the sky. Kappa 06:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point. I like chocolate bars, but that redirects to candy bar. I also like maple bars and jelly doughnuts. But like the point made below, anyone needing an article on doughnuts will go to doughnuts. A separate article on sprinkle doughnuts seems unecessary. Although a separate article for every star, while a wild concept, is also a bit over the top. Who wants to right an article on the different kinds of sprinkles that can be put on a dougnut?--Gaff talk 20:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with doughnut since, as Kappa points out, the types of doughnut are not literally infinite. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with doughnut (keeping a redirect in its place). --Celestianpower hablamé 10:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    Okay, I merged it. All that needs doing now is for this article to be made into a redirect. --Celestianpower hablamé 10:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is anyone seriously ever going to look this up? Even if so, wouldn't they be better served by the doughnut article? Gamaliel 18:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gamaliel - mmm, donuts (- H. Simpson) --Rogerd 03:49, 18 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted. DS 13:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tammy Dymarcik

nom&vote delete. nn. vanity bio. Gaff talk 07:34, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A*Teens — article is never likely to progress past this stage. --Gareth Hughes 20:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teen Spirit

This doesn't appear to meet speedy criteria, but clearly is worthy of deletion. Delete. -SocratesJedi | Talk 18:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I do not think this article needs to be deleted. The original article was junk, but I've cleaned it up a bit, and hopefully others can expand it. The subject of the article is actually an album by A*Teens, which, according to the A*Teens article, sold 3 million copies worldwide. I believe this establishes it as notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel7687 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 17 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 15:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tezhuuarn

This page seems to be a hoax. Can't find either term in google. Addps4cat 18:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 18:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no context. delete per nom.--Alhutch 21:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Captain Disdain 00:45, 16 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 22:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Archangels Of Destruction

More Stargate Wars cruft, this time a clan. There's no need to have an article on a nn clan in a nn online game. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete The #1 alliance is now my #1 deleted article on Wikipedia --Ryan Delaney talk 09:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete of course. It would be nice if clans could be speedied. Oh well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. AManinblack: Please don't abuse your administrative powers by deleting all the articles I create or contribute to. To quote my argument against your proposal to delete the Stargate Wars article: "Has anyone actually read 'What wikipedia is not' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information)?I quote : "Subjects [people] of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." However: no where in that OFFICIAL article by the wikipedia admin does it say that non-human subjects (i.e. Clans, as a clan itself is not human, but the members of the clan are; Online games, such as Stargate Wars) need to be 'notable'." What have I ever done to you that deserves this? ZPMMaker 12:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a personal vendetta. Non-notable games aren't encyclopedic material, and players of those non-notable games are certainly not encyclopedic material. I used my administrative powers to speedily delete two articles on Stargate Wars players, per Criteria for speedy deletion A7, and I'm nominating the other things for deletion normally (which is something any user can do).
While it isn't written in stone that a subject needs to be notable, in practice the vast majority of things (games included) need to have some evidence of notability, particularly if they're largely interchangable units in a homogenous whole (for example, Kings of Chaos clones). Efforts to write a notability guideline or policy have run into problems where people can't decide if notability applies to this or that sort of thing (places, towns, schools, roads, etc.) and there is a minority of users who don't feel notability should be a factor in these decisions, but the vast majority of Wikipedians require evidence of notability from the vast majority of things, web-based online games included. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes I realise that characters/users need to be notable (and as such have even agreed with you on your deletion page for UNKNOWN, as I have now read said 'rules' and realise this requirement). However, it does not say anywhere that a subject (non-individual, i.e. a road, city, internet-game...) needs to be notable; I realise that it is expected, but it is not a necessary requirement of Wikipedia. If all encyclopaediae worked on this basis, small insignificant (not-notable) things like an 'Aardvark' or some extinct animal (other than those dinosaurs; they ARE notable) wouldn't even get into it! To quote Encyclopedia, an Encyclopaedia (such as Wikipedia) is a 'compendium of knowledge'. Thus, all knowledge, regardless of notability, should be included. I realise that some of the things that some users post on Wikipedia are absolutely wrong (i.e. making an article dedicated to the fact that the moon is made of cheese (and making an article dedicated to the theory that the moon is made of cheese)), but other articles that are made are actually genuine in its' validity - regardless of the subjects' notability - are being unjustly deleted based on their notability. Now I do believe that there needs to be better ways of proving that information is correct by Wikipedia and it's users/administrators. Perhaps we could discuss such methods on my talk pages (it'd take up too much space here, and would be irrelevant to the deletion process). ZPMMaker 08:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not catalog every person, every website, every toy, every intersection, every book, every song, every issue of every magazine, every model of computer, every day, or every building, nor should it. It's an absolutely hopeless, pointless goal to try to catalog every fact (rather than offer a useful overview of human understanding). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you look through a week's worth of AFD logs, you'll find that notability is a criterion: many of Wikipedia's rules are unwritten.
Any information in this article will rot quickly and may very quickly become moot (and will indeed be forgotten) if the game goes out of business/is C&D'ed, and, in the meantime, this game's impact is limited and influence nonexistent. Should it become notable in some way outside of a corner of the Stargate fandom (totally unscientific note: I've hit up several hardcore SG-1 fans and they've never heard of this game), then an article can be written, but until then, there's no need for this article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:04, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine! Be like that! lol. All Stargate people who like this article (as well as the Stargate Wars article: I have copied the article onto my own website where this, and articles like this, are guarenteed acceptance (it must be Stargate though....). Also, what's "C&D'ed" mean? Legally (by most national and international constitutions/laws/legislatures), all rules must be written for them to be acted upon/enforced. Why does this not apply here? I'm not saying that Wikipedia is stupid, so don't get the wrong idea; I think that these rules that newbies don't know about need to be written! ZPMMaker 07:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Make sure you give the authors credit, to satisfy the GFDL (the hippie granola open-source license Wikipedia licenses its content under).
C&D = Cease and desist; Stargate Wars is one cease-and-desist letter from whoever owns Stargate from being shut down. (Someone mentioned "Foxing" in one of these AFDs - same thing.)
Lastly, welcome to Wikipedia, where, like many online communities, many of the rules of conduct are not written down, particularly in the case of some of the more esoteric background infrastructure processes such as AFD. I agree that they should all be written down (or as many as possible, anyway), but trying to write a notability guideline has been a difficult process that has yet to produce any fruit. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:47, 19 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 on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Back Horn

Delete, or seriously rewrite. Citizen Premier 06:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Orphaned nomination, listing now. No vote. --MarkSweep✍ 21:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looks like it's a copyvio, anyway. -- Captain Disdain 00:18, 16 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Dirk Digglers

Delete, band vanity. Titoxd(?!?) 01:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • The only thing that stands out is one of the members is a IRA militant. no historical value unless he was significant within the IRA. Delete --Fsdfs 01:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As of yet unrecorded seals it for me. Punkmorten 12:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)\
  • Delete per nom. - Sensor 03:06, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The dust jackets

Another non-notable band trying to advertise. Vanity and non-notable Gator1 17:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 17:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing at allmusic.com, and the only Google hits for "The dust jackets" "Adam Kagan" are a blog or something. There's almost no information on their website [22], which is just a student's page at a Uni. There is no means to third-party verify any information about this band, quite apart from the fact that there is no information in the article. (Oh, and they soundly fail WP:MUSIC.) -Splashtalk 20:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If they make an impact on the music industry, sure. Until that time, delete. -- Captain Disdain 00:47, 16 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 on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete and ban from the cocktail list --Gareth Hughes 21:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Game (cocktail)

Cocktail invented July 2005, probably not notable enough for a transwiki to Wikibooks. the wub "?!" 16:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable and poorly written.GreetingsEarthling 17:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability doesn't come into it. Wikipedia is not a cookbook it's an encyclopedia. If this was about the cultural significance or the abstract concepts related to this cocktail, then perhaps it would be encyclopedic. But since it was invented a couple of months ago, there is no possibility that there is enough material to achieve that goal. Also, of course, the final sentence soundly and probably permanently fails the need for verifiability. -Splashtalk 21:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Its probably been used once ever and it probably tastes crap--81.97.247.206 15:53, 17 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The nobleman and knight

nom&vote delete. not an encyclopdia article. Gaff talk 19:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 19:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm STILL writing it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Better yet F&^%% all of you. You don't like you write it!
  • Delete. This does, despite the silliness above, starts out as a good-faith attempt to write an article. It degenerates into talking about jousting with lobsters. I was concerned it might be a copyvio, but it doesn't turn up on Google. Even with that aside, without any referencing whatsoever, it is original research which is not what Wikipedia seeks. I suspect that the questions that could be asked by this article are already answered elsewhere. -Splashtalk 20:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This information can be found in better-organized form at knight, sword, and war horse. Denni☯ 00:41, 16 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Nomura Trust & Banking Co., Ltd.

nom&vote delete. Random bank vanity. no criteria for notability. Gaff talk 04:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Stiking through my prior and changing vote to to keep.--Gaff talk 08:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete Molotov (talk) Image:Caranimationforvmolotov.gif
     04:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Eight billion dollars (US) in assets, a division of a vast financial comglomerate (Nomura Holdings, Inc.: I believe one of their divisions owns 6,000-8,000 pubs in the UK). Not the largest bank in Japan or Asia (ranked #191 in Asia, according to Asiaweek), but still worth at least a short article. And what the hell is "bank vanity", anyways? --Calton | Talk 05:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Calton. Maybe some info from the japanese entry could be transwikied --Anetode 05:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. All banks are worthy of articles in Wikipedia. Fg2 06:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Cool, I'll get started on First International Bank of AMIB's article, then. Hey, anyone wanna deposit any money? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I suspect setting up a legal bank may be slightly more complex a procedure than that. Average Earthman 19:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, as per Calton. Carioca 06:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand as notable Asian bank. Verifiable sources so meets guidelines for articles on corporations. Capitalistroadster 06:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a major bank. Banks aren't typical subjects of vanity articles. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- Notable bank stub with potentials for growth. --Bhadani 10:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Not vanity. CalJW 11:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep --TimPope 09:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Definitely notable. Needs to be expanded bigtime. - Sensor 03:08, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete — the vote fell 6:4 delete, but I note that 3 of those voting keep were unsigned anons. Whereas I believe that anyone can vote here, I also believe that this process is about community consensus, and that such unsigned votes, while noted, do not express any wish to collaborate on building Wikipedia. --Gareth Hughes 21:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Outer Circle

Non notable comic, found here. Article does not mention any sort of notability apart from existing. A google search for its creator "Steve Napierski" gives just over 40 links. A google search for "The Outer Circle" webcomic, gives 60 links. Please, webcomics should assert their own notability, other than passing the stupidly lax proposed guidelines at WP:COMIC - Hahnchen 17:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not notable - at least not yet. -DDerby-(talk) 04:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, see User:SCZenz/Webcomics. But there's no need to use insulting language, even for criteria you disagree with, Hahnchen! -- SCZenz 15:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable-Dakota 16:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete Maybe not notable for its fanbase, but the comic itself is notable for being well written and well drawn. Steve Napierski is an excellent webcomic creator, and this entry deserves to be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.142 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete Since I actually do the comic, I doubt I would ask for it to be deleted. Here's a few of my points for it not to be deleted... Granted, "The Outer Circle" is not as large as Penny Arcade or PvP, the comic does update daily and has over 225 comics in it's archives. The comic has been reviewed by Digital Strips and Steve Napierski/I actively work on The Webcomic List. Also, "The Outer Circle" does rank under Alexa traffic details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.180.38.20 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete Mozan-True, the comic hasn't been around very long, but that doesn't mean it does not deserve recognition. If a great man were to rise to power very quickly, would he not be celebrated?And if a great comic were to rise to fame, would IT not be celebrated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.170.172 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete No harm in having it. As for the google search...how common a last name is Napierski anyway? And how common is it to be paired with "Steve"? Adding quotes doesn't help any. - Donny
    • A Collective Reply - It doesn't matter how well written or well drawn a comic is. There are many well written blogs out there, many well drawn personal art sites out there, that is not an instant assertion of notability. Just because a comic has x00 strips, also does not make it notable, a long running ignored website is the same as a new ignored website. It fails the Alexa ranking test, but I've not even been using them for a while, because barely mentioning it as circumstantial evidence leads a a horde of straw man arguments claiming Alexa is the only grounds. If a great man were to rise to power very quickly, he would have an article. Has the outer circle had a great rise to fame? I don't think so. And the whole point is, that "Steve Napierski" is a relatively unique name is where Google can help. If his name were John Doe, then the search would be absolutely useless. And to reply to the post on the author's site, no, I am not against webcomics being listed on Wikipedia, I am however, against every webcomic entity listed on the encyclopedia just because their fans think it deserves one. - Hahnchen 13:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
      • ...and thus the Hahnchen did prowl the Wiki, looking for unworthy webcomics to delete, never giving a thought that he has too much free time on his hands mayhap. -Donny
        • Hahnchen is trying to maintain consistency of our standards for notable vs. non-notable websites in our encyclopedia. He has an area of focus, yes, but it's work somebody has to do. Your objections indicate that you don't really understand the purpose of Wikipedia, which means you might want to think twice before claiming experienced editors are wrongly nominating articles for deletion. In my vote above, I put a link to my thoughts on this issue that may help you understand what's going on, if you're interested. (Also, you might want to be aware that linking to your own commercial website in an AfD could be considered advertizing, although I imagine you're just using it for identification purposes.) -- SCZenz 23:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, I suppose what I said was un-called for. Almost as uncalled for as implying that someone's Wiki entry is stupid. The problem with a webcomics area is that it comes down to a matter of opinion of what is and isn't notable. Is it hits? Money made? Popularity? Granted, it could be argued that the latter crieria goes hand in hand with hits but there are plenty of lousy sites that rake in tons of traffic. Likewise there are quality sites that haven't yet made it big. The outer circle is one of those sites, yet it IS on people's radars. Waiting until its at Penny Arcade's level of noteriety before its included is just wrong. - Donny
            • I have a list of reasons a webcomic might be notable at User:SCZenz/Webcomics. We should use any verifiable evidence of notability--but "on peoples' radars" is a little vague, as that goes. We need things that are quantifiable precisely because Wikipedia editors aren't qualified to judge the quality of webcomics!
            • The webcomic community seems to misunderstand what the Wikipedia community is about. We're now being insulted on webcomics' daily news, people are voting in AfD's without reading any of the relevant procedures, and webcomic-lovers are feeling hurt when we say that their website is non-encyclopediaic. When we say "non-notable" we don't mean that it's not notable for a webcomic; we mean that it isn't visible enough in other sources to be put in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not the place for webcomics (even high-quality ones that are underregarded on other pages) to increase their visibility. -- SCZenz 00:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
            • I don't think Hahnchen said that "someone's Wiki entry is stupid," at least not anywhere I've seen--he said a set of proposed guidelines were "stupidly lax," and you'll see above that I objected immediately. Please bear in mind, too, that a wikipedia article on a person, website, or anything else isn't that person's entry; it's the encyclopedia's entry about that person. (Maybe that's just a comment on imprecise wording, but it is and important idea.) -- SCZenz 01:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Comment - Thanks for that Donny, yet more character assassination from the lovable webcomic community. I just feel that webcomics should have some verifiable assertion of notability. Merely being on people's radar is just not a real point. The thing with webcomics, is that even the smallest have a core group of vocal loyal online fans, but just because of this it doesn't mean it's any more notable than any other website. The same is true for forums, websites and blogs. It's not that the Wiki entry is stupid, but I believe that wiki should not just be used as a collection of all information about anything that has ever existed. And the reaction from some parts of the webcomic community is quite frankly, ridiculous. Some seem to think that their webcomic inherently deserves a wikipedia article, just because it exists and Megatokyo has one. And that without a wikipedia article, it makes their comic look small, bad, and not as good as Triangle and Robert. - Hahnchen 15:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, as per nom. Also, someone pointed to the site's Alexa rank as a reasoning behind their "don't delete" vote -- without mentioning that the Alexa rank is 654,834. Dragonfiend 05:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. --Aquillion 20:13, 20 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 15:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Pettit Project

vanity; not notable, using Wikipedia to advertise band Gator1 17:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 17:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:MUSIC. -DDerby-(talk) 03:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --maclean25 01:45, 22 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Psycho

Delete. The article is poorly written, biased in favour of the article subject, does not give any solid information (location, age, name, etc.), appears to blur fact and fiction - the article subject is identified as being a "comic book character" - and does not appear to be notable (the wrestlers in question has apparently been wrestling for at least four years, but is not listed at obsessed with wrestling.com). McPhail 22:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. That whole fact/fiction split is a problem with a lot of the wrestling articles, so I don't know how relevant that is (never seems to bother the wrestling fans, anyway), but the lack of notability is another thing. -- Captain Disdain 00:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not much in the way of factual information and i just dont think he can be that notable --- Paulley 10:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:21, 16 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 15:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Ronald McDonald Martyrs Brigade

Content's got nothing to do with encyclopedias -- a bit of vanity, a bit of attention-getting, a whole lot of lack of notability all wrapped together in a package decorated with those golden arches. -- Captain Disdain 22:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. -- ��Captain Disdain 22:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

While this disdain fellow may be right, it is hillarious. -TFG

  • Delete, not encyclopedic. Rhobite 02:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't belong in wikipedia Crovax 04:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't belong anywhere. Saberwyn 05:51, 16 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge — 4 votes merge, 1 vote merge/delete, 2 votes delete, 1 vote keep — the article is to be merged into Third Watch and then deleted. --Gareth Hughes 21:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Third Watch broadcasters

Just a list of stations that have broadcasted episodes of some TV show. Granted, I'm a big fan of this show, but this article is just non-encyclopedic trivia. Delete. Gamaliel 09:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - if we do this for one show, we have to do it for them all. Unmaintainable and prone to become outdated very quickly especially with syndicated shows. 23skidoo 12:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, gives an idea of popular the show is and where. No need to be complete. 14:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Unsigned by Kappa
  • Merge into Third Watch in prose form to save space: "The show was broadcast in the United States on NBC, in Australia on Nine Network, in Canada on CTV ...." and redirect accordingly. --Metropolitan90 16:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as Metropolitan90 instructed. The Literate Engineer 17:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A merge into the Third Watch article should do the trick. --Optichan 17:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete per both Metropolitan90 and 23skidoo hard to pick --JAranda | watz sup 21:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Third Watch. Anyone looking for this info would look there first. Denni☯ 23:33, 15 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 on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tick (FE)

not notable nonsense and not encyclopedic topic Gator1 19:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 19:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This page has relevance in explaining a term used in an online game. Furthermore, it may also later be broadened if other places use the same term when describing similar means of noting time in-game. I'm moving that this page be left and, if need be, placed a stub for further editing, but not deleted. Draggy 19:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Note, I've changed his bolded text from "Motion against deletion of this page" to "Keep" to help with readability. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn arbitrary time unit. Dlyons493 Talk 21:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
There is currently no official policy on notability. Cited from Wikipedia:Notability. Therefore notability is irrelevant to whether it should be deleted or not. Draggy 22:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The premise is correct but the conclusion I think isn't. Dlyons493 Talk 23:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Official policy or not, this article is not relevant to the world at large. It's an extremely specific term from a game that already has an article of its own that explains the term when describing the game mechanics. The topic doesn't require an article of its own; there's no way somebody's going to start typing "tick" rather than "Fantasy Empires" into the search box when searching for information about the game. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 00:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It's very possible that someone might type tick instead of Fantasy Empires. Not only that, but I'm sure I've heard this term applied to other games online, I just couldn't cite you which ones at the moment, unfortunately. Draggy 02:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, if somebody uses Wikipedia as a primary source of details about a game and refuses to use the game's name as a starting point, they get what they ask for. It's true that "tick" has been used as a measurement of time in other games (it's certainly been used in various pen-and-paper roleplaying games), but this article is specifically about Fantasy Empires. Its very title makes that clear. Even if you were to take a more general view of the suject, I'm not convinced that it deserves an article of its own. -- Captain Disdain 04:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
        • You might be surprised. I've picked up alot of info about games from browsing interconnected Wikipedia pages involving the game. Perhaps if nothing else, merge this article with the main article about FE or edit it into the main page instead of simply deleting it. I would suggest making it a sub-page except that if I understand correctly only certain things may have sub-pages? I'm not to clear on that. Draggy 09:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
          • But there's nothing to merge! Like I said, the FE article already contains all relevant information about the topic. -- Captain Disdain 10:43, 16 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Truestar

Reads like an ad, hasn't been touched since anon created it in August. Lucky13pjn 23:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's advertising, all right. Delete. -- ��Captain Disdain 23:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • D concur advertisement Fawcett5 00:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising.--Alhutch 01:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unequivocally; reads like an ad for an ... 'obscure' company. E Pluribus Anthony 02:33, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Roma people. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tsigani

Proposed delete: WINAD, foreign language, arguably nn. Alternately, transdictionary, but 1) do we have a Bulgarian dictionary?, 2) is this slang?

  • Delete This is actually a transliteration of the slavic word for gypsies (russian: цыгани) --Anetode 05:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Roma people. Wiktionary is a Bulgarian and slang dictionary, but I don't think it needs this definition. Kappa 07:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Kappa. Punkmorten 12:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect For what it's worth, this is also roughly the Romanian word for gypsy/Roma as well. [23] Jessamyn 20:28, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 15:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U15/3

No claim of notability. Wiki already has a page on cricket, club cricket. Looks like it was set up just to list upcoming games. JJay 02:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --JJay 02:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Hello U15/3 people and everybody who is interested in junior cricket." Any article that begins like that is straying pretty far from encyclopedic material. If the topic was notable, that could be fixed, but, well... it's not. Delete. -- Captain Disdain 03:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per da Cap'n. --Tedzsee 03:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yup. delete it.--Gaff talk 10:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. that picture of young thorpy is priceless, however. Jesse 19:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.cornwallcricket.co.nz/juniors/images/PN2.jpg

  • delete - not notable. --Ixfd64 07:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shudder!!! Moriori 07:23, 18 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 15:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Umpire (volleyball)

There is no such thing and the page has very little content. The volleyball officials are the first and second referee, and two or four line judges; see the rules at http://www.fivb.org/EN/Volleyball/Rules/Rules.htm. However, Volleyball lacks a section about officials, so the little content that exists could be moved there instead. - Magnus Holmgren <magho@home.se> (I'll create an account momentarily)

  • Delete. Volleyball does not have umpires, and so I do not see how any of the content here can be ported elsewhere. The second sentence of the article is a statement of the obvious regarding any refereeing in any endeavour and has no particular bearing on volleyball. The first is factually incorrect and, even though we're not paper, we don't collect factually incorrect information. If Volleyball needs an "officials" section, that's fine, but it should not come from this article. -Splashtalk 20:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Captain Disdain 00:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (per nomination (i've created an account now)) -- Magnus Holmgren 13:57, 16 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Gareth Hughes 21:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vance Lee

Vanity. Parallel or Together? 11:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: This musician does not seem to be particularly noteworthy. A google search turns up about 1,290 articles, but the majority have to do with different collaborators featuring these names (just "Vance Lee" turns up millions of pages featuring people with this name). In addition, the article is copyvio. -Parallel or Together? 12:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the above reasons. Haeleth 12:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 09:29, 18 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep as redirect Wikibofh 16:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Williamsberg

Article consists of one external link to Colonial Williamsburg and no other text. The title of the article itself is mispelled. We already have an article on Colonial Williamsburg--MONGO 13:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete not encyclopedic, duplicate article that doesn't have a mispelled title.--MONGO 13:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Changed to redirect. CambridgeBayWeather 14:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect - plausible misspelling. Dlyons493 Talk 14:12, 15 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wwfu

Appears to be some sort of wrestling fanfic stub. tregoweth 03:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. tregoweth 03:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete nonsense --Anetode 06:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete . crap Rjayres 14:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as hoax nonsense. Marskell 16:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Btm 22:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Please. Utter nonsense. - Sensor 02:58, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (Yes, I read the big essay at the end, sock/meatpuppet threshold exceeded, registered users deletes versus others show clear consensus. If you disagree, I would recommend VfU) Wikibofh 00:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

NOTE Wikibofh has explained his decision in greater detail here and I responded to his explanation in detail there. Kriegman 23:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yoism

vanity. Only about 1 line of the article can be verified wikipedia is not a webhost Geni 20:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Jeesis H. Kreist! Geni is a Yoan ;-) Damn! Your "Homeopathy Sucks" page could be posted on our Yoism site as an illustration of the difference between empiricism (the foundation of belief in Yoism) and false-beliefs. Yoism is not a "religion" like what you probably assume it to be. This underscores the problem caused by our web site being down. Please see On Socks & Puppetfests, starting just below the votes. Kriegman 18:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. Note to admin closing this one: be sure to discount sock votes, as they are lots. -- (drini's page|☎) 04:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What's the reasoning behind your strong feeling? Are feelings without reasons how wikipedia works? -Orion
  • Another Note to Administrator Closing this one Please see a response to this "strong delete," On Socks & Puppetfests, starting just below the votes. Kriegman 18:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A religious version of a micronation. None of the external links in the article work to verify claims. The "official" site states: "We've been hacked! Recently, Yoism has been getting a strong response from people all over the world." Right. Edwardian 21:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved my comment to "Comment #1" on Talk page. Edwardian 19:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved response to Edwardian's comment to Talk page.Kriegman 11:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved my comment to "Comment #2" on Talk page. Edwardian 19:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved response to Edwardian's comment to Talk page.Kriegman 11:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved my comment to the "Comment #5" on Talk page. Edwardian 19:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved response to Edwardian's comment to Talk page.Kriegman 11:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[The following edit was placed after one of my responses to one of Edwardian's comment, which have been moved to the Talk page Kriegman 11:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)]

alexa rank of 723,391. I'm not immpessed by your web site traffic.Geni 00:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Hunh?! Not only shouldn't the degree that you are impressed by our web traffic be a standard for inclusion in Wikipedia, but what does this ranking mean? If you noted, you didn't get a ranking for yoism.org. For some reason, you got one for yoism.net (at least that is what I get when I go to Alexa). Yoism.net doesn't even exist, and hasn't for many months. Secondly, our Google hits went from around 9000 when searching for "yoism" a month ago to 770 today. So, if this is a current ranking, and similar factors affect it as the Google hit number, despite the fact that it isn't even for yoism.org, what does it mean? (If it is a delayed ranking based on six month to one year old data (which is what Alexa donates to public projects and goes back to a time when yoism.net may have existed), then that figure would be a fraction of what we were getting a few weeks ago.) The traffic and interest I was referring to developed over this past summer. Prior to that interest was steady but much lower. But what ranking would we have to achieve to have a Yoism article in the Wikipedia? Why is this relevant? Kriegman 01:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
It means that alexa thinks there are 723,390 websites that get more vists than your. In practice it means that you are off the bottem of the scale as far as alexa are concernded. The ranking are made up of the vists to yoism.org and twiki.yoism.org. The figure is the average for the last 3 months. However you look at your stats even your peak vists hardly show a strong world responce.Geni 01:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be serious about this and may be trying to be impartial. Assuming you just didn't read the parts where I clarified what I meant by a strong response (after all this is getting lengthy), by "strong world response" I have now clarified that I meant that each day we were getting thousands of hits and about one (1, uno) response from a new person who showed an interest in pursuing Yoism further, and that our Google hits had grown from under 2000 to around 9000 in a few months. Given the rate of growth we experienced in the past and that other religions experience early on, this was "a strong response." That's all I meant by strong response on our redirected "We were hacked page."
In addition to 6 or 7 people showing some lasting interest each week, every couple of weeks we would get a threatening response from one or two people who were angered/threatened by our claims that traditional religions were misguided fantasies left over from humanity's childhood. I don't know who hacked our site. But I suspected that it was no coincidence that our site was hacked shortly after we started getting thousands of hits along with such negative responses. Rob, our new webmaster, thinks it was coincidence. But this is what I meant on that redirected page by a strong world response, nothing more. As far as I understand, the Alexa stats could be consistent with this, especially since the last three weeks have had zero or near zero hits on the yoism.org or twiki.yoism.org sites.Kriegman 04:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved my comment to "Comment #3" on Talk page. Edwardian 19:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Responses to Edwardian's Comment #3 have also been moved to talk page Kriegman 23:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved my comment to "Comment #4" on Talk page. Edwardian 19:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

(Note: From the WayBackMachine FAQ: "Why are there no recent archives in the Wayback Machine? We do not add pages less than 6 months after they are collected, because of the time delayed donation from Alexa. Updates can take up to 12 months in some cases." Because of this, there are no Yoism pages archived from 2005.)

And indeed, "Right." In August and September, we were getting over 2,000 hits/day. That may not be much by some standards, but for us it was a very strong and steady response. We were getting emails from all over the world from people looking for Yoan meetings and/or interested in setting up chapters of Yoism other than in Boston, where it originated.

Our site, that has been up for four years nonstop, was, indeed, hacked by someone who began to send out spam using our dedicated webserver. Our webmaster closed down the site a few weeks ago even though it functioned fine and visitors would never know it was being used for spam! It is against Yoan principles to allow our server to be used for destructive purposes.

The problem was that we hadn't secured our site sufficiently against such hackers. Since securing it further would take expertise our webmaster hadn't developed, we decided to move it to a hosting service that would be responsible for security (instead of running our own dedicated server). The service we chose is www.gaiahost.net and we are setting up our site as I write. I set up the "We've been hacked" message on my personal web pages at my comcast account and had www.yoism.org traffic redirected to that page until we get our site back up. Meanwhile, for choosing to do the right thing---closing down our dedicated server that was being used for nefarioius purposes, instead of letting it run while we set up our new site---the article about Yoism is being proposed for deletion.

Furthermore, there was extensive discussion of deletion when the Yoism article was first created. After a great deal of debate and modification of the article in 2003 the issue was apparently settled.

I hope this clarifies the apparent problem with the article. I hope it seems reasonable to wait a few weeks to see what the links refer to when the Yoism site is back up. Or if it is necessary, I can recreate the specific pages (except our home page which is too complex for me) that the Yoism article links to at the same Comcast site where the "We were hacked" message is hosted.

In the meantime, I would propose that the article be removed from pages for deletion and the banner removed from the article. Kriegman 02:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The link in the Yoism article to the external Yoism page containing an article about Yoism that appeared in the Boston Globe obviously doesn't work because the site is down. However, the article can be accessed in the Boston Globe's archives. Kriegman 02:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC) [Later, in response to one of Edwardian's comments, which is now on the Talk page, I wrote, "Though I would rather have spent my energy on getting our website back up and not on creating a temporary repository of pages to "relitigate" the issues debated at length in 2003, you can now view the full Boston Globe article here."]Kriegman 11:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Do Not Delete. Hello -

As someone who was active in the Yoan community for a number of years (starting in 1998), I can assure you that it in no ways resembles the "micronations" you describe (defined in Wikipedia as "entities that resemble independent nations or states, but for the most part exist only on paper, on the Internet, or in the minds of their creators.") The Yoan community was an actual group of people who met weekly at gatherings in Somerville and Cambridge, Massachusetts, many of which I attended. Its participants was crucially active in volunteer efforts for a nonprofit project for human rights in mental health located in Whitman, Massachusetts. Furthermore, the ideas of Yoism have provided the basis for vibrant discussions about the nature of religion and truth for not only its immediate members, but many others around the world by way of the internet. These discussions continue today from far corners of the planet.

Knowing first-hand the webmaster of the Yoism web site, I can verify that their server indeed been hijacked recently and is undergoing security improvements.

Whether or not the links listed on Wikipedia are currently inactive or not, Yoism is alive and well as a concept in the world, and I strongly object to the article being removed.

Sincerely, R. Hull


  • Do Not Delete. Hi. I know that Yoism is still active. Their website was hacked. Their wiki entry should not be deleted. Thank you.

B. Miller


  • Do Not Delete. I know the people in charge of yoism.org, and so I know that the server was hacked around the beginning of October and is currently being restored. Therefore deleting the page for the reasons suggested (e.g. that the links do not work) would be a bad decision. ToddDeLuca 16:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
no previous edits to wikipedia.Geni 13:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete24.60.21.122 18:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC). Likewise, I have been involved with Yo for a while. I'm the person working on setting up the web page again. I spoke to Dan in person just hours after the hacking occurred. Zac was able to reestablish the page, but the offenders who had gained accessed we soon learned were using the server for sending spam. We had no other choice but to shut down the server. If you ask me, the reason why we were attacked has absolutely nothing to do with ideology or religious contentiousness-- it's because our server had lousy security and some industrious hacker exploited that for their own selfish purposes. I think Yo is a significant enough to warrant having a wikipedia entry.

NOTE: For readability purposes I also tagged Brendan Miller's, Rich Hull's, and Dan K.'s posts with "do not delete" because this page is for voting and they are clearly voting by posting these comments on this page. I wanted to make this clearer by putting the uniform heading on their entries.

But I want to know: what counts as vanity? What is the criterion for something being worthy of inclusion? Admittedly it is a relatively small thing at this point. But why should wikipedia rule out inclusion of smaller scale phenomena? If there is such a rule (for example a rock band on a tiny record label that is only known in non-commercial contexts and small distribution magazines does not exist but a rock band that is featured in big time magazines does exist) than what is the actual criterion for scale-- and why ever should wikipedia be against grassroots non-commercial culture??

Rob [Note this user (24.60.21.122) has numerous, unrelated, prior edits. Kriegman 20:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)]

WP:MUSICGeni 17:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. We don't have specific criteria for religions, I think we should, but existing for only ten years and having only 100 members would no doubt be below them. Wikipedia is not used for groups to establish themselves, it is for describing groups already sufficiently notable. -- Kjkolb 09:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Response to Kjkolb: After modifying the article greatly in response to NPOV and presenting independent evidence of Yoism's existence, this became the sole and main issue in the lengthy discussion that occurred in 2003. Given that paper space is not an issue in the Wikipedia, the issue of number of members or notoriety need not be considered rigidly in establishing a Wikipedia article. Membership in a religion is a rather large step and for every person that joins/identifies as a member of a religion there are hundreds who are aware of it. Indeed, there are thousands of people who have engaged in discussions of Yoism, much of which can be found in Google searches. Having 100 participants in the Boston area was deemed sufficient in 2003. Since then the number has grown with most of that growth occurring outside of Boston and being impossible to count. We have received numerous emails that begin something like, "I have considered myself a Yoist for years now and was wondering . . ." from people we have never heard from before. I believe a legitimate claim could be made that the number of Yoans easily exceeds 1,000. But I have not edited the Wikipedia article with the more accurate new numbers because I had no external source with which to verify them. Despite wanting to change the numbers (nothing makes something more popular than seeing it become popular with other people), I have become more of a Wikipedian since 2003 and, beyond understanding the rules, without some independent reference I didn't even consider such a revision possible. I figured that that can wait until there is some other independent source for the new numbers. I never thought, that after more than doubling in size, we would have to re-debate the size issue or see the Wikipedia article deleted. Kriegman 14:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Another point to add, there is no way possible that inclusion in the Wikipedia could mislead a reader into thinking that Yoism is more substantial a phenomenon than it is. The reader is presented at the very beginning with a statement (actually an understatement, but that just reinforces this point) about the size of membership. I believe that was put into the article up front back in 2003 for precisely this reason, i.e., to make sure that inclusion in the Wikipedia did not suggest something about the magnitude of this phenomenon that was not so.
I think it is presumptuous to then suggest that around phenomenon where signficance based on sufficient size is debatable, if presented with the necessary information, readers cannot evaluate the importance of the phenomena for themselves. If presented with the information for an accurate picture of this issue, I see no need to protect readers form being exposed to information that some people feel is of insufficient importance while others disagree (as was well established in 2003). Nobody is being misled. Furthermore, the article has existed with these low numbers being presented up front for over two years. Clearly readers of this article have not felt that the numbers issue was a sufficient problem to make an issue of it, until the links stopped working and some erroneous assumptions were made about what the temporary redirect of those links indicated about Yoism.
And many, many people have found the article to be of importance; it is often cited as a reason for their further investigation of Yoism. Despite the fact that this last point is of interest to me as one who wants to see Yoism spread, consider that fact carefully: After being told that there are 100 or so participants in Yoism (understatement or not), numerous individuals have found the information in the article to be of sufficient siginificance to spend their time investigating Yoism further. If you accept the fact that this has occurred (and while I acknowledge that I have not proved it, if you don't believe me, then just consider this a hypothetical illustration [a thought experiment] of why a specific numerical definition may be misleading), I think this would be evidence that the "size" issue should not be set according to some subjective notion that doesn't match real world behavior in which people are finding the description of this phenomenon to be of sufficient significance to spend their own life energy in researching further. Surely, that would be evidence of more significance than many, many Wikipedia articles.
Finally, regarding the 10 year figure as insufficient. Why would religious phenomena need to exist longer than other cultural phenomena before they can be included in the Wikipedia? If we had a ten year rule (or even a five year rule, or even a two year rule) for sociocultural phenomena, many thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted. There are an enormous number of cultural phenomena that---especially in our information age---achieve significance in far less than 10 years. Consider for example, Wikipedia. Kriegman 14:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete.

I see no need for deletion. If they have been active since 1998 and got abused by criminal hackers then I get that some of you find the page confusing. I say wait wait at least until they set up the new server so everybody commenting could do it on the real thing. Compared to many other texts Yoism belong here. I would feel let down if wiki didn't have the text it has now. I saw it as very informative. It is no hoax at all.

BernieDaSwede BernieDaSwede 18:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

user's first edit.Geni 13:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Do Not Delete.

Considering we've already had this discussion a few years back and decided not to delete, and considering there are at least a couple news paper articles about Yoism (indicating that people do find it relavent), I think this is a pretty clear case. It relevant. People find it interesting. It doesn't detract from the rest of the Wikipedia in anyway. Its only a net positive, and it has been cited a few times in paper media, so it belongs.

OverZealousFan 15:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

you appear to only have 3 edits not directly related to Yoism.Geni 23:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Do Not Delete.

I see no good reason for deletion. Yoism is a real phenomenon whose website is down temporarily. It would be a shame to lose it in the wikipedia.

WikiMe 17:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

user's first contibution to wikipedia.Geni 18:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete

I don't think the website being down matters at all. The yoism website is still not a source other than Dan Kriegman, its just another vehicle for him. Why should Wikipedia be the sole supporter and host of this religious philosophy? This has nothing to do with knowledge, just advertising and proselytizing. Dan Kriegman needs to pay for his own commercial airtime. (Kriegman's already told us he has incorporated and can legally receive moneys from supporters...) It seems to me any Yoism page on Wiki should be focused on the way the "group" is trying to expand, by exploiting the "open source" philosophy of Wikipedia *specifically* - this is the only thing we really know these "Yoans" are actually doing. PilgrimZ 21:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

User has no previous edits to wikipediaGeni 23:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete. The first commonet on the first vote here is from someone thinks this article should be deleted because Yoism sounds like it might be a "micronation". Yet the Wikipedia entry for micronation has over a dozen references to micronation entries in Wikipedia itself. Even if Yoism were one (its not) this is no good reason to delete the entry. I have been following Yoism for over a year and the main Yoism website has been up all that time, and it has a very active following on its mailing list. 64.142.28.232 21:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
we generaly don't accept votes from IPs.Geni 23:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The Articles for Deletion page states, that recommendations by "Unregistered and new users . . . may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)." No one has suggested that anyone has misrepresented their reasons or acted in bad faith. And those who have been participants in Yoism, have been quite up front about it. This particular user made at least one unrelated Wikipedia edit before the Yoism article was put on the AfD page. Kriegman 18:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


Do Not Delete

If somebody hacking a website all of a sudden makes something not exist, then Wikipedia is in a sad state of affairs. I am a Yoan and have been involved with them for some time. You should be able to see from previous discussions of whether or not Yoism's wikipedia entry should stay or go (when the site was up and running) that this bridge has already been crossed and it was decided that it should stay.

Wikipedia defines religion as " In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe." So regardless of how few follow the faith, it's existence (which is clear from the people voting for it to stay) and differentiation from any other faith means that it should stay as it adds to the encyclopedic knowledge of religion.

You know Christianity was once a cult as well. If you would like more information about the existence of Yoism you can check [here], the australian branch of the religion which is currently still under web development (as there are currently only 2 Australian Yoans)

Igdrasa

User has two previous edits to wikipediaGeni 23:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, puppetfest. Xoloz 12:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
"Puppetfest" put into search doesn't return anything. If by "puppetfest" you mean sock puppets, I believe you are wrong. [To Xoloz: This is the kind of misinformation that red staters are prone to use ;-) From your writing, you seem very Yoan. Angry, but Yoan. BTW, I think Louis Black would do a great job of reading your fts.com page.] Kriegman 14:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Do Not Delete.

I've edited a few wikipdedia articles from different IP addresses (mainly in the topic of Global Governance, Global Democracy, Global Citizens, etc), but admittedly have not been very involved (although, I probably will become more involved over time). I am a Yoan. The article on Yoism clearly promotes Yoism, but it is also an article in good faith reporting a newish phenomena re: a specific Open Source Religion. Yoism is real, the number of Yoans uncounted but an estimate of 1,000 or so seems plausible. It is an independently verified group (definitely not a micronation, definitely in existence beyond Dan Kriegman and the website). I understand the concerns Wikipedians have about the misuse of wikipedia, and I understand the requirements for no new research, NPOV, no micronations, etc. -- to be a resepcted and established source of information it is important to take these concerns very seriously. Wikipedia is under attack by academics and others for being too loose in its criteria of inclusion, yet the backlash effect of this attack is stressful and annoying on the open source culture. Articles exist because of interest in them, this is true on all topics, and they evolve over time by the participation of many people from around the world -- i.e., they improve continuously (this is what makes Wikipedia special--a bad article, of which there are many, is most often simply a new article remaining to be edited, other encycolpedia publish only edited version, so those who critique wikipedia on this point are simply ignorant of the process). Anyhow, imho, wikipedians should have more confidence in the validity of their project, its methods, and principles -- and it would betray all of these to delete the Yoism page. Orion Kriegman OrionK 18:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Do Not Delete

I am not a Yoan -- and wouldn't be because of their hot-under-the-collar anti-monotheism -- but I find their idea fascinating and much of their work very creative. I think they are modelling something -- the co-creation of religious ideas and rituals -- that is useful for all of us to consider. It is too bad that their site has been taken down temporarily. While it was up, I spent several hours exploring it, and am discussing the collaborative formation of religions now with some other people, in other contexts. The fact that Yoism arose out of the cooperative movement fascinates me. I now use Wiki as my default source for looking up things (even before Google half the time), and I would be very disappointed if because something is new, it was dropped from the Wikipedia regardless of how substantive it is. Wikipedia is not a stale record of the past, but a living representation of reality as it is emerging. Please keep it that way. -- Tom Atlee, Author of The Tao of Democracy

  • Links to Atlee article and book added by Kriegman 04:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete but keep in some form also. Molotov (talk)
    21:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Disinterested third-party here who stumbled across this article after seeing it linked to Timothy Leary and was very surprised to see it listed on AfD. I found it to be pretty well written and certainly informative and encyclopedic (verifiable, notable, etc.) I understand, per the nomination, that it was originally just a one-line article, but since then, it has been expanded significantly, a very nice side-effect of the AfD process. Please keep! --Presnell 18:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Umm no the article was always that size. There is almost nothing verifiable about the group beyond there being at least 30 of them (even that isn't going to break any records as the most verifiable claim ever)and being registered with the IRS.It just isn't posible to write a NPOV article about them.Geni 18:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
This is not a fair representation of reality. When a church has attendance of 30 (which is what was reported in the Boston Globe article), is the membership likely to be 30? And, of course, sarcasm aside, we don't need to break verifiability records to be in the Wikipedia. And experienced Wikipedians, who had access to our temporarily down web site two years ago, did feel a NPOV article could be written about Yoism. And they mostly rewrote it to make sure it was NPOV! (Also see the "On Socks and Puppetfests" discussion below for a further basis for a valid article.) Kriegman 19:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Non-Profit status, as indicated by the 501(c)(3) approval, and contemporary news reports provide enough verifiability and notability for me, at least, to request that this article should not be deleted. Again, I'd never heard of this movement until I came across the wikipedia article, and I found it informative and interesting. --Presnell 17:01, 21 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (was part of one above, the formatting messed it up) Wikibofh 16:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On Socks & Puppetfests: Another "note to administrator closing this one"

There is a claim that there are sock puppets in this discussion and that the votes of folks with no or few previous edits should be discarded. There are two separate issues raised by this: (1) are they sock puppets and (2) if not, should their votes be treated as such under the meat puppet extension to the sock puppet rule.

Sock Puppets

To address the first issue we can look at the official "sock puppet" policy, which states:

If it appears that sock puppets are being used as part of an edit war or to distort the outcome of a vote or survey, one possible rule of thumb is the 100-edit guideline. This suggests that any account with more than 100 edits is presumed not to be a sock puppet. If there are unusually many accounts with few edits participating, you may want to check if they are sockpuppets, by looking at IP addresses or times that edits were made. However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sockpuppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sockpuppet without justification, they will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia.
Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about the conflict in the Middle East, cult figures, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Some have suggested applying the 100-edit guideline more strongly in such cases, assuming that all accounts with fewer than 100 edits are sock puppets. Generally, such beliefs have been shown not to be well founded.
If there is doubt, a developer can easily check to see whether accounts are related. Experience has shown that on article talk pages, including polls, the linkage is usually not supported by the information available to developers, so self-restraint in making such accusations is usually the right course.

So, the rule advocates caution and points out that the assumption of sock puppetry is usually wrong. Yet two very experienced Wikipedians have suggested sock puppetry is rampant here (and/or that we are dealing with meat puppets, discussed below) and have issued delete votes with no sign they they engaged in any close consideration of this particular vote (and, I admit, no sign of a lack of such either, just a "quick" vote).

I can assure the administrator closing this that there are few, if any sock puppets involved on the "do not delete" side. This is NOT because I know all or most of the do not deleters. It is because the do not deleters who are first timers or have few edits and have a vested interest in Yoism have either (1) used their real names (and could thus be contacted to verify their identities and votes) or (2) self-identified themselves as Yoans and/or as people who know Yoans and have some relationship with them. This latter action would totally undermine any gain sought by sock puppetry.

In addition, some votes can be counted as evidence from real people even if their vote may be discounted relative to more active Wikipedians. While statements from Rich Hull, B Miller, and Todd DeLuca may not be considered authoritative enough to support an article or a statement in an article, in this case they can be used for something else. They are evidence that the fact that "our site is down" is not some bogus claim for a non-existent phenomenon. Actually, they serve as reminders that there is another source of verification of this: two years ago in a similar process, concerned Wikipedians repeatedly visited our web site and then suggested changes to the article to make it NPOV, to limit its claims (one of them edited the article to make sure it noted the small known number of active Yoans at the very beginning), and to suggest specific verification that could be added to the article (like the incorporation documents as the more authoritative 501(c)(3) status didn't exist then).

The vote from Tom Atlee, provides evidence (that can be verified because he has identified himself) of the utility of the article from a real non-Yoan who is a regular user of the Wikipedia. I know of many others who have found the article useful in that way, but Tom Atlee's vote is independent evidence of such. I don't know how often you have such information in a VfD process and so there may be no "official policy" about how to use it. But surely it should not be ignored.

But in some cases, when there are no or very few previous edits, we could be dealing with meat puppets. So let's turn to that issue.

Cursory votes from experienced Wikipedians versus possible meat puppets

Obviously, votes can be stacked by a call to a community of non-Wikipedians to participate in a Wikipedia vote. So, there is a reason to discount first time participants and to weigh the votes of experienced Wikipedians more strongly than those who have made very few edits. There are two things to consider in this regard when looking at this particular vote.

First, part of the reasoning for applying this rule when there are at least some other unrelated prior edits by the voter is to counter the sock puppet possibility. In this case, where genuine sock puppetry is probably minor to nonexistent, I think this concern should be disregarded and we should only be concerned with meat puppets. So, in the cases of users who made at least one unrelated edit prior to this VfD, it would be unreasonable to ignore their votes (as they are unlikely to be sock puppets) and the question remains should they be discounted relative to the votes of experienced Wikipedians.

I believe there is also a strong reason to be careful about invoking this aspect of policy, and/or to temper the degree to which it is used. If you look at the earlier vote two years ago, the VfD process resulted in numerous editing changes to the article. In the course of the VfD, numerous non-Yoan Wikipedians went to the web site to see what this Yoism thing is. They came back to the discussion and suggested and made changes to the Yoism article. Ultimately, it was decided to keep it.

Why is this important? It is important because there is another standard at play in almost every Wikipedia article about topics that are not subject to careful debate and publication in peer review journals. Some artiicles are allowed to stand on this other standard alone that may include no reference whatsoever to printed articles in authoritative sources. Other articles include large segments that stand on this other standard alone. And most articles have some segments that are only based on this standard.

Face validity: The "Apple Pie" standard found in, at least, segments of many, if not most, Wikipedia articles

By "face validity," I mean "when an article makes descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult" (taken from the No Original Research policy). This standard is invoked when editors look at a phenomenon directly and see if the article reflects it accurately. Indeed, face validity is always employed. And this is true even when references from peer reviewed research are the basis for the article: different editors can then go and look at the peer reviewed publication and see if the description in the Wikipedia article comports with it. That is, all Wikipedia articles are ultimately based on "convergent face validity," i.e., wording that converges on an agreed upon description of some phenomenon outside of the Wikipedia that editors each experience directly. When there is peer reviewed research, convergent face validity is the standard by which the article is judged to accurately reflect that research. When there is only convergent face validity---i.e., the apple pie standard "when an article makes descriptive claims that are easily verifiable by any reasonable adult"---editors ensure that the article comports with what they as a group have directly experienced and, by logical extension, assume that "any reasonable adult" could also verify.

In applying face validity---whether there are external publications to support the article (and the face validity is used to judge whether the article accurately desciribes what can be found there) or when only the face validity of the apple pie standard is in play---the editors must always be able to directly experience some external phenomenon and then edit an article so that the words comport with their collective experience of the external phenomenon.

In addition to whatever publications may be referenced to support an article, I would suggest that many if not most legitimate Wikipedia articles are at least partly dependent on the apple pie standard. For one example, consider the many South Park articles, where you can easily spot thousands of theories/beliefs/statements that are unsubstantiated by any references beyond the editors' opinions (and it may be ages before there are published references addressing more than a handful of these cultural theories/beliefs). Here are five examples, taken from one small section of the main South Park article):

  • Cartman is "often the funniest" (I agree.)
  • Kyle is the "most easily persuadable" (Most easily of who? Certainly not Butters.)
  • Butters is "repressed by his overbearing and oppressive parents" (I agree)
  • Barbrady is "incompetent" (I agree)
  • Satan is "insecure" (I agree)

But, some people would claim, my agreement (or yours, or other editors) is not to be the measure of whether a claim should be in the article; that's "the Sin of Original Research" (pun intended). After all, we are only editors. But where will you find "peer reviewed" articles to support the zillions of such cultural claims/judgments/descriptions that can be found in these articles? Nowhere. The idiosyncratic inaccuracies in such claims are corrected by other editors based on their examination of the evidence (i.e., their experience viewing South Park).

Now some of the specific statements above can probably actually be found in published external works. Yet the South Park articles are filled with many thousands of such claims, the vast majority of which have not been verified and will never be verified by specific citations in published works. It is simply clear that despite the fact that South Park has a healty "External links" section, not more than a tiny, tiny fraction of the thousands of specific claims made in the main and related South Park articles can be verified by its external links.

It is the face validity of these innumerable, unreferenced claims that can be and ultimately is judged by the Apple Pie standard, i.e., easily discernable, community agreement about the face validity of the statements or what any reasonable adult can verify by, in this case, watching South Park. Indeed, I edited one of the descriptions of an aspect of South Park using my judgment and participated in the process of moving the article's descriptions closer and closer to one the community of editors can agree on and thus what a "reasonable adult could be expected to be able to verify." It is not my judgment (which would be original research) that is the standard, but rather the face validity that is established by the judgments of many editors input that ensure that the wording "evolves" into something agreed upon, and is thus likely to be something that could be verified by any reasonable adult.

Back to Yoism

One of the reasons that deletion was suggested for the Yoism article two years ago was that some editors thought it might be a hoax or a joke. Editors then went to the Yoism website and easily discerned that it was not a hoax or joke (though some may have found it to be laughable, that's not the point). That is, they were able to use face validity to ensure that any reasonable adult could verify that it was not a hoax or a joke and thus eliminated that concern.

This is the point. They were able to determine directly that any reasonable adult could be expected to verify that Yoism is a fairly well developed religious belief system that has undergone considerable development and is sufficiently different enough from other religions to demonstrate the existence of a phenomenon that may be of interest to Wikipedia readers. They still insisted on having some independent basis upon which to conclude that the phenomenon described in the article was not simply vanity and that it existed in the awareness of a discernable segment of the human population, not just in the Wikipedia. They got this from the incorporation documents, eventually from the Boston Globe article, and, in part, from the web site itself, which referenced events that had occurred in specific locations and times, such as meetings and presentations at Brown University (which was also documented in the Globe article in the interview segment with Rich Hull).

Thus, the article was kept because there was a combination of external verification AND apple pie face validity of the phenomenon. This combination is employed, in part, in almost all Wikipedia articles that are not about topics that are typically researched and/or described in print publications or topics for which that process has just begun, including many new cultural developments affecting only a subsection of society.

In this regard, please reconsider the "cursory" votes of the experienced Wikipedians versus those who have made fewer edits. Though some do not delete votes come from fairly experienced Wikipedians, a few highly experienced Wikipedians have voted for deletion. Yet, none of those highly experienced voters have had the ability to visit the web site and see what the phenomenon described briefly in the artilce refers to. All of the Wikipedians---including non-Yoans---who have voted on this page to keep the article have done so. I am suggesting that an important source of a type of external verification (of the apple pie sort) was available to all Wikipedians two years ago (albeit in a more primitive form) and is currently temporarily unavailable because of the activity of a hacker.

This leads me back to my original concern: that this repeat VfD process was not deemed necessary for two years until shortly after our site went down and the ability to take a closer look at what Yoism is was missing. That is, regardless of the limited nature of the external verification, others who came across our article could easily verify that Yoism:

  • has significant (though limited) external validation including at least: incorporation, an independent article in a major newspaper, 501(c)(3) status that requires rigorous extensive documentation (and did not exist two years ago), and (up until the hacker caused us to close our site) a significant web presence of many thousands of hits in response to a Google search
  • has a well-developed religious belief system that has undergone considerable development
  • is sufficiently different enough from other religions to demonstrate the existence of a phenomenon that may be of interest to Wikipedia readers

Given the current context, the unexplained, brief (which is what I mean by "quick" or cursory) deletion votes by very experienced Wikipedians should be seen in the light that they could not employ this very simple process to add any face validity apple pie to their decision. Would they have visited our web site if they could? I would hope they would have a least taken a brief peek. But one thing we do know: When the web site was available and we went through this process before, the experienced Wikipedians did take a look and were satisfied that there was something there. When experienced Wikipedians could visit our site PLUS they could examine some external evidence (now with the 501(c)(3) status and a much more signficant web presence that should account for at least something) they reached a decision to keep.

In Summary

When counting or discounting votes based on experience, please keep in mind that all of the votes to delete (including those by a few very experienced Wikipedians) were made without benefit of the data that, two years ago led experienced Wikipedians to a decision to keep. Thus, we must bear in mind the following two points (which are true as the five day period for this VfD nears an end):

One: All (100%) of the "Delete" votes that come from folks with ANY edits, come from folks with more than 2,000 edits, and these same folks are also folks who have never visited the web site that was a crucial factor in the decision to keep made two years ago, which also involved experienced Wikipedians.

Two: Wikipedia administrators and folks with over 2,000 edits are not your average Wikipedia user or even your average Wikipedian. Though administrators are a varied lot and often disagree about many things, there must be ways in which such a high level of commitment and participation introduces some bias into what an encyclopedia should be. And surely, as an open source enclyclopedia for the world, input from non-editor users and editors who are not highly involved editors of the administrator degree must not be ignored. In this VfD, all (100%) of the votes that come from editors with at least one and less than 2000 PRIOR, UNRELATED edits are "Do Not Delete."

Based on these facts, a final decision to delete would mean that, even if you are an editor, if you do not have a huge number of prior edits---even if you have access to information that those with more than 2,000 edits do not have and which, in the past, Wikipedians much more experienced than you found to be important in making this decision, and even if you spell out your reasoning in detail---your vote may be ignored in favor of the votes of super-experienced users who give little or no justification for their votes (other than invoking a rule), and thus showed no sign of careful investigation of this particular article. It would be a message that we have created a new elite in which only those with an extraordinarily high level of participation will have their voices heard in what is ostensibly an open source project that invites all users to participate.Kriegman 17:55, 20 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Deletion review nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge — 4 votes keep, 3 votes delete, 1 vote merge — as merge was suggested by other voters as a possible way forward, this article is to be merged as the first part of list of Megaman weapons — as was rightly pointed out, under WP:FICT this is a minor 'character'. As there is no, one suitable article to merge it with, it should go in a list with other such objects. --Gareth Hughes 21:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Z-Saber

exists...kind of, but just not notable Gator1 17:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 17:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--I'd say merge, but it appears there would be many potential merge targets, and the material seems more appropriate here. Meelar (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. No objection to a merge to any suitable target if someone wants to do it. Dlyons493 Talk 18:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable to megaman game fans. Kappa 21:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but not that notable. So Zero had a beam sabre--so what? So did Sigma's first form in X1. Delete. Marblespire 11:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'm the one who started on the article. I thought a lot of the fictional sword links were missing, so I decided to fill them in, starting with this article... And I'm still working on it, and I plan to merge it with the Megaman Zero and X articles respectively. I mean we can have an article on Buster sword and Ragnorok, but no Z-saber? Please reconsider with keeping this article. Thank you. MegamanZero 18:26 16 October 2005
  • Oh keep. Dunno why this was listed. Lovely article. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_>|< 22:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC) By which I mean, make a List of Megaman weapons and merge there. Context is informative, information does not want to be alone. Radiant_>|< 11:37, 20 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert 15:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zoids Zero

nom&vote delete. nn. poorly written. unencyclopedic. Gaff talk 19:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Seems to be real. Here's an article about it. Needs cleanup badly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's in awful shape, but the topic is not insignificant. -- Captain Disdain 00:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep re Stablind. Denni☯ 00:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Zoids Zero is an actual anime series, part of the Zoids franchise. The series would be better known in Western viewing circles as simply "Zoids". The article does require a hell of a lot of work, but could be made into a workable article. Worst case scenario, merge it with the main Zoids article Saberwyn 04:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • On second thoughts... the article should be at Zoids: New Century Zero, with a redirect from Zoids Zero to this article. I will continue to edit the article at its current location, and once this debate is closed, I will move the article to the new location. Saberwyn 05:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Its rough, but its a good start. Its the Zoids: Chaotic Century article that needs a good thwacking. --202.92.76.129 09:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    • As soon as a result for this AfD comes in, and some of my other commitments clear up, I plan to give Zoids: Chaotic Century a good overhaul Saberwyn 09:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Good, I agree. This article's great, CC needs help.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Languages