Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 20

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 19 October 21 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] October 20

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] فناوری نانو

Farsi. Has been on WP:PNT since 5 October. Physchim62 13:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete; without translation, it's just nonsense in an English wikipedia, and nobody has taken up the task for two weeks. — brighterorange (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone translates before the end of AfD.--Isotope23 18:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Farsi Wikipedia and delete the version on the English Wikipedia unless translated before the end of AfD. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Translate or something. Molotov (talk)
    03:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:00, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] فناوري نانو چيست؟

Farsi. Has been on WP:PNT since 5 October. Physchim62 13:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete if not translated in next day or so. --MacRusgail 16:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone translates before the end of AfD.--Isotope23 18:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Farsi Wikipedia and delete the version on the English Wikipedia unless translated before the end of AfD. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Translate or something. Molotov (talk)
    03:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NNd --Rogerd 03:00, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ανεξάρτητη Φοιτητική ΈΠΑΛξη

Greek. Has been on WP:PNT since 5 October. Physchim62 13:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

It's in Greek, and that's all I know. DS 13:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
It means Anexartiti Phoititiki Hepalxi (I hope I didn't make any errors in transliterating), and it seems to be a Greek-nationalist Cypriot political party. That's about all I can tell. Aecis 16:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone translates before the end of AfD.--Isotope23 18:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Greek Wikipedia and delete the version on the English Wikipedia unless translated before the end of AfD. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Translate or something. Molotov (talk)
    03:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you going to translate it?? It won't happen by itself. "or something"?? what something? --Rogerd 02:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:59, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 24 Hour Candy Machine

Article about a flash advertisement for a non-notable company. Almost a speedy. --Anetode 04:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Useless, advertising.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Why isn't this A1? --JJay 16:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The article appeared to have context for expansion. --Anetode 17:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ad for a sexually explicit advertisement. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if not speedy delete an article on a web ad?! Cool3 19:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:34, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abovegroundtesting

Seems to be a non-notable web site... <200 google hits... --Mysidia (talk) 23:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn website. Appears to be advertising. Forbsey 23:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert --Rogerd 13:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • some background. the ezine has been in existence for 8 years, quite an achievement for one person. It is part of the National Library of Canada, so it is recognized as being an important representation of a media form. (Unsigned comment by 72.38.206.228 (talk · contribs))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, hoax. Thue | talk 14:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy

Unverifiable, probably a hoax Demiurge 14:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as per nom. Demiurge 14:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, hoax vandalism perpetrated by WoW sock or imitator. android79 14:12, 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 speedy deleted after being blanked by author. Friday (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Akshai raj

Not encyclopedic. Molotov (talk)
20:09, 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 delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Mcilwraith

Smells like a hoax. Posted with {{cleanup-verify}} 10 days ago, and no verification has been supplied. Google search for "Alan Mcilwraith" produces only 27 hits, none of which (except for Wikipedia and mirror hits) appear to be relevant. One would think that if a gentleman had provoked a standing ovation at a UN meeting, at least one newspaper somewhere would have written a story about it. --Russ Blau (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as a wacked-out haggis munching hoax! Check the dates - inducted to a University at age 16 for a scant 2 years before military academy. Only 27 years old but a knight and still only a Captain - despite all those decorations! And what is this sublime officer, this paragon of scottish manhood, doing serving in the Territorials - a part-time army! etc etc etc...cont. P.94. Eddie.willers 21:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Rogerd 05:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Make this nonsense go away. Average Earthman 23:19, 24 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. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Makin

  • This page should be deleted. It is created and edited by the person that it is about. The only reference to him on the internet is his own web page that he created.

vanity vanity vanity: delete --202.158.212.34 03:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Well...delete. But only for the reason that he appears non-notable by WP standards. His contributing his own article does not neccessarily mean that we have to delete it. Nor does the heavy "editing" done by you, User:202.158.212.34, mean that we should keep it. Posting "Makin is a narcissist" on the page looks an awful lot like an attack. But whatever. Googletest does not bring up much and it sounds like he is involved in a minor municaplity role, without making much of a splash on the big picture. —Gaff ταλκ 04:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but my comments were referenced to the history of the page whereas his opinions are completely subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.158.212.34 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 20 October 2005

  • Delete nn --Anetode 04:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, vanity pfctdayelise 05:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, also, auto-bio Agnte 07:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. -- WB 07:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no original research thanks. Alphax τεχ 15:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If he gets elected maybe, but for now totally NN. --JJay 16:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable as yet. -- DarbyAsh 21:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, vanityFRS 22:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am a resident of Melbourne's outer East, and I do not believe that this article is vanity. Alex Makin is a publically known activist- just a couple of days ago I was reading an article about him in the Age, the most respected newspaper in Melbourne [1]. He is also mentioned as a key player in official parliamentary hansard [2], showing that he does not necesssarily need to be elected to be notable. This shows that there is far more to Alex Makin's public profile than his personal website (Crazyandrew 08:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete. Created by User:Alexm; therefore vanity. Snottygobble | Talk 03:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. vanity. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:42, 25 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 No consensus, a suggestion was made to rename the page which can be discussed on the talk page. Rx StrangeLove 03:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative terms for free software

This is just a thinly veiled attempt to merge a series of FOSS articles without consensus. It's a duplicate of content that already exists in the other articles. One reason cited to create the article was that the other articles were POV, but that's not a valid reason to create a new article. The title of the article itself is POV, as many would disagree that one is necessarily an alterntive term for the other. Nathan J. Yoder 16:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I beg others to check what Njyoder is saying. The talk page for the article never says anything about other articles being POV. The Talk page says that this article is a consolidation of other articles, so yes it currently duplicates info on those articles. The reason for creating this page is that the other pages duplicate a lot of information (sometimes with inaccuracies, and those differ from article to article), and a secondary issue is that quality of the other pages seems to suggest that have few wikipedians caring for them (and this is a situation which has not been changing over the years) - merging to one article would combine their efforts. I plan to suggest a merge of the articles in question, when I've finished making this page. On the issue of POV, which has not been raised by me, but since it has been raised by the person requesting deletion of this page, combined efforts will bring more eyeballs to this page and more eyeballs should lead to less POV.
The articles which I've suggested merging into this article are libre software, FLOSS, FOSS, and OSS/FS. There may also exist others (of lesser size / of less known terms). Each is an alternative name for free software. Some can be thought of as an alternative name for "both free software and open source software", but, "open source software" is, by definition, an alternative name for "free software" [3]. So I maintain that this page and it's name are accurate and would be an improvemet over the current situation. Finally, I would like to note that I only started this article a few minutes before it was suggested for delection, and I have commented that it's not yet ready, and I have continued to improve it since. It is therefore a work in progress (although a good one, IMO) and can of course me modified by anyone. Gronky 17:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
You said: " Current pages for such terms are fairly thin, and go through phases of being biased." Correct me if I'm wrong, but 'biased' means POV. You've conceded that you've done a unilateral merge without consensus. The names "open source" and "free software" are associated with philosophies and movements as well, they're not just definitions for licenses, so it's misleading to classify them as that. Nathan J. Yoder 17:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
They go through phase of containing POV. POV isn't a persistant problem, but consistancy is a persistant problem. It appears that not many people are caring for these pages, and when edits are made it's by one person and it an go weeks or months without review. Also, I have not done any merge - not unilateral or multilateral. I have made a page which I hope will reach (or has already reached) a quality and usefulness where I can propose it for a merge. The philosophies put forward by FSF and OSI are indeed different, but this does not make FLOSS different from free software. Gronky 17:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
So you admit you brought up POV then. You did merge the content, you took it from the articles and you stuck it in this one. That's called merging, it seems like the only means you have to counter my argument is some very weird semantic argument using a bizzare version of English that only you speak. And the philosophies are different, which means the associations between the terms are different, which means you can't just blindly substitute one for another as an "alternative." Meanings of words go beyond just what they are formally defined as. For example, the dictionary definition of "propaganda" is benign, but anyone who speaks the language knows it has an obvious negative connatation/meaning attached to it. And the idea that some of the terms are alternatives to others implies a certain inferiority as well. Nathan J. Yoder 01:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
"Merge" is a wikipedia term, as well you know. It means, approximately, to stick on a tag that suggests replacing many articles with 1. My page is not a merge. On the word "Alternatives", I've already agreed to remove the word. And you know this too. To steer clear of philosophical implications, in the article I try to talk about software "that is covered by the names discussed in this article". I can't think of a fairer method than that, and now that you've advertised this on the open-source software Talk page, that one side of the debate can contribute to the article if they feel there's misrepresentation. It's a wiki, the community can fix it. Gronky 10:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
He left out that he also suggested merging open source software as well. Nathan J. Yoder 17:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I did not suggest merging open source software. I said "Ideally, open source software should also be merged into this, but if the maintainers of that page want to continue as a seperate page, that's what'll happen." - i.e. I will not do a merge of open source software, and I may not even suggest it, but I will mention this page on the Talk page of open source software, and if they want to merge in, that would probably be good (but it's up to them, and I say "probably" because that debate is not for today and I don't have a firm stance on it) Gronky 17:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
That was obviously a suggestion, stop trying to back out of it by arguing semantics. Nathan J. Yoder 01:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, regarding the nomination, I just noticed another false criticism. This is not duplicate content. It contains some duplicate content, but if you read the article there is plent of new stuff in there. (Stuff that would be silly to put in each terms page since that would be more duplication, and stuff that can't fit in each term's page because it deals with how the terms relate to eachother.) Gronky 19:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
What content ISN'T a duplication? Nathan J. Yoder 01:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
The Definitions and meanings section and the Licenses section are both new. Other new bits are included throughout the article. And I'm still working on the article (although slower than I had hoped - due to being busy). Gronky 03:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
They're new sections with duplicated content from other sections. The types of licenses covered, the history of the definitions/terms, the attempted registering of the trademark and so forth are all covered by the other articles. You're still using semantics to twist things. It's disingenuous to suggest that because other articles haven't used those specific headers that the content in those sections is new. I also noticed that you're already POVifying the article, trying to portray the term "free software" as if all they did was co-opt the term and renamed it (like they were just some copy cat movement), ignoring any kind of philosophical and pragmatic disagrements. Nathan J. Yoder 04:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Those sections are not duplicate content. Read them. Some other articles might have sections with the same section title, but the analysis and comparison and the facts were researched by me. Gronky 10:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I have read them, I'm asking which part of them is new content, please quote something. Nathan J. Yoder 19:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I feel I'm being set up here - as if you're asking me to pick one sentence so that you can pick at it and ridicule it. Well here's one anyway. You asked to be shown "new content", so please, evaluate the newness only of this - I'm not saying every word is perfect, it's not a finished article:
While the term "free software" is mostly associated with FSF's definition, and the term "open-source software" is mostly associated with OSI's definition, the other terms have not been claimed by any group in particular. This, however, has not lead to confusion since the definitions published by FSF and OSI are practically the same.
The bit up to the first comma is probably mentioned in an article somewhere, as is the bit between the first and second commas. The bit between the 2nd comma and the first full stop is new. The last sentence is also new, as far as I know. But, more than the newness of individual words, phrases, or sentences (and even if I'm not correct about the above, at least under the scrutiny you've been tracking me with of late), the arrangement of this information is new - rather than it being spread across multiple articles, each one with a different wording - here it is consolidated. It is undeniable that a non-zero amount of newness exists there - and you asked only for newness - so I think this is the conclusion on this issue. Gronky 21:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
So the entirety of the newness is you saying "the other terms haven't been claimed by anyone"? The last sentence isn't new, the other articles discuss similarity between the formal definitions. It seems to me that you'rearguing that it's new content based on the fact that you've rephrased and reordered some sentences, even though the information remains the same. Nathan J. Yoder 22:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Your first sentence (up to the question mark) implies that you agree there is something new. You asked for something new, I've shown you something new. The rest of your comment just confirms my stated suspician that you asked me the question for the purpose of ridiculing whatever sentence I chose. Gronky 04:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Gronky 17:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    Could you clarify? The nominator is clearly recommending deletion. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry "per nom" removed, I was refering to that I was also the poster of the above comment, that that connection was broken when someone replied to it. Gronky 17:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a discussion of the various terms is useful, and it's nice to keep the discussion in one place. However, the nom is correct in that the title is POV, so perhaps rename to Free Software terminology (or something else avoiding the word "alternative"). — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm certainly open to a change of name. I don't see "altenative" as being POV - but that could be just me. I think "Free Software terminology" changes the scope greatly. "terms for free software" would be good though. (the difference being that the latter says what the terminology is for, while the former says what it's about - which a hard to define relationship.) Another title I thought of was "suggested replacements for free software" - but FLOSS, FOSS, and OSS/FS weren't suggested as replacements, they were just suggested. "other names for free software"? Just "names for free software"? or "terms for free software"? Other suggestions welcome. Gronky 18:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but proably change the name. `Trollderella 19:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Gator1 19:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because Richard Stallman will kick our asses if we don't per nom. This really belongs on free software, if anywhere. Lord Bob 21:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    I agree that the information belongs together in one article, but I will ask you to reconsider your vote because I think this article contains too much information to fit in a subsection of another page. Keep in mind that it was proposed for deletion only minutes after I started making it, so it's not yet as complete as it will be. For example, I hadn't written the Licenses section when this was proposed for deletion, but I think that's a good section now and it doesn't completely fit under the topic of free software. Gronky 22:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    I certainly see that this article, as is, can hardly be put verbatim into free software because it's just too long. However, I personally believe that, if it belongs anywhere, a very much more concise list in free software would be best. We'd have to be pretty concise about it, but I think it would be best. Lord Bob 23:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    Ok, I see where you're coming from. The list of terms can certainly be made more concise, and this is something that I plan to do (I just didn't get time to do this before an Afd suddenly appeared). I did the list first because it's the easiest, but I think the more important things are the bits I'm working on now such as the "Definitions and meanings" and the "Licenses" sections. If this article was just/mostly a list of names and blurbs about each, I'd agree that it should be merged - but please check back in a day or two and see where the article has developed to. One other thing, although of secondary importance, is that if this is put in the free software page, it will be maintained by the maintainers of that page - which wouldn't be as good for neutrality as a seperate article would be. Gronky 23:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    Check back in a day or two? I will certainly be happy to do so and reconsider my vote in that context when the time comes. Lord Bob 00:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
The Talk page was not meant to indicate that. The page is not supposed to have anything about the "GNU/Linux" naming stuff, and it shouldn't have Anything Vs. Otherthing. It's not about controvercy or disputes. This is the history of the names that have appeared, the reasons for each name, the meaning and associations of each name, and other factual stuff. Emotional stuff is for another article. Pages such as List of disputed F/OSS terminology are terrible. Gronky 22:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a great article. Perhaps history of free software terminology would be a perfect name. I'll abstain as this is much larger (and heated) than I am willing to dismantle. ∴ here…♠ 22:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: This AFD has now been advertised on the Talk page for open-source software (by Njyoder). I feel this may bias the sample of Wikipedians that enter this debate. (However, I will not retaliate/escalate this by adding similar advertisements to other articles.) Gronky 03:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

So add it to other articles, this needs to be voted on by people in all the relevent articles. Nathan J. Yoder 04:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
No, merges need to be voted on by people of all relevent articles. This isn't a merge, it's just a page. It will probably form the proposal for a merge when it's ready, but it itself is still just a page - and it would be nice if I could have gotten the proposal ready before it was thrown into AFD trials. Gronky 10:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, you're right, AfDs shouldn't be voted on by the people who best understand the subject matter. You could have avoided this all by asking for permission first, don't complain about getting proposals ready when you move ahead with something without permission. Nathan J. Yoder 19:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
You could claim that you notified "the people who best understand" if you had notified all related articles, or even two or three of the most related articles, but you notified one. Ask for permission? For what? From who? This is getting crazy. Gronky 21:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I inserted it into free software after you complained too. You need to ask for permission from your fellow Wikipedians, because Wikipedia acts on this principle of consensus. When merging content, you start a discussion to ask if it's a good idea or not. Nathan J. Yoder 22:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I haven't merged anything. I had not added any merge tags to any articles, and I had not opened a dialogue on any Talk pages about merging. I wanted to try something out, and if it went well, I would probably propose it for a merge. Gronky 03:57, 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 Delete. Rx StrangeLove 03:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atalo Castillo

Vanity/advertising in Spanish. Physchim62 13:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

A translation frm Babelfish is available on the talk page. Physchim62 13:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Spanish? Looks like a bit of vanity... Budgiekiller 11:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I can confirm it's Spanish, vanity, and a bit of advertising. Arker 13:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Would one care to move this to AFD (I have no concrete evidence of vanity, it just had that ring to it...) Budgiekiller 13:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert --Rogerd 02:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Budgiekiller 15:14, 27 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. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic Provisioning System

Possible vanity article created by User:Eaaland, as per above. The Minister of War 16:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as advertising vanity. Eddie.willers 21:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant advertising vanity - Forbsey 00:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Not advertizing, but a market standard for provisioning VoIP and IP devices from a service provider to the end user equipment.

  • Einar, APS may well deserve an article. But your version is a blatant ad for one specific product. Hence delete; we'd best start over from scratch. (Google indicates with a mere 178 hits for +"automatic provisioning system" that there are other manufacturers of APS.) Lupo 08:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Person shows no interest in any Wikipedia goals or principles, hence the user should also possibly be blocked and subject words be added to a blacklist. -- NoUser 13:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Rogerd 04:38, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avalon Business Systems

Advertisement. Sponsoring a puzzle contest for me doesn't qualify as criterium for notability as defined in WP:CORP. --S.K. 12:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I was merely filling in the stub since it was linked from other pages. Vote to keep, but don't particularly care.AppleSeed 12:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete - seems like a resonably large company, but not convinced that there is anything of note there. Fourohfour 15:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. Trollderella 16:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • You could write an article about my Ford Taurus that is in my garage that would be factual, verifiable and neutral. But it wouldn't merit an article in wikipedia --Rogerd 02:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Gator1 19:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 13:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:43, 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 Speedy Deleted by Ragib as recreation of a deleted article. --GraemeL (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Babukishan

This article, once deleted [4], has come back, this time with a copyvio to boot [5]. Tintin 23:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Surely this is a no-brainer. If it was voted to be deleted and has resurrected within a day with a copyvio, then it must go again. Otherwise, it was a mockery of the first voting process. Ian Cairns 23:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The last discussion ended early because it was a copyvio, and so should this one. His discography establishes that he very easily passes WP:MUSIC so I will vote to keep any non-copyvio version that shows up. Kappa 00:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because it's a re-created copyvio. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:27, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bai Ren

Bandcruft. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nomination. Harvestdancer 15:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bad hoax. --JJay 21:46, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Becche

I speak Norwegian and I have never heard of this word. After reading the article I found out why, it is an "expression came to birth at Grefsen V.G.S. in Oslo during the summer of '05". ("V.G.S." BTW stands for "Videregående skole", or high school.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable Norwegian neologism, per nominator. — JIP | Talk 08:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Anetode 10:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. jni 15:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --JJay 21:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This Norwegian says Delete, neologism. Punkmorten 18:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:38, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax τεχ 02:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bella Rosenfeld

Not noteworthy +/- vanity. Ifnord 04:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity page. Mr. Tibbs 07:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No content.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  07:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • She wrote quite a nice book about herself and Marc Chagall and appeared on the most of his paintings. It might be worth to safe her. As it is now the article is not useful. abakharev 07:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I have rewritten it. I would say keep abakharev 12:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your work. It's a very good start. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lots of hits on Google. Book, etc. It's not so full right now, but it can be filled. -- WB 08:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even if she is notable, the current contents are useless. Wikipedia is not paper, and so deleting an article now doesn't prevent recreating the article later. When someone actually has more information about Rosenfeld than her name and relationship to Chagall, they can write an article then. — JIP | Talk 08:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No content. KNewman 10:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep after User:Alex Bakharev's work on the article. Uppland 12:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. There's more there than most stubs right now, but I know there could be a lot more. (Note to admins: if it would help create consensus later, I'd also be okay with a merge to Marc Chagall.) --Jacquelyn Marie 16:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. Trollderella 16:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Alex Bakharev's rewrite. Notable enough for mine due to her connection with Chagall and her biography. Capitalistroadster 19:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep after rewrite. ∴ here…♠ 20:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. MCB 21:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • speedy keep after rewrite by User:Alex Bakharev. --Irpen 02:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep thanks to Alex Bakharev. Nice work.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  02:26, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 09:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Macrae

A not (quite) notable footnote to a footnote. chocolateboy 17:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.Gator1 19:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- why delete it? Useful background info. I thought Wikipedia's policy was to err on the side of keeping what is there? Someone has gone to the bother of writing it, and others may find it useful. I just did. --Dan Huby 22:07, 25 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. --Celestianpower háblame 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biopharmaceutical networking

Not encyclopedic and is advertising. The subject seems to be linking to this page from its website. Secretlondon 19:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Haeleth 21:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio from [6]. Tagged as such. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 07:05, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burnies

Attempt to coin a neologism. NN OR (burnies "burning man" gets 25 hits on Google) --Anetode 03:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable.--Dakota 04:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If we have an article on Burning Man Festival, maybe could mention that festival goers have different attitudes towards the festival. So...possibly merge. But this seems all unverified on non-encyclopedic.—Gaff ταλκ 04:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is quite an extensive article on Burning Man. This information, if valid, would be much more fitting within the Burning Man article, so merge if apropos. ♠DanMS 05:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. — JIP | Talk 08:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this information is in fact true, extensive research would still have to be done to verify it and make the text something worth merging anyway. And at that point, you might as well rewrite it from scratch. In any case, regardless of the state of the text, it's not a topic that deserves its own encyclopedic entry. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If true, deserves at most one sentence in Burning Man. MCB 21:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN - agree with MCB --Rogerd 02:13, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burnoutpc

Alexa ranking has nothing to do with this site not deserving a page here on wikipedia. It has been around long enough to deserve one.

Ad for a non-notable website (Alexa ranking: 397,468) --Anetode 03:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. As per nomination.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 21:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.mikka (t) 22:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:34, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. – Alphax τεχ 02:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bush on the Couch

The article is an inaccurate summary plugging a nn 272-page book that was the only book written by this author. The book itself was written in early 2004. To say that the book was not exactly a best seller would be an understatement. Joaquin Murietta 14:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge opinion to George W. Bush, as there has indeed been speculation about his drinking habits on a wide scale in the past couple of years. Recently, there was an article about the issue in some tabaloid (Star or what have you). Granted, they are speculations only at this point, I think, but we can insert the information about said speculation in a NPOV way. This article itself, however, is unnecessary. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep... book made some waves when it was published before the election. I don't set the bar on books as high as best-seller list. Is there criteria like WP:MUSIC for literature? I'd concur with Jacquelyn Marie if it wasn't for the constant POV edit war over there at George W. Bush... Bush on the Couch would be giving them gasoline and matches. Regardless, I'd slap a dated cleanup on this article becuase if it is kept it needs a complete rewrite.--Isotope23 18:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Good point about gasoline and matches. I am changing my vote to weak keep. Isotope23's call for a cleanup tag is also a good idea. --Jacquelyn Marie 05:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.Gator1 19:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--Amazon sales rank of 10,200 (pretty high up there), and major media attention including reviews from notable publications (e.g. Salon) and mention in the Washington Post's "Reliable Sources" column. Meelar (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Disclaimer: I wrote the text that another wikipedian has described as POV, and an inaccurate summary.
  • I think the book is notable, even if it didn't make any best-seller lists.
  • I think we need to recognize that there is a difference between an article that is POV, and an article that reports on a book, whose contents are POV. Articles on books that are POV are not necessarily POV themselves. If the article is NPOV it clearly belongs on the wikipedia.
  • If a book is notable enough to belong on the wikipedia, but the contents are agreed to be POV, then surely the next step is to rewrite it, or to add a {npov} tag?
  • The person who nominated this for deletion put a note in the talk page that the article was an "inaccurate summary" of the book. I haven't read the book. But I have read several articles about it. I believe the brief summary in the article accurately reflects what the articles and reviews of the book said the book contained. Here are some reviews from across the political spectrum.
  • Wikipedians can differ on how much credibility they allow Dr Frank. But the book was widely reviewed and is regularly quoted and cited. And that, IMO, makes it worthy of mention in the wikipedia.
  • As to whether the information about the book should be merged with the George W. Bush article... I think the wikipedia is better served with the information about this book staying in an article of its own. I gather that the GWB article is beset by unending edit wars. IMO the current contents are NPOV. And it will be easier to keep them NPOV if it is a standalone article. Or restore it to NPOV, if you disagree about it being NPOV now.
  • IMO standalone ancillary articles make the wikipedia easier to use than huge, monolithic, omnibus articles. -- Geo Swan 21:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please this book has a good sales ranking on amazon Yuckfoo 22:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


  • How can people vote in good faith if they say, I haven't read the book. But I have read several articles about it. ??? Joaquin Murietta 23:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • That's the whole point of the policy wikipedia:No original research. I don't have to report about this damn book. I have to report what has already been reported in reputable sources about it. Of course, reading the book itself might prove useful for writing an article, but definitely it is useless during voting: an opinion (read: POV) of a vikipedian about the book itself is irrelevant. mikka (t) 00:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Good point, in this case the person who said they did not read the book did write the article! Joaquin Murietta 02:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • My keep vote is not based on an assessment of the accuracy of Dr Frank's views, but on widely the book has penetrated the public consciousness. I have a google news alert on "Justin Frank". Over the last year it has generated, on average, more than one hit per week. That is not an enormous presence. But I think it is enough to justify an article. I remain curious what basis JM used to justify writing in the talk page that the article was an "inaccurate summary" of the book. -- Geo Swan 07:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm glad to answer that. Here is the article written by Geo Swan, without ever reading the book!'

        Bush on the Couch is the title of a book by psychoanalyst Justin Frank. One of Frank's main concerns of Frank's book is that President George W. Bush, as an untreated alcoholic, was in constant danger of a relapse. Further, in Frank's opinion, President Bush manifested the symptoms of a dry-drunk, principally irritability, judgementalism and a rigid, unadaptable world view. Defenders of President Bush have responded by challenging the value and scientific respectability of analyzing someone without a clinical interview.

        Maybe if you actually read a few books, Geo Swan... oh well. Never mind. Joaquin Murietta 14:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • My writing seem to serve as a red flag to a bull to JM.
  • Here is a new article JM started about an hour ago, which contains what I consider a personal attack, in violation of wiki policy.
  • Here is a comment JM left on my talk page, similar to those above, and my reply. -- Geo Swan 16:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Seems to have attracted some attention see a Google search [7]. Capitalistroadster 00:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Appears to be genuine, but still could do with a clean-up! I really cant see a need to delete this article. - Bwfc 13:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable enough book on Google and Amazon. Agree with others re cleanup, but that is no reason to delete a perfectly valid article. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up. Fawcett5 13:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why would you want to delete this. A published book with topical content. --Meiers Twins 18:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wasn't aware of any of this until I found Justin Frank submitted by Joaquin Murietta today. Submitting an article that begins "Justin Frank is the author of a book that Geo Swan has never read" is childish and constitutes a personal attack (see article history). There is no reason to waste everyone's time like that. --JJay 19:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the book looks notable enough - no need to have read it to write about it, the article is not meant to be a book review --Me or a Robin 11:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per JJay. --Apyule 11:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable book. Also, I concur with what JJay said. --rob 06:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: the article is a published book and is therefore a totally valid entry. You don't need to like it, but the fact is that it exists. The article just needs to be cleaned up and kept from bias. devotchka


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Celestianpower háblame 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Butt Wagon

one of the less frequently used insults on a show, only appearing in one or two episodes. Melaen 15:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable... fancruft or would-be neologism. --W.marsh 15:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete obscure insult neologism. --Fire Star 16:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but I do have to work that one back into my list of insults used when someone beats me at poker with a higher flush kicker Youngamerican 19:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this infrequently used insult. Joyous (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A one-time insult or joke in a cartoon doesn't pass my reasonably low bar for fancruft inclusion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN Remy B 15:14, 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 delete. --Celestianpower háblame 16:32, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calchas Street

"Calchas Street is an as-yet incomplete manuscript by the British writer Alistair Davie", the article informs. The phrase "Calchas Street" itself gives no Google hits; the name of the author Alistair Davie gives one pertinent hit - the website of the British Arts Council informs that Alistair was awarded GBP 600 to support a manuscript reading to secure a literaty agent for his piece "Waiting Room". Alistair's name does not return any hits in the catalogue of the British Library.

As this is an unpublished work of an obscure author this entry should be deleted.

Please note that this entry was brough to us by the same anonymous hoaxter that brought us Professor David Ashmead and his œvre, whose entry is up for deletion here. Pilatus 21:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as this article is impossible to verify.--Scimitar parley 21:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. feydey 08:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 13:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE NN ROADCRUFT --SPUI (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
    • That made me laugh. Alphax τεχ 02:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unpublished manuscript by relatively unknown author sounds like Original Research. Oh, and it's completely unverifiable as well. Alphax τεχ 02:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 15:39, 26 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. --Celestianpower háblame 16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Captain Tohmas P. Jones

One of millions of solders who served in World War II Shows no other sign of notablily except for being a solder. Delete --JAranda | watz sup 23:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. There were millions of them, and most of them weren't notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, CSD:A7, no assertion of notability. Anyone? MCB 01:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Captain Jones might have been saved from a probable death but many innocent Japanese were killed. The way this article is written makes my spine tingle.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  04:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 13:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, reads like a book report or something. Devotchka 23:59, 25 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 then redirect to Carlyle Group. --Celestianpower háblame 16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carlisle Group

vanity advertising and non-notable, same as Recruit Event (also nominated)Gator1 21:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 21:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

How can this be vanity advertising? It doesn't advertise anything. Memetank 21:17, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 20:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Carolyn Brereton

Comment an anon editor keeps removing the {{Afd}} -- Rogerd 13:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Vanity. Delete --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Editor of some papers that don't seem to have articles on WP... 36 google hits (which is odd, I know a local newspaper reporter who gets zillions of google hits because her name gets repeated so much in by-lines). I say Delete as non-notable. --W.marsh 22:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I know this person very well. She might not have enough google hits... but her name is not common. for example, John Smith could be the editor, and no duh it would have a lot of google hits. Are you aware she really was an editor. She represented New Edinburgh. Check the Wikipedia article on that. If you read the article on her, she did more than be an editor. She also got nomminated for ottawa's women award. Isn't that a big achievement? So keep the article, so more people can learn about someone local to Ottawa.
    • I hate to say this anon user, but there are tons of article on folks from Ottawa who deserve them. Your person isn't encyclopedic. Besides, anon users don't get a vote. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • No-one gets a vote on Votes Articles for Deletion. :-) Even then, there's no rule that prevents closers from taking comments left from anons into account. Wikipedia encourages people to create accounts but doesn't require it. — mendel ☎ 20:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; appears to be an average successful reporter/editor, but not widely known or discussed. MCB 01:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable and per MCB. -feydey 08:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The only thing in the article that could meet WP:BIO is her editorships (being nominated for, but not winning, an award is below the radar, particularly for local awards). Anyone know the circulation figures for the New Edinburgh News and Manor Park Chronicle? They're both community papers. I happen to have the Kitchissippi Times (Hintonburg/Westboro) here, with a circulation of 16,700, so assuming that that's not exceptional for an Ottawa community paper I have to say keep. — mendel ☎ 20:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not following your logic to keep this article, especially since it sounds like you meant to vote delete. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, that was kind of ugly, wasn't it? I mean: Ok, per WP:BIO, the only possibility is her editorships. Assuming her neighbourhood papers have circulation like the neighbourhood paper of my neighbourhood, then she meets that, so keep. WP:BIO sets a low bar, but it sets a bar. — mendel ☎ 04:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Rogerd 13:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The circulation for the "New Edinburgh News" is really high. The newspaper goes to some local embassies and goes to the Governor General and Prime Minister. Any other community papers that go to high power figures? Will in world
    • It doesn't mean they read it. And that would only make the paper notable, remotely, not this person. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; the paper might deserve an article with a circulation figure like that, but that doesn't extend to its editor unless she's done more than just edit a community newspaper...like, has she been a columnist in the National Post or the Ottawa Citizen? (Tangentially, I'm personally curious to know if she's at all related to k-os, but that knowledge wouldn't actually change my vote.) Bearcat 22:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe she is not known across Canada, but a majority of people know her in Ottawa. READ THE ARTICLE!!!!!!!! There is more than just an editor. Will in world
    • She fails the 100 year test, which means in 100 years, will anyone want to read about her? I'd say not. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 23:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn --JAranda | watz sup 23:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe in 100 years, there will be many editors of this paper and they need to be remembered. There are so many people that are only known to about 1,000 people and get the smae credit as someone who is known by 1 billion. She also started the newspaper layout electronically. She was a diplomat, mother, newspaper editor, activist. Does she need more than that? Will in world
  • Delete. A majority of Ottawans do not know about her. I doubt a majority of New Edinburghians do either. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and condense considerably (1 paragraph max.). Editor of two neighborhood newspapers, wife of Canadian Consul-General in Buffalo, met in Havana. Perfect Who's Who entry which will be read 100 years from now, but very occasionally. --Tremont30 03:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Tremont30 is not a sock puppit of me. Just to clarify that. Keep this article for one of the other reasons why... She was the first editor of those papers to start the layout electronically. She also interviews Adrienne Clarkson, a huge achievement for a local community editor. Can you name anyone else? Carolyn is knwo across New Edinburgh that a majority a residents in New Edinburgh were saddended tha she was leaving. If you keep this article, more people can learn about her. A lot of musicians weren't known until they died. Just keep that into consideration. Will in world
  1. She was the first editor of those papers to start the layout electronically. This is not a criterion that makes her notable. If she'd been the first newspaper editor in the world to ever use electronic layout, you'd have a point, but being the first one at a specific local community paper simply isn't encyclopedia-worthy.
  2. She also interviews Adrienne Clarkson, a huge achievement for a local community editor. This is not a criterion that makes her notable. Lots of people have interviewed Adrienne Clarkson over the years; it's not a feat that automatically makes someone deserving of their own article.
  3. Carolyn is knwo across New Edinburgh that a majority a residents in New Edinburgh were saddended tha she was leaving. This is not a criterion that makes her notable to anyone outside of New Edinburgh. This is a worldwide encyclopedia, not the encyclopedia of New Edinburgh.
Bottom line: nothing you've said makes her notable enough to be on here. Bearcat 02:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe she was the first on to start the layout electronically. Do you know anyother papers that started their layout before 2003, most likely but you don't know.A lot of people who interview Adrienne Clarkson are mainly people who work for big papers, but is it really often for a person working for a community paper? Can you answer me that? Maybe she is not known, but maybe in the future she will be known. Her husband works for the Canadian Foreign Service, maybe their will be an article on him, and might need one on his wife. So instead of looking at the present, think about the future. There are a lot of articles on wives of famous people. Also, (i know i told you this), but read the article. She is a diplomat, mother, activist, defender and newspaper editor. Does she more than that to get on to Wikipedia? Tell me. I really want to know.

Will in world

  1. Do you know anyother papers that started their layout before 2003, most likely but you don't know. Um, I personally worked at a newspaper that was using electronic layout in 1994. And, ironically enough, it was in Ottawa, which means Carolyn's paper wasn't even the local leader in that regard, let alone a worldwide one. It wasn't even a particularly radical new approach when we did it.
  2. Does she more than that to get on to Wikipedia? Yes, she does have to do more than that; she has to be notable, for one. Bearcat 23:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

DELETE NOW!!! I don't want this article up any more. You can delete now. Will in world

  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:BIO. Corvus 22:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't want the article up anymore. Im the editor. Just delete the article. Do you know how? just let me know. Will in world


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charameddin

  • Delete nn Forbsey 02:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nn bio A7 User:Purplefeltangel/sig 02:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete nn Youngamerican 03:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Zheng He. Friday (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Friday. Alf melmac 10:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete notability not established. If it is, I will reconsider --Rogerd 01:57, 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 speedy deleted as an A7. Friday (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Wurm

Content:"Charlie Wurm is an amazing man. he has helped do such stage productions as "hating alison ashley" in 2004." Probably speedy. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd give it a Speedy Delete. Mr. Wurm is amazingly unknown on google. --JJay 04:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possibly a hoax. Got 36 Google hits on "Charlie Wurm," none of which seemed be the subject of the article. ♠DanMS 04:49, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 16:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Ramming

Mild notability claimed, but not definitively established - also may be vanity. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable bio. I love the last paragraph; let's make his dreams come true. Tempshill 03:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "A real gangsta physics teacher that most def does not suck." hoax --Anetode 04:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like the claims of notability are hoaxish. Friday (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "Professor Chris Ramming" gets nowt, "Chris Ramming" + DJ Seafood does....Alf melmac 11:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Hoax and vandalism. --JJay 15:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, nothing via yahoo.com Gator1 16:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as a non-notable hoax biography. Hall Monitor 21:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep pending verification (or lack) of publication of "multiple articles" in Nature and Smithsonian, which could confer notability. (I edited the article to remove the irrelevant POV/attack material and self-referential nonsense from the article, leaving the stub for consideration.) MCB 21:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be non-notable bio, and even if it isn't, the article is a mess and there is no real good way to improve it. --Nlu 13:26, 25 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 DELETED. — JIP | Talk 11:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chuckie's First Haircut

This AfD discussion was orphaned. Listing now. — JIP | Talk 06:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Appears to be nonsense, if A lot more information is added I’ll change my vote. As the article is now, it should be deleted. Bwfc 18:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should have been speedied for A1, G1, maybe G2, etc. --JJay 15:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, complete nonsense. — JIP | Talk 06:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A textbook example of patent nonsense. Reyk 06:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Del. complete non-sense! -- WB 07:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete CSD:A1 --Anetode 10:36, 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 Delete. Rx StrangeLove 03:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ClearFrame Solutions Corp.

Advertisement. Doesn't seem to fulfill the criteria of WP:CORP. It's for example listed neither in the S&P/TSX 60 Index nor in the S&P/TSX Composite Index. --S.K. 12:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Didn't this lot get deleted just the other day? Or was that some other CRM solutions company? All these spammers look the same to me! If they are the same lot they should get speedied for policy violations. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:53, 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 speedy deleted as an A7. Friday (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Courtney Finkel

Either blatant vanity or blatant lovecruft. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as a nn-bio, no? Never genuinely asserts notability. --W.marsh 03:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn bio. Tempshill 03:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Her main claims to fame seems to be (1) She enjoys many kinds of music, (2) She is an interesting person, and (3) She is cute. To that, I hope we can add (4) Her Wikipedia page got deleted. ♠DanMS 04:53, 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 Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 20:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Curtis Scott

Though I am sympathetic to the loss of a young teenager's life, Wikipedia should not be news archive / memorial. Furthermore, we need to be very careful as the accused is innocent until proven otherwise by the court. Hurricane111 22:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 22:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- sad as this story is, it is not notable. Reyk 22:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tragic, but nn ephemeral local news story. MCB 01:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - agree with "hurricane111", the legal situation is dubious here. --MacRusgail 09:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Delete***-I wrote the article only because I an in mourning of my friend and wanted a way to remember him. but I hasd forgotten that the girl hasn't been put to trial yet. Sorry.
  • Delete per above --Rogerd 13:26, 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn due to article improvement. Friday (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Rice

NN poppycockery. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned. Clean it up, wikify it, ad another source, and it's a keeper. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as it's obviously patent nonsense. Ifnord 04:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete poppycock is a good word for this article. Reyk 04:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There've been some edits that seriously improved the article. To me it looks like a keeper now. Friday (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Dan Rice actually exists ... the original article contained factual information, but needed some cleanup and verification. ERcheck 05:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- much improved. Reyk 05:23, 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 Keep. brenneman(t)(c) 06:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Spillane

Another forgettable runner-up on an (nation'snamegoeshere) Idol. Besides being a runner-up on a reality TV show, he's a performer that miserably fails WP:MUSIC. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable musician. — JIP | Talk 08:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for one of top places, entertainer followed by many in public, ongoing appearance, national tv show, and precident. He easily qualifies under WP:BIO "television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions". Under WP:MUSIC "Has been prominently featured in any major music media". The show itself is part of "major music media". --rob 09:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • A runner-up in a national Idol series is a very liberal application of "promiently featured in major music media," and that WP:BIO criterion is rarely interpreted to include people who appear on game shows. As I recall, articles on runners-up in Survivor and American Idol (which, unlike Australian Idol, are broadcast internationally) are almost always deleted. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • AFD results have changed. Quite a number Idol finalists have been kept (or often not nominated, based on acceptance). Generally those outside the top 10 have been kept out. If you re-read the nomination, the current version of the article in question, the show article, the person's web profile, the show web site, do a google on him, look at more recent AFD precident, you'll see it's a slam-dunk keep. Also, this is not a 10 minute appearance on price-is-right. --rob 09:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I did all of those things and I still disagree. (Anything that isn't an obvious {{nn-bio}} candidate I Google before nominating.) I was making a distinction between cast and contestant, not comparing him to a one-time contestant on a typical game show. (I just couldn't remember the word "contestant.") The term "television personality" is generally not used to refer to the latter. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
          • I suspect you're using the criterion of who is *worthy* of notability, and not who has generally been found to be notable. Wikipedia shouldn't be picking who it thinks is worthy of notability. Rather, if somebody has been widely found to be notable (media coverage being one factor), that means there is a) sufficient sources of reliable information to make a good article and b) sufficient number of people with an interest to read and edit the article. The fact any of us don't think they "deserve" it, is quite irrelevant. Your views on what a television personality is are a leftover of the 1980s, and no longer apply. --rob 10:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
            • I was applying WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and AFD precedent in what I saw as a straightforward way, not making some sort of worthiness judgement. I'm wholly indifferent to Australian Idol or its contestants. I suspect keeping this article will mean it's a stub forevermore or filled with the sort of silly "contestant profile" trivia one finds on Idol fansites, however.
              Your views on what a television personality is are a leftover of the 1980s, and no longer apply.
              Uh. Kay. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's one of the remaining finalists and could still win Astrokey44 10:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If he wins, he might in time become notable, but if Wikipedia has a page for every contestant (or even just every finalist) in every national variant of every "reality" TV show it will (IMO) rapidly become completely unworkable. Perhaps the best thing would be to merge all of them into a single article for each (national?) show; they can always be split out again if they do in future become genuinely notable. Past experience indicates that the majority will not. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, he's not notable yet. In fifty years, who would want to know who a reality TV contest is (or now for that matter)? -- Kjkolb 13:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. From my understanding of the above arguments, the contest is still going on (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Wouldn't it have made more sense to have this debate after we knew whether or not he won? In any case, no vote right now, but I like the suggestion of putting all non-winners of a particular [countryname] Idol on a single page. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. Trollderella 16:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Trollderella: I see you vote this "Factual verifiable and neutral" over and over. Being those three things is great, but does not automatically warrant an article in an encyclopedia. This person is a third place runner up or something on a marginally notable television show that has not been around long at all. Flash in the pan. delete.—Gaff ταλκ 03:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Your assertion that "Factual verifiable and neutral" does not automatically warrant an article in an encyclopaedia is highly contentious to say the least.
"'fame' and 'importance' are not the right words to use, they are merely rough approximations to what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV"' (Jimbo Wales, 30 January 2004 (link)).
Snottygobble | Talk 02:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Gator1 19:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep until he is eliminated from the show. If he progresses to beyond the last three, keep regardless, otherwise, merge to somewhere within Australian Idol (series 3) or similar, as per Big Brother UK series 6. Bobo192 19:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete even if he wins. I would require at least one non-idol fame source for inclusion; google: Daniel Spillane -idol (not much). Already listed in Australian Idol -- I can't believe every single contestant of season 3 has their own page (first elimnated: Tarni_Stephens ) !? Spinoff Idol contestants are not encyclopedic. He does have a 42 member fan club ∴ here…♠ 20:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. not yet notable. mikka (t) 23:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete at this stage. If he wins or is runnerup, it might be a different story as the two winners and runnerups of Australian Idol have both had number 1 hits. Indeed, several entrants in the first series qualified under WP:music by having hit records in the Australian charts. However, I would be prepared to reconsider in a month's time depending on his success. Capitalistroadster 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete He can try again when he signs to his first label. Denni☯ 02:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep He's still in the public eye three times a week (Australian Idol twice, and Inside Idol). If/when he becomes forgotten to the Australian public, maybe delete then, but he's certainly not at this stage. Ianiceboy 10:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If all the other Australian Idol's from every other series have a page, why not Daniel? I don't like the guy personally, but why shouldn't he miss out? He's made it so far into the Top 6 of Australian Idol 3. --58.84.94.54 10:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • if their only claim to fame is appearing on this show, they should ALL be delted. This is wkipedia, not wikiflashinthepan.—Gaff ταλκ 21:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Some time in the '10s, some imaginative history student is going to write a masters thesis entitled The Reality TV Phenomenon and its Effect on the Lives of its "Stars". And then all these verifiable, NPOV, articles on flashes in the pan will be very useful indeed. Snottygobble | Talk 03:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Dottore So 13:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - someone's gone to a bit of trouble to write this and right now he is a known name. -- Ian ≡ talk 03:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's a precedent for keeping these, and it's not a bad article. Ambi 02:33, 27 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. — JIP | Talk 09:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Di Bawah Lantera Merah

Indonesian. Has been on WP:PNT since 5 October. Physchim62 13:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

Indonesian. --Jondel 06:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The content is probably an excerpt from Soe Hok Gie's book titled Di Bawah Lentera Merah ('Below the Red Lantern'). My suggestion is to delete the article since the article currently does not mention any fact/description of the book. --*drew 07:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I would agree. The language is clearly literary, indicating it is probably an excerp of the book mentioned, although I couldn't confirm that. It is definately nothing factual that would be of any use in the current form. --Sepa 13:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • del. useless. mikka (t) 23:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article is currently lack of information. *drew 02:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:52, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DowneLink

Please Note: This AfD page and the original article are being altered in an attempt, I assume, to prevent discussion regarding the appropriateness for this page to be included on the encyclopedia. I will reconstruct the discussion by cutting and pasting previously entered comments:—Gaff ταλκ 00:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Non-notable stub on internet chat room or something. Only reference is a link to a log-in. delete. —Gaff ταλκ 03:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per nomination. freshgavinTALK 06:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nn chatroom. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • the only reason why it links to the log in is because YOU HAVE TO BE A MEMBER! WHAT ELSE?!! Is just like MYSPACE. & WHY ARENT U DELETING MYSPACE IF YOUR DELETING THIS?!!!72.234.109.218 19:27, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 20:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Dr McNinja

Non-notable webcomic--archive has two entries, Alexa rank of 1,741,312. 24.17.48.241 08:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --Anetode 10:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 15:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. See User:SCZenz/Webcomics for my general thoughts. -- SCZenz 23:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Dragonfiend 17:30, 25 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 20:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Einar Aaland

This seems to be a vanity article. It is created by User:Eaaland, which makes it all the more fishy. It is one of several articles he created today, all on the topic of him and his company, Owera and himself. He also edited his apparent hometown. The Minister of War 16:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity advertising. --Fire Star 16:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity. --W.marsh 16:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. KHM03 17:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 20:00, 20 October 2005

(UTC)

  • Delete as advertising vanity. Eddie.willers 21:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Lupo 08:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Person shows no interest in any Wikipedia goals or principles, hence the user should also possibly be blocked and subject words be added to a blacklist. -- NoUser 13:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity --Rogerd 04:08, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 20:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Empornium

Keep. It's not indecent, has no suggestive languauge, or pictures, and refers in a casual way to it's content. Fundementalism has no part in everyones lives. See a good psychiatrist if you're stuggling with the voices in your head.

KEEP! I dont care if it is porn Wikipedia is not for children and this is one of the most highly rated sites on the web. Its alexa ranking proves that.

Is this an ad? Is it business vanity? Is it not noteworthy? Take your pick. Ifnord 18:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • It should be speedily deleted. I don't think anyone would want to look this up in public.  Denelson83  18:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Distasteful subject-matter is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Haeleth
  • Speedy Delete non notable. --Reflex Reaction 18:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Notability is not a criterion for speedy deletion. Haeleth
  • Keep. Has an Alexa ranking of 3172. KeithD (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It passes the criteria suggested by WP:WEB, both in Alexa rank and in number of registered users. Yes, the subject may be distasteful to some, but Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Haeleth 19:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree except this isn't a speech issue, it's corporate vanity. Do we support that? I hesitate to be swayed by the number of users as it may be an outright lie just generated on their website. Not speedy, simply delete. Ifnord 21:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--term gets 32,000 googles and passes WP:WEB. Meelar (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Gator1 19:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless someone turns it into an actual stub. Alr 19:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment added cleanup tag because right now the article doesn't even qualify as a stub. It has unsource claims of membership as well. I'm not voting yet... If this article gets a rewrite and sourcing for claim before the AfD finishes I will go keep.. otherwise I will vote to delete.--Isotope23 20:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I've done a quick rewrite, but it's still just a stub. The number of registered users is shown on the front page of the site. It currently stands at 406,197. KeithD (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • DeleteWith opinion concuring with user Ifnord.-21:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per alexa under 4k ∴ here…♠ 22:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be a notable web community. --Carnildo 23:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, very well known in the BitTorrent and online porn worlds, rewritten to NPOV stub. MCB 00:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment if kept, this should probably be a DAB page since this is a type of store and there is another site using www.Empornium.com which might one day be noteable. Vegaswikian 05:37, 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Erik Aughenbaugh

vanity. Asserts notability, but none of these cut it. — brighterorange (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete I would have voted to keep it, if the author's username wasn't Aughie. Vanity. x_x Acetic'Acid 01:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity--Mpeisenbr 01:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. "notable for his acclaimed podcast Aughie By Nature" doesn't hack it. - Sensor 02:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable Internet personality. — JIP | Talk 09:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's some guy in a high school who does a podcast. -- Captain Disdain 09:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry - blogging and one questionable publication doesn't cut it for me. Alf melmac 10:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. How many high-school students are truly notable? --JJay 14:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. What everyone else has said. - Dalbury 23:42, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, sock vote was discounted but point was considered, tagged with clean and merge. Rx StrangeLove 03:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eve of the Apocalypse

Delete. Is this REALLY notable? And if this does not get deleted, at least clean up the damned thing. It is horrid. - Mrdie

  • Trim and Merge this article, and others mentioned at Warcraft III#Custom maps into a List of multiplayer scenarios in Warcraft III --Anetode 10:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and clean up/improve. EotA recently became a sponsored map on Battle.net ( http://www.battle.net/mod/mapvault.shtml ), and as such should have an entry (a better one hopefully). 212.200.134.60 21:39, 27 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. Hermione1980 23:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EXtended Automatic Provisioning System

Possible vanity article created by User:Eaaland, as per above. The Minister of War 16:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as advertising vanity. Eddie.willers 21:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; advertisement. Only 66 Googlits for +xAPS +provisioning. Lupo 08:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity. Person shows no interest in any Wikipedia goals or principles, hence the user should also possibly be blocked and subject words be added to a blacklist. -- NoUser 13:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert --Rogerd 04:38, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 23:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Floppy Barrow

This is supposedly a game that has something to do with throwing bicycle tires. Zero google hits means that it has yet to take the world by storm JJay 15:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Bicycle tires deserve our respect. --JJay 15:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete games you made up with your buddies aren't notable. If only! I'd love to write articles about Frisbee Tennis and ChadBall... --W.marsh 16:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and W.marsh--Reflex Reaction 19:47, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Frederic sereder, Frederic bereder, Bereder frederic, Bereder and Sereder

Delete. Article about a non-notable person; vanity page Mpeisenbr 03:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I just added Bereder frederic, Frederic bereder, Sereder, and Bereder as the content is identical. delete all. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You Bedderer believe I'm voting delete.—Gaff ταλκ 04:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Did someone think it was funny or something?  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Del all. vanity... -- WB 07:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, vanity. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all There may well be a notable person or company involved here. But, it's not shown clearly, and more signficantly, there isn't any verifiable English info on person or organization. Also, it seems this must be a copyvio, even though I can't find the source. --rob 11:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all of these and any missed, being CEO might give some notability, I would consider a good stub or well written encyclopedic entry more favourably than this article. Alf melmac 11:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all of them per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Vanity, advertising, NN- take your pick. --JJay 16:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all as nn-bio. MCB 21:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, all vanity. --JoanneB 23:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The poor grammar is reason enoungh to delete!


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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Free air release technique

quasi-neologism Ifnord 04:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I originally thought this just needed sources but on googling I found only one reference - and that was two guys giggling on a board about fart jokes. Ifnord 04:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough, or at all? Also may contain incorrect information -Andrew 04:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Joke or gag. OED shows that fart has been in use since Chaucer used it in the year 1386. ♠DanMS 05:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, Chaucer probably did fart in the year 1386, but I actually meant he used the word in 1386. DanMS 05:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna jump on the bandwagon and say delete.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and do it F.A.S.T. Oyvind 12:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is no more than Flatus Advanced by Rectal Transport. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Tho' ye subjoct be but a fart, yet will this tedious sink of learning pondrously phillosophize. Sam Clemens 23:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a clever but useless jape. - Sensor 00:20, 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 Keep. brenneman(t)(c) 06:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] From Ashes Rise

Bandcruft. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and rewrite to assert notability... they are on AMG [8]. This is not bandcruft at the very least. Might barely fail the letter of WP:Music but still... that's just a guideline. I say they're notable. --W.marsh 03:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I rewrote the article to assert notability and generally add more information. There were already several pages with pre-existing links to the article. --W.marsh 04:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. They are on a reputable indie label that has been around since 1991. One album and one single. Not strict WP:music, but close enough for—Gaff ταλκ
  • Keep User W.marsh's rewrites. Apart from the records, the web site for the record label says that they have had at least two US tours and one European tour see[9]. As a result, they meet WP:MUSIC so keep. Capitalistroadster 06:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. per above. -- WB 07:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Not bandcruft. http://www.jadetree.com/bands/artist/from_ashes_rise That's their webpage at their label -- or, rather, one of the labels they're on. They have releases outside of this label and members are in scores of other notable bands. Various t-shirt designs at another label they're on: http://www.havocrex.com/store/store.cgi?page=shirt_f_r.html Also, they have more than one album out, but their previous releases have been on smaller labels. Pushead, artist for Metallica, has done some of their art. Etc. -- user:in_on_the_killtaker
  • Keep W.marsh's rewrites. Thanks to everyone for good web sleuthing. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above arguments. Well-known band in its scene. Punkmorten 18:34, 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Fuzzy Shoe

Non-existant "webcomic". Zero relevant hits for "Fuzzy Shoe" joey, and the external link in the article claiming to be the homepage of the webcomic is a tripod.com placeholder with no user content. 198.104.0.100 20:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete per nom ∴ here…♠ 22:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 12:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - as above - Hahnchen 15:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete per nom Dragonfiend 19:19, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] G-Cube Solutions Pvt Ltd

Non notable Indian private limited company. A google search mostly returns advertising/self-references. Pamri • Talk 13:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Pamri • Talk 13:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Cool3 23:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - Forbsey 00:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:59, 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 Speedy delete, no claim of notability. Thue | talk 20:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geert-jan korsbø nilsen

Claims notability by being a film director but the article is a substub. After Googling the name, I found only 4 distinct hits, one of which is dead, and one of which is Nilsen signing at a Norwegian discussion forum. The only ones which seems to assert a slight amount of notability are these two which show him in 22nd place of a county ballot in the local elections of 2003. It is the ballot of a small party, Demokratene which didn't get any seats, and 22nd place is much further down on the list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not notability Oyvind 09:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks very A1 to me. --JJay 21:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. I believe this article meets WP:CSD A7, and I've tagged it as such. Punkmorten 18:45, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. brenneman(t)(c) 06:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gloss (disambiguation)

Completely unnecessary and useless disambiguation. No one's going to reach it unless they actually type "Gloss (disambiguation)" into the Search box. 24.17.48.241 07:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep No big deal now, but as new uses come up, it would be more useful. Gloss is not, and should not be a disambig page, so a link to this is reasonable, even though there's just one laternate meaning right now (that I know of). --rob 07:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This article is linked from the main gloss page. If there are more than two plausible articles with the term "gloss", the disambig should definitely stay and those articles should be added to this page. If there are only two, we might satisfy ourselves with changing the disambig header on the gloss article to point to the alternate one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
That's how it was when I nominated it--no link from Gloss, which just linked directly to Gloss (material appearance)[10]. Now it seems fine. 24.17.48.241 08:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's now five uses, although only three would seem likely (lex,material,lip). So, that justifies a disambiguation page easily. The only question is whether to have Gloss or Gloss (disambiguation) be the disambig. Given, the large number of links directly to Gloss for the intendended meaning, I think the way things are now is fine. No changes are needed. --rob 07:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for finding the other uses, now it's a definite keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gloss will be needed when people typed "gloss" to find something other than the main gloss and click the disambig.. -- WB 07:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful disambig, linked to from main search result Saberwyn 08:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful disambig, "gloss" has many unrelated meanings. — JIP | Talk 08:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Captain Disdain 10:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gloss is ambiguous. --JahJah 15:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Incredibly useful. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful and Gloss currently links to it. --Optichan 20:18, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. brenneman(t)(c) 06:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] God-man

Nonsense. KHM03 17:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - KHM03 17:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep fixed article as the title did refer to something notable and added "expand" tag. Please consider withdrawing nomination.Gator1 18:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: how expandable is the new stub? At present it's a dicdef, and we probably have material on the doctrine of the Dual Nature of Christ elsewhere (though I can't immediately find it). Maybe this should become a disambiguation page, pointing both to whatever the article on the theological subject is called, and, of course, to Tom the Dancing Bug? <g> Haeleth 18:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Is Incarnation what you're looking for? KHM03 18:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
It's always the one term I don't think of... -_-; Haeleth 20:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a definition with no potential for expansion. Tom harrison 18:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN; ARTICLE REDIRECTED KHM03 18:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Comment I take it from the above that the nominator now votes "Speedy Redirect". I have replaced the AfD tag on the article, however, as the AfD is not yet finished. Jkelly 16:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and start new article on the "godmen" of India under this title. (see [11]) I'm surprised we don't have an article on this already. Unfortunately I'm not knowledgable enough to write a proper article myself. flowersofnight 19:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but turn into a disambig page for the cartoon hero, the category discussed in The Golden Bough and to religious beliefs discussed in Incarnation and avatar. Jkelly 16:17, 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 SPEEDY REDIRECTED. Would people who speedy redirect articles under AfD please close the debate to save me the trouble of checking the result? — JIP | Talk 09:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Googoloctodeciplex

Unencyclopedic (uninteresting part of a limitless series) and hoaxy (0 google hits) — brighterorange (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - made up. -- WB 01:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Cute idea, but original research just the same. Acetic'Acid 01:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this doodoo. KingTT 01:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: AfD may be moot, as it looks like someone already redirected this to Googolplex. Hilarious word, though. Remind me to say "googoloctodeciplex" six times fast the next time I need to ward off the Devil. - Sensor 02:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's collect all the googol variants on one page. Uncle Ed, the closing admin. Uncle Ed 02:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I still prefer deletion (to a redirect), since there are zero google hits; this might not even be the correct way of spelling that number. I'm all for taking obvious actions to close out AfDs early, but so far the consensus here was for delete... — brighterorange (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's not. All the real googol variants, googol and googolplex, and two neologistic ones, googolduplex and googoltriplex, are covered at Names for large numbers. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoaxy spelling of Googolplex (or Googleplex). Andrew pmk | Talk 19:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Optichan 19:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete... I know redirects are cheap, but this is apparently a neologism that has no life outside of this wiki article. All a redirect does is confer the appearance of some notability to the term where none previously existed... besides, who is going to wiki search a term that doesn't exist?--Isotope23 19:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a real word, not in real use, pure neologism, and perfect illustration of a word formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion"). Such words are "not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a policy on deleting redirects? I defer to Dpbsmith. Uncle Ed 11:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't know what the policy is. Let me clarify that my vote is indeed "delete, do not redirect" and such votes are commonly accepted as valid AfD votes and which are acted on by closers. Common sense says that changing an article to a redirect should not magically protect it against deletion. The issue is not the "cost" of the redirect, but what course of action is most calculated to discourage the insertion of bogus material into Wikipedia. Leaving the redirect might be interpreted as an endorsement of the term and lead to the insertion of bogus material into the article. For example, someone might decide that "Googoloctodeciplex" belongs in the article and write something about it there, which might then lead to a table of bogus entries (Googolseptemdeciplex, etc.), which might get wikified, and the resulting redlinks might encourage creation of further bogus articles. Bogus entries are sometimes left as redirects specifically in order to discourage re-creation, and are sometimes even protectedm but I don't think this is appropriate here. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 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 redirect to Habbo Hotel. Whether or not there is a consensus for deletion, there is certainly a consensus to remove the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Habbos

This seems to be talking about a minor UK website(?) Mpeisenbr 01:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per policy.--Mpeisenbr 01:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: This article is promotional and non-notable. Solarusdude 01:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)http://www.whatis-it.com/
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Websites... Alexa rank: 720,531. --W.marsh 01:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity NN. And horribly misspelled to boot. - Sensor 01:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Del. Vanity. -- WB 03:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree w/ above.—Gaff ταλκ 04:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable fansite. — JIP | Talk 09:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

THis article is to help users understand what our site is all about, it is still under construction... (preceding unsigned comment by 142.227.194.4 (talk · contribs) )

  • Redirect to Habbo Hotel. Habbos live in the Hotel, so it's a reasonable thing to look for, Habbo already redirects there, and redirects are cheap. — mendel ☎ 19:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Habbo Hotel. We don't need articles on individual fan sites. Secretlondon 19:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per mendel.--Isotope23 19:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. There are probably hundreds of minor fan sites and blogs for Habbo hotel players... --JoanneB 23:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Dxco 10:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Our site is an offical site for Habbo Hotel.co.uk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 as patent nonsense -- Ferkelparade π 09:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Happy happy happy happy happy little elf

Nonsense

  • Delete Article consists of nonsense.--MONGO 08:56, 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 no consensus, with the majority leaning towards article inclusion. If anyone objects, revert me and re-open the discussion. —RaD Man (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Keller Junior High School (Schaumburg, Illinois)

NN, D. ComCat 03:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep a good a stub on a worthwhile school. --rob 05:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, good stub, well done Silensor and rob. Also per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 06:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Kappa and rob. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyk (talk • contribs) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. When nominating something for deletion, please use a full sentence. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete public schools. Gazpacho 07:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - No assertion of notability. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless school article. — JIP | Talk 08:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as Community Consolidated School District 54 already contains all the information Wikipedia should have about this school. Maybe a redirect is in order as well. flowersofnight 13:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:A_Man_In_Black Pilatus 13:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There are thousands of school articles and well over ah hundred are added each week. Nominating the odd one for deletion achieves nothing except the generation of conflict. CalJW 14:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Experienced users nominating schools are just wasting everyone's time. Novice users nominating schools are making mistakes. I will assume the later. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, and at this point I think people nominating schools are violating WP:POINT. It's "gaming the system" to try and kill a few school articles and keep wasting the time of people on AfD, because it has become clear that the vast majority of these will pass. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, and please stop making threats.Gateman1997 20:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Er, that wasn't a threat. I'd apologize, but I'm trying to figure out where you got that idea in the first place, so I would know what I was apologizing for. --Jacquelyn Marie 23:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. And please stop AFD Spamming. Trollderella 16:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep and please stop nominating these schools we get your point but this is a waste of time now Yuckfoo 17:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Ahem...WP:CIVIL.--Isotope23 17:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Middle School --JAranda | watz sup 20:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, schools are not inherently notable. Am I the only one who thinks that a SchoolsAreNotInherentlyNotable template and a KeepPerWPSchool template would be really handy? Lord Bob 21:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not-notable. Plus, many school noms have been "no-consensus", not keeps. Saying we should stop nominating NN schools for deletion is like saying people should not vote for opposition political parties because there is a government already in power. How about some statistics on the number of pageviews that these stubs get?--inksT 22:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 22:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. mikka (t) 22:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete another non-notable school. The Golden Apple winning teacher is far worthier of an article. 'Course he's a person, so he can't have one. Denni☯ 01:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable. JYolkowski // talk 02:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and stop nominating schools until there is consensus on them --Ryan Delaney talk 03:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep See my argument at this page. Xoloz 03:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • K, N. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unnotable crap please. Dunc|☺ 10:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Since you said please, here is your "unnotable c**p". --rob 10:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn school. Dottore So 13:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it seems an interesting school. Evil Eye 16:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable, and worthy to include - it is credible and well written and thus there is more good than harm including it in. -- Natalinasmpf 19:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • We keep articles on obscure wheeled metal boxes, so we can and should keep articles on enduring public institutions. --Centauri 23:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, there is no official Wikipedia policy against public schools. --Aleron235 15:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. 85%-90% of all school nominations in the past year have resulted in the articles in question not being deleted. Irrespective of the fact that about 40% of that number were ruled to be "no consensus", the deletion policies of WP clearly instruct that "no consensus" results are kept. As a matter of process, policy and resulting precedent school articles on WP are not deleted by virtue of either being stubs or "non-notable". Please respect exisiting precedent with respect to school articles.--Nicodemus75 22:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Important distinction: No concensus does not equate to a concensus to keep, and should not be presented as such.--inksT 08:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Irrelvant comment. I never said there is a "consensus to keep", I said there is a precedent.--Nicodemus75 08:36, 24 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. — JIP | Talk 09:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hootie McCormick

NN, D. ComCat 03:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. As per nomination.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepJoaquin Murietta 08:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sounds far too much like Spiggy Topes and the Turds. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. Trollderella 16:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete allmusic.com has no results for either "Hootie McCormick" or his band's name. I am unable to find any matchup with WP:MUSIC guidelines for notablity. Zero google results for his name. -- Malo 17:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Gator1 19:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete google: Omar Spitmonkeys (0 results) ∴ here…♠ 20:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. This is a likely hoax, Hootie McCormick turns up 0 matches as do the Omar Spitmonkeys. Hall Monitor 21:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. --JJay 21:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified. Sam Vimes 08:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 13:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not a hoax. I knew this person, his real name was Casey (Can't remember the last name). Hootie McCormick was of course the stage name. This can all be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.74.66 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 21 October 2005
    • Then, by all means, feel free to do so - by providing a book, a newspaper article, whatever. Sam Vimes 20:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:17, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 09:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights in Japan

Nothing but a copy and paste of http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41644.htm. -- RHaworth 00:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Hmmm, not a tradional copyvio by my understanding as US Government reports are in the Public domain from the date of publication. Given this, it isn't an A8 speedy. However, it does need to be cleaned up and wikified and the status of the document made clear although it is a clear cut and paste even outlining the section that prepared it. Keep and cleanup. Capitalistroadster 00:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikisource. Solarusdude 01:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Move/Transwiki to Wikisource. --Aquillion 01:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikisource. - Sensor 01:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Kappa 03:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the Human rights in Japan. Wikipedia also has Human rights in the United States, Human rights in the United Kingdom, Human rights in Belarus, Human rights in Finland, Human rights in Russia, and Human rights in Turkey. Yamaguchi先生 05:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia has lots of public-domain articles from US Government, 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, and other public-domain sources. See, for example Japanese art. Editors can edit as appropriate. Agree with Capitalistroadster that it should be wikified. Topic is encyclopedic. Factual nature of content is not in dispute. Attribution is clear. Fg2 07:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as with country articles copied from the CIA Factbook. Gazpacho 07:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Yamaguchi and cleanup. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikisource but Keep as a topic. I think there's no problem with having an article about Human Rights in Japan, it just needs to be in encyclopedic format and in someone's original words, not drawn straight from a gov't document. LordAmeth 10:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree it should be wikified (put in encyclopedic format). I also hope it will become something very different from a government document as people edit it. Maybe a way to view it is as being at the same stage of completion as a stub, but instead of starting from a sentence or a paragraph, it starts out as a government document. Fg2 11:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, wikify, and expand, as per Fg2 and others. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 11:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Yamaguchi, with cleanup tag. I'll be following this one, it looks like it has the makings of an interesting case study on NPOV :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 11:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, obviously. Trollderella 16:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please professor yamaguchi is right and it is not a copyright violation Yuckfoo 21:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Copy and paste from public domain sources is a good practice to add high quality text to Wikipedia. Of course the text needs to be wikified, but thats not what AfD is about. -- Mkill 21:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, whatever problems there are with the article, they can be sorted out without deleting it. --DannyWilde 04:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be a worthy article that some work could improve markedly. --Meiers Twins 18:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There has been a lot of work done on this article since I first cast my vote. Kudos to users MKill, Yamaguchi, Mikkalai, Gazpacho and RHaworth for their contributions. Capitalistroadster 04:03, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Bailey

Originally tagged as a speedy, but not really a speedy candidate. Seems unverifiable, but might be notable if verifiable. No vote/Procedural listing. -- Ferkelparade π 09:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I cannot verify this, all I find is some modern-day Ian Bailey (a journalist from Manchester, UK). Even if it were true, I question the notability of the 19th century murderer described in our article. Delete. Lupo 10:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable OR. "Reports claim that in Ohio there is a haunted house in the city of Lakewood which is haunted by Bailey's violent ghost." Talk page: "The main point of this article is to tell of the paranormal events which supposedly occur in Bailey's house in Lakewood, Ohio." (several phrasings and google queries yield no pertinent results) Also includes unfounded speculation about the origin of the derogatory term "Irish confetti" --Anetode 10:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment , perhaps a police axe named after him? ∴ here…♠ 21:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No citations- looks very hoaxish. --JJay 21:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete OR --Rogerd 02:38, 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 speedy deleted, no useful content. Friday (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Crazy

Does not seem capatable to Wikipedia. Molotov (talk)
20:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Should be marked {{db|no content}}. 198.104.0.100 20:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above, you can also use {{empty}} or {{db-test}} for automatically configured messages. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:12, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete I moved the photos over to iPod nano, I put one on the article page and one on the talk page in case they want to add it. Rx StrangeLove 04:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IPod nano LCD fracture dispute

Page was started, then forgotten about. Dispute is already covered in iPod nano. AlistairMcMillan 03:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - AlistairMcMillan 03:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Del per nomination, but the pictures should be moved to the iPod nano page. -- WB 03:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes picture should move as per WB's suggestion.-Dakota 03:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination.--Pamri • Talk 13:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, merging some info and maybe one of the pictures into the Nano page. Batmanand 17:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, maybe merge the pictures into the iPod nano article. --Optichan 19:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge some more info and the pictures onto the iPod nano page. Turn into redirect to iPod nano. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Rogerd 01:59, 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 Speedy Deleted by RHaworth as vandalism. --GraemeL (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan the Sie-Wolf

This is pretty clearly a hoax. -- Super Aardvark 20:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the article's AfD tag in favor of speedy deletion (the page qualifies as vandalism) -- Super Aardvark 20:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the {{db}} tag Super Aardvark placed on this page (db reason was as above) as it was bleeding across onto the AfD page for Oct 20 and thus putting the Oct 20 AfD page as an entry on the Candidates for Speedy deletion page. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:19, 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 delete both. Hermione1980 23:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jankism and The Church Of Janik

Non-notable "religion" invented by bored teens. This has no impact whatsoever and should not be confused with Flying Spaghetti Monsterism; delete — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • See Also The Church Of Janik as part of this AfD. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. --Hurricane111 18:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, also delete The Church Of Janik --Reflex Reaction 19:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is obviously an attempt to use Wikipedia to gain legitimacy. Friday (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - non-notable JoJan 19:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - probable vanity --Delirium 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, triggers my vanity-article/self promotion spidey sense. Dxco 09:59, 26 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. Rx StrangeLove 04:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John DeCamp

Long, unwikified, POV essay. Potentially an article could be written, but this isn't it. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. I'm not a fan of deleting simply because the current version of an article sucks. This guy is a former elected official and has been in the national media, he is notable. Even if it means taking this down to a stub to get rid of the problems. By the way the current version is a copyvio of some source [12] (not sure if that is the original). But still, is this guy not notable? --W.marsh 16:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Gator1 19:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 04:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article uses material from another article, Paul A. Bonacci, which originally was a long, rambling, POV essay full of conspiracy theories about satanic ritual abuse, mind control, etc. I posted quite a bit on that article's Talk page, then edited that article severely to remove all the POV stuff. The author then re-inserted it; I reverted twice, then posted on his Talk page with a request not to re-insert the material. He then took the material and created the John DeCamp article, leaving only a wikilink to it on the Paul A. Bonacci page. Sigh. Needless to say it is no more appropriate or encyclopedic there than it was in the first article. That said, I think a case can be made for a keep for the article itself, in that John DeCamp is probably a notable person for his elected official status, and his involvement in a crusade of sorts about all this stuff. MCB 22:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • After reading the source above, and realizing that it is not just a forum post but in fact the verbatim copying of a Des Moines Register article, I feel that it needs to be dealt with as a copyvio primarily, have the material deleted, and then the article can be re-created, if desired, from original material. Therefore, I attached the copyvio tag and will follow up in WP:CP. MCB 00:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete copyvio per MCB --Me or a Robin 11:25, 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 speedy deleted as nonsense. Friday (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jökull_Másson

Vanity entry 83.134.2.186 18:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete This shouldn't be in AfD. –Shoaler (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete BJAODN. --Reflex Reaction 18:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, complete rubbish --Amxitsa 19:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - complete nonsense. --Hurricane111 19:03, 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 del evident and provable hoax, hence vandalism. mikka (t) 23:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Ferber

This appears to me to be almost a joke with theory name and picture, however I don't think it's CSD. gren グレン 13:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. NN and looks like vanity to me, with the picture contributed from User:Jonferber. David | Talk 13:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It. Hey guys, looks lagit to me. I am a history major at Purdue University, and i have studied this guy. This page is valid and an asset to the Wikipedia community.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.56.88.133 (talk • contribs) original author of the page in question
  • Keep It.I love this man. I have heard of this guy, Jonathan ferber, and his work is fascinating.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.56.88.133 (talk • contribs) same IP as above
  • Delete. NN hoaxy bio. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Demiurge 14:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not WP:V and probable hoax... sockpuppet supported to boot. Pic made me laugh though.--Isotope23 18:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It . Those who say this is a hoax are nothing but dimmwitted baboons. Just becuase the guy looks funny you are saying hes not real. Have any of you researched him? I have and he exists.--franklin 20:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

KEEP Some of you are ignorant and so quick to judge. Anyone who thinks this man does not exist needs to pick up any recently published American philosophy book and stop talking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.157.229 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 20 October (UTC), user's only contribution

  • Delete, hoax, puppetfest. MCB 21:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. hoax, sockpuppet voting. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax, mikka (t) 23:16, 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 Delete (both). Rx StrangeLove 04:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Krive and Jonathan krive

Non-notable - google pulls 531 hits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Assertion of notability does not mean the subject is notable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is non-notable, if well-written, vanity. He is no more notable than probably hundreds of other young activists elsewhere in his particular country, and an elegantly-written vanity page does not an article make. Peeper 12:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Article asserts notability but there is precious little evidence to back that. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Peeper. -- Kjkolb 13:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Might have voted keep, but since its a copyvio I say Speedy Delete. --JJay 16:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral article is possible. Trollderella 16:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Personal assistants to Senate candidates are not encyclopedic. FCYTravis 19:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.n. mikka (t) 22:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or userify. Vanity NN. Well-written page, though. - Sensor 00:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete factual, verifiable, trivial and non-notable. Dottore So 13:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:34, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jugger

NN video game character cruft. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable Cruft.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the info here with List of Advance Wars COs, where Jugger is mentioned. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete. Ambi 13:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, as this is already covered (in greater detail!) in List of Advance Wars COs. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:24, 24 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. Hermione1980 23:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keenyah Hill

Tagged as speedy, but it references finals, and "the show" etc., makes me think this person was a reality show contestant. Listing here. No vote. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain Nom was correct; looks like another reality show "star" from America's Next Top Model [13]. I'm not sure how noteworthy any of the models are. --Reflex Reaction 19:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • xxxx. Trollderella 19:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • On second thoughts, let's delete this. Trollderella 19:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Gator1 19:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable.--Isotope23 20:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable Bwithh 21:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. the little article that couldn't. "WAT TO GO"...away—Gaff ταλκ 03:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

delete....it sounds opinionated


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Davis

nn manging director for nn company which don't have a article yet Delete --JAranda | watz sup 20:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete another non-notable college graduate with a job...--Isotope23 20:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Resumé, vanity. Eddie.willers 21:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 21:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 01:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 12:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Founder and Managing Director of Charlesbank, sits on board of Shoppers Drug Mart (Canada's largest retail drugstore company) and Wabtec (an NYSE listed company). Interviewed or quoted in a variety of financial publications, including this one. -- DS1953 talk 20:58, 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 candidate for speedy deletion. Article incorrectly referred to Afd.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kvetoslav

A page about the coolest 11 year old in the world. Nevertheless, delete for obvious reasons. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Vanity -Andrew 04:53, 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 del vandalism. mikka (t) 22:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kyhlb

NN neologism, delete. ComCat 03:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete agree ---Dakota 04:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably non-notable, also some POV. Just for kicks, take a look at the pronounciation guide: Pronounciation(kgh-lyb).  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. The "German-Jew connection"- this is really offensive and qualifies under G1 or A6. --JJay 21:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • speedy del. Purposedly and verifiably false, hence vandalism; and by known anon vandals, too. I am cleaning after them now. mikka (t) 22:49, 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 deleted by author's consent, nonsense. Friday (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kyle's Big Gay Dance

non-notable vanity, or possibly an attack. But non-notable, either way. Brandon39 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • like you said. Doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I've edited it down to what's verifiable. - Nunh-huh 00:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to be an attack page. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The author seems to have requested it to be deleted.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  04:51, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laotian Canadian

Either this article should be radically expanded, or merged into something Laotian/Canadian related MacRusgail 19:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep ethnicities are all notable in my opinion. There is a significant population of immigrants from Laos in Canada, and I think they should be noted. Similarly, there are articles here about Portuguese Canadians and so forth. Molotov (talk)
    20:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - see also my comments in Laotian French article's discussion. According to the article itself, there aren't many of them (well under 20,000 in a country of over 30 million), but it doesn't really say much else other than they are Canadians of Laotian origin, which you can work out from the title itself. Not really sure where that gets us. Would prefer more info. --MacRusgail 09:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Molotov - Forbsey 00:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, just like Chinese Canadian or Greek Canadian etc. CanadianCaesar 00:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per User Molotov. Capitalistroadster 00:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Not being overly knowledgeable about the Laotian community, I don't personally know what can be done to expand it, but it's every bit as keepable and expandable as any other article about an identifiable ethnic minority group in a multicultural country. Bearcat 22:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per what Bearcat says. Luigizanasi 00:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Molotov, Bearcat, et al. E Pluribus Anthony 10:52, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laotian French

Either this article should be radically expanded, or merged into something Laotian/Canadian related MacRusgail 19:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep ethnicities are all notable in my opinion. There is a significant population of immigrants from Laos in France, and I think they should be noted. Similarly, there are articles here about Portuguese Canadians and so forth. Molotov (talk)
    20:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - how significant must a minority be though? Many countries have hundreds of such groups, where to draw the line? (Surely every nation and tribe on this planet must have some representatives in the USA for example). This article doesn't really say very much about said group... I'd prefer for it to be expanded, but there really isn't a lot in here. --MacRusgail 08:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Molotov - Forbsey 00:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand as notable ethnic group. Capitalistroadster 00:49, 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. — JIP | Talk 15:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Aguilar - Artist - Equine Trainer - Earthbound Goddess

Was listed as a speedy, but fails the criteria due to asserting notability as a painter. I can't verify her on Google (there is a notable Laura Aguilar, but that one appears to be a photographer born in 1959), so I suspect this is non notable nonetheless. Haeleth 21:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability as an artist ie exhibitions in galleries, winning notable prizes. No evidence of significance as a trainer such as races won etc. Little or verifiable evidence of her on Google see [14] Bizarrely enough, we don't have an article on Laura Aguilar but the creator decided to use this wordy and vain title ("Earthbound Goddess") indeed. Capitalistroadster 00:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

PS Perhaps, the photographer of the same name should be added to requested articles. Capitalistroadster 00:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Asserting a notability that cannot be verified (i.e. hoax) is not grounds for not putting this rapidly to the torch. Dottore So 15:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Private Butcher has redirected this to Laura Aguilar (without mention here). This is such a weird title, that I say Delete --Rogerd 13:03, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, copyright issue is resolved. 2D/1K Rx StrangeLove 04:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lexigraf

- Sorry people for making you feel that way. The whole approach was meant to present the inner workings of multilingual lexicographical projects and an approach to IT tools that need to be in place to get things done. To my knowledge the resources in this field are rather limited and a person that is looking for information about lexicography might be interested in an external link of this sort. And don't forget it was a research project.

It's advertising. The program is not actually well known or widely used. --Diderot 18:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, A google search found 1,660 search results from a few diverse sources, it seems quite well known to me. The article could do with cleaning up but should be kept --Amxitsa 18:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm getting 90 hits total, and I don't know how many are for Canadian and Swedish firms of the same name. I'm a professional lexicographer, and I have only barely heard of this software. --Diderot 19:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio from the page linked in the article: cleaning up is insufficient, the current text needs deleting, period. As to whether anything else should take its place, I'm uncertain; a lot of the Google hits seem to be for other things, such as the translation company "LEXIGRAF International AB". Can you point me to any references for people using the software other than Aristotle University? Haeleth 19:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn enough.Gator1 19:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable and text is copyvio of abstract on link...--Isotope23 20:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Copyright owner has granted permission for use on Talk:Lexigraf. The original issue is still open. --Diderot 09:23, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 15:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Life... But How To Live It?

Non-notable "Norwegian Hardcore" band Private Butcher 18:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Also no matter how many searches I do, I can't find one bit of information on this "band" (I use "band" because it might not even exist) Private Butcher 19:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Finally found small bit of information, but nothing that makes it any bit "notable". Private Butcher 19:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
It's also copied directly from the website [15]. Private Butcher 19:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. Delete Per nom. Private Butcher 18:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've changed my mind, I've looked over everything, but the article is still directly copied from [16], so it needs some work. Private Butcher 20:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Soft Keep. I'm a big fan of getting rid of nn bands but if it's substantiated it looks approaching noteworthiness. Ifnord 18:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Seems to meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC including a tour and multiple albums. --Reflex Reaction 19:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn.Gator1 19:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep--if true, the contents of the article are clearly keepable ("ruled the Norwegian metal scene", 5 albums or so, toured Europe, etc.) The question is, do they exist? I think so. Here's their entry in the Norwegian band index; here you can buy their album from interpunk.com ("the ultimate punk music store"); here's an entry in the Music Information Centre Norway about them; here, their label is listed. Granted, it's pretty hard to find evidence for them, and there's no allmusic entry, but I think it's pretty conclusive that they do exist, and are therefore notable. Meelar (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC) P.S. How are they non-notable? They clearly meet the WP:MUSIC standards Delete as copyvio, unless someone rewrites this. Meelar (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC) Apparently rewritten as non-copyvio; my original keep vote stands. Meelar (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If there is uncertanity as to whether or not the band existed, try http://www.blitz.no/filer/musikk/index.html for a few samples of their music. Some of the members are now in the band Drunk, have a look at http://www.drunk.no/ and have a look at "Bio and Photos" in the menu, Life... But Hot To Live It? is mentioned there. I can also supply you a photo of all their CD/LP covers (as soon as the battery for my camera is sufficiently charged up). Also see http://www.awarecords.ndo.co.uk/photos/life2.htm Update I have now changed the text in the introduction so that it is no longer copy/paste from the webpage referred to above (which btw have been unavailable, apart from on archive.org, since 2001). As to the discography, I do not find very much to change, these are just facts there for reference. Oddbjorn82 (talk)
  • Speedy Delete under category A8. They qualify under WP:MUSIC but the existing article is a clear copyvio as noted by the nominator. Capitalistroadster 00:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as it appears to be a copyvio no more. In addition to above arguments, they are notable in the Norwegian Blitz community. Punkmorten 19:09, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 18:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of crisis hotlines by country

I hesitate to nominate this because of its potential usefulness. However, I don't think it is appropriate material for Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not give medical advice and there could be legal complications of having such a document. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 02:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete As above. Although the article could be modified to simply list the organisations and provide external links. Although I still say delete because as was said above, Wikipedia is not for giving medical advice. Forbsey 02:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    Merge with Crisis hotline Forbsey 07:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this could grow into an interesting list, mostly on whether some countries have them and how different cultures view different things as crises. Do the French have a crisis line for people who are worried they're becoming fascists? That kind of thing. And this is not medical advice, and since no lawyer has complained, I can't see how we have any liability for listing a bunch of hotline numbers. Tempshill 03:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, hotlines can be notable. Kappa 03:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete currently a list of three crisis hotlines with phone numbers. We don't have a guideline in WP:NOTabout not being a phone directory but we should. This is information that would normally looked at in the yellow pages. A list of crisis hotline services linking to articles or redlinks may well be useful on the other hand. Capitalistroadster 04:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with something along the lines of Emergency telephone number.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Very, very week Keep Reyk 06:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This looks like phonebook entries, not an encyclopedia article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Wikipedia does not give medical advice. The hotlines this article is about do. — JIP | Talk 09:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (or at least merge) Crisis hotline already links to such resources --Anetode 09:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Crisis hotline. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongest Keep Possible This is a WP:IAR issue for me, at the very least. Readers directed to that list may be considering killing themselves. An article about Crisis Hotlines will not work. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    Thank you, that's what I've been trying to say. ~~ N (t/c) 20:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per JIP. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Trollderella 16:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per JIP. the wub "?!" 17:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry, but I do not buy the whole "it is our civic duty to have this - there are people contemplating SUICIDE out there!". If they want advice, they can type this into Google. We are not the place for this. And anyway, when was the last time anyone thought of using Wikipedia to get a phone number?! Batmanand 17:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    The idea is, a user might look up (for some reason) suicide or especially suicide methods, and be confronted with this link (in Template:Suicide). It's not like suicidal people actually look for help (otherwise they wouldn't really be suicidal) - it has to be thrust upon them. ~~ N (t/c) 20:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and possibly transwiki such a list to Yellowikis. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, possibly keep information with or linked transwiki from Crisis hotline. ∴ here…♠ 20:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per JIP and Hipocrite. ~~ N (t/c) 20:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    Delete per Wikipedia-is-not-a-directory. Since individual crisis hotlines are unencyclopedic, the only purpose of this article is to be linked to from Template:Suicide - a function equally well or better served by an offsite link. ~~ N (t/c) 21:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a phone or web directory. This is not an encyclopedia article (whereas crisis hotline is, and even has some links for further reading). MCB 21:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a phonebook. --Carnildo 21:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki... somewhere - Wikisource, perhaps? Far too useful to simply be deleted, but not Wikipedia material. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete moral: vandalism could be potentially fatal. practical: unmaintainable, liable to be always incomplete, untimely etc. procedural: wikipedia is not a telephone directory. quality: incomplete USA biased with a touch of UK. not worth it. Mozzerati 20:37, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 18:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society

  • Strong Delete Once again, a case of listmania. In addition, there are many errors in this list, and in essence, just a group of repeated names.
  • Strong keep. Why do so many people want to delete lists of Jews? The fact that there are several such lists, many of which are frequently edited, shows that many in the Wiki community want them. If there are errors, let people correct them or at least flag the article for attention. If we deleted every article with errors in, where would Wikipedia be? Unlike the previous editor, I am happy to sign my vote.
    RachelBrown 13:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete People want to delete the lists of Jews because they're getting seriously repetitive and our part of the great listmania craze. Soon stuff like List of Jews on BBC with Red Hair will appear. Ofcourse people like you would naturally blame it on anti-semitism. Have some sense.
    72.144.150.139 15:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note: the person who made the last entry has the same IP address as the (completely anonymous) editor who started this page.
    RachelBrown 21:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, if only to resitst this listophobia. mikka (t) 21:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless subdivision. Sliggy 23:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Way too many of these lists EscapeArtistsNeverDie 02:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, provides a useful resource. Evil Eye 16:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just got done voting on another one of these. We don't both listing members of the Royal Society but do bother doing more specific groups like Jews? What a joke. Antidote 19:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Wrong! There is a category for Fellows (not members!) of the Royal Society. Easy enough to knock up a complete list if anyone wants. 81.153.43.82 13:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Rogerd 13:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems useful. Klonimus 05:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There is no doubt that Fellows of the Royal Society deserve to be included in any respectable Encyclopedia. In current situation not all Fellows of this List are included in List of British Jews. LazarKr 07:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I've found this useful in my researches - 213.187.48.246 18:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete What categories are made for. 72.144.191.32 03:44, 26 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. — JIP | Talk 07:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish Members of Russian Academy of Sciences

Strong Delete This is listmania at it's worst. We're not going to make a list of Yale graduates —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antidote (talk • contribs) 01:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • DeleteLists are not encyclopedic in themselves.-Dakota 02:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. List of Members of Russian Academy of Sciences makes sense. This doesn't. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This Listcruft is getting worse and worse --JAranda | watz sup 20:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete listcruft on steriods Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. I don't know where, but there was a discussion about using lists instead of categories for Jews. I was pointed at this when I was voicing against such lists. But I was explained, and witnessed myself that Jewish categories bringg huge flurry of vandalism and trolling into pages of persons that categorized as Jews. Lists are not so visible to random vandals. Keeping low profile was a major tool of survival of Jewish people for millenia (this in my POV, may be wrong). mikka (t) 17:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Howcheng. --fvw* 18:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • weak Delete Molotov (talk)
    23:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless subdivision. Sliggy 23:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are an infinite amount of these lists and they don't get any more useful. In fact about 1/3 of this list is repeated on other lists. Wikipedia is not a playground.
  • Delete per above --Rogerd 13:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep useful list. Klonimus 05:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep List of Russian Jews have a very week representation of Russian Jewish scientists.Simple addition of Jewish members of Russian Academy of Science will improve this List drastically. LazarKr 07:31, 24 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 18:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Kilkenny people

A list that contains no content at all. Alr 17:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC) Keep, as it now has some content, but I'm still not sure whether it's encyclopedic. Alr 15:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Maybe when some famous Kilkenny people can be found the page can be Undeleted. For now though, "chop off its head!" Batmanand 17:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)No opinion It now has content, which counts in its favour. However, I am still not sure if it is encyclopaedic enough for Wikipedia. Maybe best would be to merge the info into the Kilkenny article and then delete this page? I dunno. Any ideas anyone else? Batmanand 22:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete One month is enough time to list famous people from anywhere--Reflex Reaction 19:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC) Keep Sufficient addition by Dylons493 --Reflex Reaction 20:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added a (fairly random) set. Lots of room for expansion. Dlyons493 Talk 20:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as useful list of notable Kilkenny residents for planning future articles. Thanks to DLyons493 for his additions. Capitalistroadster 00:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plenty of other lists on the 'pedia. Meiers Twins 18:39, 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. Hermione1980 23:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Notable Bigfoot Sightings or Reports

Looks like non-verifiable OR to me. Haeleth 19:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete But if possible, move to BJAODN. The fact that the list of notable sightings includes just one viewing in Alpena, Michigan over a bowl of cheerios is sort of funny. Total hoax though... I'm from Michigan and not even Bigfoot would waste time in Alpena.--Isotope23 20:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Could be recovered, but until then, delete Molotov (talk)
    20:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Sliggy 20:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - such a list would be of interest, but this list only has one item, and it isn't notable. --MacRusgail 09:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't you have to have more than one item for it to be a list? --Holderca1 18:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete OR --Rogerd 05:47, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Local Ink Travel Wiki

This wiki is so tiny that it can't be notable. It has less than ten pages. The recent changes are almost empty. [17] A Google search about the topic shows only Wikipedia article copies, which isn't a big surprise. -Hapsiainen 22:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. -Hapsiainen 22:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - Forbsey 23:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 13:40, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. As there was only one "delete" vote, I feel it is safe to keep this. Anyone wanting to merge or redirect this can do so later. — JIP | Talk 18:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luxembourgism

del nonnotable. Sheesh! What next? Zetkinism? John"Jack"SilasReedism? Petty differences in opinions of some commies hardly warrant separate article. May well be merged into Council Communism. mikka (t) 01:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I'm not sure about the "non-notable". If they identify themsleves that way, who are we to say different.--Mpeisenbr 01:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep 420 hits is a tad low, but the other sites point to Communism, which means the article is at least accurate. Acetic'Acid 01:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Rosa Luxemburg, since it carries her name, is directly connected to her, and (I assume) basically just means a follower of her political beliefs. --Aquillion 01:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Rosa Luxemburg. Luxemburg was certainly notable. One person's "petty difference in opinion" is another's life struggle. This is no different than the political differences which have caused schisms in other political parties, just that it's within Marxism. - Sensor 01:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Your remark is good and all, only that I don't think that Luxemburg's was a significant schism. Certainly all people have different opinion, but to warrant an "-izm" one must have at least a notable group of followers or to become notorious: Bushism. mikka (t) 20:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Point taken, which is why I voted merge rather than an outright delete. - Sensor 00:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Rosa Luxemburg. As per above.  freshgavinTALK   02:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just want to note that the Red Wiki redirects to council communism. --JJay 03:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Rosa Luxemburg. Please fix spelling inconsistencies when merging. Logophile 06:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Reyk 06:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep short but informative article. "Close to Council Communism, but somtimes different : for example luxemburgists don't reject unions or elections by principle" would be bettered by outlining all differences in a seperate section. Alf melmac 10:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Trollderella 16:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect to Council Communism. This is used to describe some currents of Trotskyism - for example the UK Socialist Workers' Party are described (by their opponents) as Luxembourgist. Secretlondon 19:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I may be out of grasp with modern times. Certainly there was not heard of "Luxemburgism" in my best communist times. If you can provide notable references of the usage of the term (which is yet another problem with the article: wikipedia:verifiability), then the article may become valid. mikka (t) 20:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Rosa Luxemburg and merge any applicable content.--Isotope23 19:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Rosa Luxemburg, merge content, less than 500 google hits for the term. ∴ here…♠ 19:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
about the google hits : there are 2 spellings : luxembourgism and luxemburgism, and you may also add luxemburgist...
luxembourgism/421 luxemborgism/40 luxembourgist/170 luxemborgist/40, even worse. ∴ here…♠ 02:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Expandable article. Google may not be the best tool here because Luxembourgism isn't really current. JStor gives 39 hits in their database of academic journals, which isn't bad ([18] — link will only work if you're on a subscribing network). Chick Bowen 02:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. per Chick Bowen. --Kewp (t) 15:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

OK if you like it, you keep it, but the article is as useless, naive and nonverifiable as it can be. mikka (t) 21:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Then it should be improved. I have now done so, including NPOVing and citation of reliable sources. Chick Bowen 02:22, 24 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 No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 05:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mall Goth

This is an unsourced POV piece about what makes a "real" Goth different from a "poser Goth". I don't see how it could ever be encyclopedic. Friday (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Goth or Hot Topic Youngamerican 20:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a slang def neologism that is not WP:V as far as I can tell. More urbandictionary.com than wikipedia...--Isotope23 20:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Goth or Keep --MilkMiruku 20:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is getting a lot of flack from people with nothing better to do. If its so bad then improve, personally I think this is an important article.--Pypex 13:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Goth - Forbsey 00:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Many authentic slang terms have articles on Wikipedia and this counts as one of them. - Danteferno 00:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. There is a large difference between Goth and Mall Goth in both sound and history.
  • NN, delete. ComCat 00:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Goth. The Republican 03:33, 28 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 No Consensus, added merge templete to: Lionhead. Rx StrangeLove 05:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Healey

While adding a cvg-infobox to Rag Doll Kung Fu, I accidentally (force of habit) wikified Mark Healey's name. Doing so gave birth to this extraneous and non-notable monstrosity. Delete --Anetode 10:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom Harvestdancer 15:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand - I disagree, I think that this person is notable. Specifically he as been interviewed by GameSpot regarding his work. And for a google Search of "Mark Healy" lionhead returns 12,200 results. Given this page needs to be expanded and kept to a NPOV, but I think he is notable enough. -- Malo 17:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Gator1 19:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep plenty of hits, in an extremely google-biased subject matter. does seem legit, and a major contributor to a few top games. expansion warrented, indeed necessary ∴ here…♠ 21:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Lionhead. --JJay 21:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN involved in some top secret project, the physics of which apparently piss over everything else in the market. Charming. Get rid of it or merge. Devotchka 01:25, 26 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 Withdrawn/Keep Marskell 12:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marshall Gold Discovery State Historic Park

Ad. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Per rewrite, nomination withdrawn, thus Speedy Keep.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:53, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 05:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew 24:34

Delete. This article consists of one single quoted Bible verse, with no discussion of the verse at all, no assertion of notability. We don't need to have a Wikipedia article for each Bible verse unless there is something particularly notable about it. ♠DanMS 04:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

What greater claim to 'notability' could you want than it being the Word of God?! Trollderella 16:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was talking about in my vote. If we allow this sort of reasoning we might just as well rename this encyclopedia to "Christipedia" and forbid articles about atheism or non-Christian religions. — JIP | Talk 14:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -Andrew 04:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Truly I say unto you, Delete this article as per nom. Ifnord 04:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, I think there is substantial commentary on this verse... but, as of now the article has nothing. I think it could maybe have potential, although I think it needs more context (Matthew 24) than "turn the other cheek" type verses. gren グレン 05:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The bible is already on Wikibooks.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  07:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. per above. -- WB 08:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is it with people creating articles about individual Bible verses? Do they feel it is their holy obligation as decent, God-fearing Christians? I hope I don't come off as a godless freedom-hating communist bastard, but I think that while the Bible is notable, individual parts of its contents aren't. — JIP | Talk 08:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Calm down. There are even more here: Matthew 4. Anyway, calm down. -- WB 09:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Well, we have gotten to the point where we're creating every album by any semi-notable artist. While interest may not be with religious books these days, over time there has been tons of exegeses about every single Bible verse (Qur'an too for that matter) and by people more notable (Aquinas, Augustine, Lewis, Maududi, Qutb) than all but a select few recording artists. I'm not advocating creating every verse of course, but I do think in perspective this is no less sane than creating albums when you have nothing more than an album box and a track listing. gren グレン 12:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment on comment: The articles on the verses in Matthew 4 are rather nice, because they not only quote the verse, but also explain its significance in various aspects and what people feel about it. This verse article, though, is nothing but a verbatim cite of the verse. Keeping it without expanding would set a precedent that everything in the Bible is automatically notable, regardless of whether anyone cares about it any more than anything other in the Bible, or of whether anyone actually has anything to say about it. It would feel like a pro-Christian bias to me. — JIP | Talk 14:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, though I have no issue with recreating if exegesis is added. I expect we'd have copyright issues if we started keeping every verse (I think the common rule is no more than half of any particular book). — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I could see a point if it treated a certain controversial topic, possibly, although it would better serve as support under in that topic's article. As it stands, the article does nothing. ElAmericano 14:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was considering suggesting making Bible verses into redirects to Bible, but then I realized that would be extreme overkill. On the other hand, we may eventually have to protect these, as there have been many. I don't suggest a blanket protection of the creation of all Bible verse articles (if that were possible, and it's probably not), however, because there are some particularily "notorious" Bible verses that people could write about. (And I bet there are some good ones out there. Perhaps someone could comment and show me one.) I am trying to think of what a user wants when they enter that search term. I wonder if a suggestion on the top of Bible about where to find a copy of the Bible online would help? --Jacquelyn Marie 15:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
John 3:16... widely referenced (though not quoted) on christian apparel. etc. It even appears on In-N-Out Burger wrappers [19] Very conceivable that a person would wiki that term if they just saw "John 3:16" on their burger wrapper.--Isotope23 20:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Very good point. I've turned it into a wikilink in the hopes of tempying someone to write it. :) --Jacquelyn Marie 23:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh neat! It exists already! --Jacquelyn Marie 23:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
On Wikipedia there really should not be
An article for everyone to see
When all it contains
are biblical strains
from one gospel but not the other three.
FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect per Trollderella. No reason to have a page for every bible verse.--Isotope23 20:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete religioncruft. MCB 21:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, Lord, delete this verse, for it is but one verse unto a multitude, and providedth of no context, is but a waste of disk space. May it be smitten from thine Wikipedia, and the earth salted until thine servants produce an article instead of a quotation from thine holy fiction. In the name of our lord Jimbo, amen. Lord Bob 21:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • You realize, of course, that your comment, which will be archived, now takes up more disk space than the article that you propose to delete, on the (incorrect) assumption that there is a shortage of disk space. Help. My head hurts.... Trollderella 18:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • You realize, of course, that when somebody writes a deletion vote as a prayer, it's probably a joke. Also, that I said it was a waste of disk space, not that there is a shortage of disk space. There's a difference. Actually, this comment is also a waste of disk space, so I'm going to stop now. Lord Bob 18:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
        • 2 sv dsk spc wll b brff, jk fnny. c u l8r, Trollderella 18:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. by the way: there are articles on many, many verses from the new and old testament up here. Is there some other wikiplace that they can all be sent? Given all the different translations of the bible and the many online versions of the bible already on the internet, it seems that they just do not need to be here.—Gaff ταλκ 03:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, let me know if it's expanded. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hopeless orphaned excerpt. --Meiers Twins 18:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • So when does it actually get deleted? Clearly, we're all in agreement. ElAmericano 21:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • AfD period is 5 days if I'm not mistaken... could be up to 7 days before an admin gets around to deleting it though... just depends.--Isotope23 02:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless significant context added. 70.27.59.200 20:19, 25 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. Hermione1980 00:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Perry (bass player)

Shows no signs of notability and from a non notable band. rydia 05:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no results for Matthew Perry + Infinite Rapture and only 8 results for Matthew Perry + Infinite Rapture. Google's not always reliable but based on it being an anon, and not clue as to anything else it's all we have. gren グレン 05:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence that Infinite Rapture meet WP:music. A Google search for "Infinite Rapture" band came up with this Musolist page [20] containing this ad: "Jul 26, 05 Infinite Rapture hey, we're a rock band from West London. Looking for an enthusiastic vocalist aged 14-19 our influences are Guns n Roses, Iron Maiden and Velvet Revolver, however we are open to new influences. Vis ... " If this is the band, it would suggest that it does not meet WP:music and that Mr Perry is not notable enough either. A search on Allmusic.com for Infinite Rapture came up empty and Gren has not been able to find much in his efforts.Capitalistroadster 07:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with the above. -- WB 07:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Could this article be any more deletable? Oh, sorry, wrong Matthew Perry. Get rid anyway. Peeper 12:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and the proof of the good Wikipedians who came here before me. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. Optichan 20:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:38, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maximianno Cobra

Non-notable, looks like a copy-vio too. WB 01:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable musician. Tempshill 03:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio from [21]. Tagged and bagged. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons given here and for TEMPUS Theory. - Dalbury
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 01:55, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MBTA Special

Neologism. Invented term design to attack MBTA. Hurricane111 19:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, as per nomination --Amxitsa 19:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - probably in use, but still a dicdef. --MacRusgail 19:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:43, 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 speedy delete. Article incorrectly refered to Afd.Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meghanisms

Delete. This is nonsense. This might be a newbie test page. Mpeisenbr 02:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete nonsense, test page. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 02:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as above Forbsey 02:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy del as above. -- WB 03:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • NOOOOOO lol this is not gonna be nonsence i am going to make it into a page thats funny
    • According to Wikipedia rules, joke pages are nonsense. If you wish to publish your own work, please try making a personal website on Geocities or another free website provider. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 03:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • There is a section in Wikipedia for jokes though. Called Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. -- WB 03:10, 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 Rename the article Colony class frigates. Rx StrangeLove 05:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Colony Class Frigates

The result of the debate was Redirected by the AfD nominator after the last vote was cast, no need to delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind that, it wasn't redirected, but after the nominator changed his vote like that I think the best way to go is to relist. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

There were no such ships; the entire article seems to be a misconception based on a line in the HM Frigate by Nicholas Monsarrat, which is a fictionalized account of Monsarrat's service: names of ships and classes have been changed! Gdr 23:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can find no mention of this. Even the article itself implies it's a combination of speculation and mistakes. At best, unverifiable. --A D Monroe III 02:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Rogerd 02:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article could presumably be made factual by clearly stating that this is a fictional class of frigates in Monsarrat's work, but what's the point? It's just arcane. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The article definitely needs work, but its not fictional. According to DANFS, the 21 Tacoma class frigates that were lend-leased to Britain were called the "Colony class" and were indeed named after minor colonies. The online version of DANFS doesn't have entires for all of the ships (PF-72 through PF-92) but the ones it does have articles for are were named in British service Anguilla, Antigua, Ascension, Bahamas, Barbados, Caicos, Cayman, Dominica, Lauban (ex-Gold Coast), Tobago, Montserrat, Nyasaland, Papua, Pitcairn, St. Helena, and Tortola. Caerwine 05:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • So why didn't the article say so? I see from Colledge, Ships of the Royal Navy that these ships are known as Colony class frigates (without the "minor"), so I will redirect. Gdr 11:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename I included the information I found into the article, but it really should be renamed to Colony class frigates. Caerwine 05:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't know anything about any country's military ships, particularly not about Merka's, so I have to take everyone's word for this. — JIP | Talk 09:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • To be a little picky with a someone I've noticed to be a fine editor, should the above vote count? "I take your word for it and vote delete as well?" It's sort of an irresponsible vote. Marskell 12:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • You're right. I retract my delete vote. — JIP | Talk 13:55, 24 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. Rx StrangeLove 05:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammet TURŞAK

Turkish. Has been on WP:PNT since 6 October. Physchim62 13:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English:

In Turkish. Probably a vanity page... Thue | talk 09:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
It's the CV of an individual. Should be deleted. Pinar 08:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone translates before the end of AfD.--Isotope23 18:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:01, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 05:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Music and Moonlight

Useless text dump. Alr 17:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete Concur - no need to keep --Reflex Reaction 19:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; not an encyclopedia article. Maybe, being in the public domain, it belongs in WikiBooks or WikiSource? MCB 00:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:32, 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 speedy deleted as a contextless neologism. Friday (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NDAD

Google says "Your search - ndad 'never drink and drive' - did not match any documents". This user is a known contributor of dross, POV, (possible) vandalism, and (if what someone says at the AfD for "4 good reasons" is true) is a banned user anyway. Enough said. Fourohfour 15:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom... this doesn't even seem to be a real acronym/shorthand. --W.marsh 15:56, 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 as copyvio --Carnildo 23:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Net Matrix

it's an AD Melaen 16:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Its an article defining a company - you will have the same such articles for Accenture, BearinG point et al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.200.82 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC) (article creator)

No, our article on Accenture is descriptive and written from a NPOV. This is advertising. Haeleth
  • Copyvio from [22], [23], etc. Delete as soon as possible to minimise liability~! :D Haeleth 17:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per copyvio and A8 — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete copyvios. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:35, 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 delete. Hermione1980 00:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Netstation

Non notable net cafe and borders on spam/vanity. Does an article need to be written about 1 single net cafe? Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 20:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --JAranda | watz sup 20:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn local business. MCB 01:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. However, I think that there are certain net cafes which are notable, either for sheer size, bizarre location, or for being early representatives, but "Netstation" appears to fit none of these criteria. --MacRusgail 09:09, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:48, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 00:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ninja Buddhist Monks

Apparent vanity; completely non-notable. Yahoo search results in one apparently unrelated hit. Brandon39 11:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nominator. More or less POV relatet. Lack of Notability Oyvind 12:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Funny but non-notable and POV so delete --Amxitsa 12:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. They've crossed the fine line. --JJay 22:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:41, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No Pants Party

The article is purely satirical, not factual, so it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. — 70.248.60.250 22:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 22:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Reyk 23:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - Forbsey 23:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic nonsense. MCB 01:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Down with Pants, sorry I mean Delete --MacRusgail 09:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Rogerd 13:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but definitely one for BJAODN. Peeper 16:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC) says 'no pants'
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Omar & The Spitmonkeys

NN, D. ComCat 03:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. All information is true and verifiable. This is a notable entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.74.66 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 21 October 2005
  • Delete. Non-notable. A concert at Greenwood Jaycee Hut is not a concert.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No Google hits. Somebody could have made this up. -- WB 07:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete allmusic.com has no results for either this band's name, or its lead singer. I am unable to find any matchup with WP:MUSIC guidelines for notablity. I got zero google results. -- Malo 17:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN per Malo --Rogerd 02:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't Delete it. I am from Greenwood, SC, and the author of this article e-mailed me to tell me he had written it. I was at the concert mentioned in this article, and being from Greenwood, I can tell you that the Greenwood Jaycee Hut was actually quite a popular venue subsequent to Omar playing there. It should be noted that both Chip McKenzie and members of Elf Power were part of the Greenwood music scene that Omar was a pioneer member of. I think that this is a valid article, despite the fact that it may not appeal to a mass audience. Please see: http://www.flagpole.com/articles.php?fp=5543 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.216.113.2 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 20 October 2005

How many people must an article be meaningful to in order for it to enter the Wikipedia? This is a factual article about a music group which was once quite popular with numerous people in the SC music scene in the mid-1990's. There certainly is a need for articles like this in the Wikipedia. True knowledge is true knowledge, regardless of the number of people who may be in search of it. Do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.74.66 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 October 2005

It is not necessarily the number of people that determine notability. It is instead determined by WP:MUSIC, the wikipedia guidelines for music entries. And in my opinion, this band does not meet the requirements as set forth. -- Malo 21:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I disagree that Omar & The Spitmonkeys does not meet the requirements set forth by WP:MUSIC, please see requirement #6: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city..." To people in New York or L.A., the most prominent member of the Greenwood, SC music scene of the mid-90's may not be a big deal, but Omar was important to a lot of people, and other bands, in this region at this time. If you ask people who were part of the scene, even today, to name the band that best represents the Greenwood Scene at this time, the answer will almost universally be Omar. I continue to think that this is a valid entry, that people may well look for, and enjoy, and find informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.216.113.2 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 21 October 2005
Well if that were the case, don't you find it odd that the "most prominent representation" of their style doesn't return a single google hit. Given google is not the end all be all of knowledge or notability, but I still don't think that this band is the "Most prominent" their style, (remember "style" doesn't necessarily mean "scene"). Also please don't confuse popularity with notability. -- Malo 17:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
By invoking requirement #6 of WP:MUSIC, I wasn't attempting to argue that Omar was the "most prominent representation of their style" (though their improvisational comedic satire and tight focus on their immediate environment as sources of inspiration is not something I've come across anywhere else), rather I was putting forth Omar as the "most prominent representative of... the local scene of a city". I think that what I said above is true, if you ask anyone about the Greenwood, SC music scene, the first name that you will hear is Omar. I realize that being the most prominent representative of the music scene of a city that most people have never heard of is not like being the most prominent representative of Manchester, England; or even Athens, GA (to use an example closer to hand); but I don't think that the lack of size or current notoriety of a cities' scene should cause it to be ignored. Athens wasn't Athens until R.E.M. and the B52's (and later Neutral Milk Hotel) made it such. Just because Omar (and the other great Greenwood bands of that time, like the ones I mentioned above, and the J.J. Kids, Cumeadus, etc.) didn't put Greenwood on the map, doesn't, in my opinion, mean that the scene deserves no reference of its existence. I hope that Wikipedia is the place for that reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.216.113.2 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 21 October 2005
As for Google, please bear in mind that this is a band that formed in the early nineties, and broke up pre-2000. I remember that they had a website while they were still active, but I imagine it folded around when the band did. Although the tiniest local band may have a web presence in this day and age, it wasn't necessarily so at the time when Omar was at the height of their popularity. I think that may explain why, despite the fact that Omar had such a loyal and rabid fanbase in their region, they don't show up as a result of a Google search today. Sorry to have gone on so long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.216.113.2 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 21 October 2005


Don't delete the Omar article! I was at the concert at the Jaycee Hut, and it really was a landmark performance for the Greenwood rock scene, many members of which have gone on to fortify the legendary Athens, GA music scene. Anyone who says that Omar & the Spitmonkeys is not a notable group is just being snobbish.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Omar_%26_The_Spitmonkeys" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyrhtak55 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 21 October 2005

All of this discussion about Omar & The Spitmonkeys has made me get out the old CD's and listen to them again for the first time in a few years. How dare you say this band is non-notable! As a teenager growing up in Greenwood in the '90s, Omar and the other bands of the scene meant so very much to me. The memories and emotions that came back while listening to the CD's made me think of a time and place that was shared by many people. Omar & The Spitmonkeys sold tapes & CDs, played concerts, and were well-known and loved in the local scene. As the Wikipedia grows and becomes more pervasive, people will search for Omar & the Spitmonkeys. Personally, I do most of my factual searches on Wikipedia first, not Google, so that I can hopefully find somewhat obscure articles. Do not delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.88.74.66 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 October 2005

This concert was put on by Omar and the Spitmonkeys and began as a small one band show with only a few select guests. Once word spread that Omar and the Spitmonkeys were putting on a show, the entire Greenwood music community seemed to appear from nowhere and begged to play the Jaycee Hut with Omar. As an alternative to pop bands such as Eleven Day Trip or cover bands such as Dropchord, Omar's comedic satirical songs about relevant Greenwood issues brought out many Indie rock bands such as Shutter whose founding members are now the band The Disease on the Van's Warped Tour. So this article is factual, helpful, and deserving of being kept in place. Please do not delete this article. Big Dave the sound man67.76.97.57 17:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)DT

KEEP Well, being from Greenwood, I can attest to the accuracy of the article ...even if you did not like the music ...it is all true, plus the comments from other folks from Greenwood above. The band did exists, did play, and had a loyal following. The members have all gone on to different parts of the state/country/world, but the facts of the article are true. Russell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.113.61.6 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 25 October 2005

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Radiant_>|< 00:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oscar Wilde/Biblio

Everything here is replicated in the bibliography section of Oscar Wilde, and this isn't one of the fourfive allowed uses of subpages at Wikipedia:Subpages. However, inappropriate subpage is not a CSD, so here we are. Chick Bowen 23:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Oscar Wilde. Brandon39 23:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Um, redirects are also not one of the allowed uses of subpages. Chick Bowen 23:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • That's fine, but let's merge this into the main article and redirect to preserve edit history. JYolkowski // talk 02:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This looks like it ought to be a template. Rename to Template:Oscar Wilde and place on the bottom of Oscar Wilde-related pages. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:29, 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. Radiant_>|< 00:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Otium

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Delete--Isotope23 20:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - I might consider them notable, if the "national airplay" claim can be verified. It would be interesting if it charted too (although I am not a great fan of the "chart" idea myself - just helps to fix them) --MacRusgail 09:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd withdraw if they charted... whether I agree or not that would meet WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 02:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I did some checking on them and they seem to be just playing local gigs, and do not meet WP:MUSIC --Rogerd 12:53, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Hermione1980 00:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Otium Demo

Non-notable album. Alr 17:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete nn album that was never even released --Reflex Reaction 19:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unreleased demo.--Isotope23 20:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per AlbertR and Isotope23. But there is no rule allowing speedies of unreleased albums, probably because some of the more notable ones, whose release is imminent, wind up being kept. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about speedy deletes. I'm relatively new in Afd and appreciate the comment --Reflex Reaction 04:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:31, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Our Country

Quote: "Our Country will have it's first public presentation at Casco in Utrecht, november 5 2005. Before that time the history of Our Country will be researched, discussed and implemented on Wikipedia".

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a free webhost, propoganda machine, or publisher of original thought.

-- Haeleth 16:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. KHM03 17:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, though the notion of implementing history is... interesting? — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn --MacRusgail 19:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn micronation. MCB 22:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Please give us two more weeks - after the 2nd of November we will move Our Country to a more appropriate location. We're staying to ourselves, not tampering with anything and the statement at the top of the article explains what we're doing... JoPu 14:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Download the wiki software and you can have an entire wiki to yourself on your own web host. (Wikipedia is not a web host.) MCB 00:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy Obvisouly not encyclopedic, and very silly to attempt to put on wikipedia... but harmless. I suggest a move to User:Jopu/Our Country The Minister of War 18:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, moved it to User:Our Country JoPu 11:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete the redirect from mainspace, and delete the userfied copy. Clearly not a user page, and User:Our Country has no contributions. Wikipedia is not a free web host. —Cryptic (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • And JoPu, whose userspace it should have gone into, has no edits to the encyclopedia. —Cryptic (talk) 04:48, 28 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. — JIP | Talk 06:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Over My Dead Body

Vanity cruft for a nn band, who have "yet to record an album" Tonywalton  | Talk 23:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails under WP:MUSIC - Forbsey 23:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Known for its extreme good looks..." Band vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 13:41, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Owera

Possible vanity article created by User:Eaaland, as per above. The Minister of War 16:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. KHM03 17:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising vanity. Eddie.willers 21:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


Not correct. Owera are setting industry standards, and therefore should be mentione. I have contributed with creating the first xAPS article, and if this is viewed as advertising, then my contribution will end here. xAPS is a standard created by Owera, that large companies are using (Check Owera webpage for more info on this).

See WP:CORP--Rogerd 04:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ad. 109 Googlits for +owera +voip, and another 217 for +"sx design" +voip. (SX Design is the former name of the company.) Lupo 08:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity (xaps seems to be a proprietary product). Person shows no interest in any Wikipedia goals or principles, hence the user should also possibly be blocked and subject words be added to a blacklist. -- NoUser 13:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:34, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Thomas Kycia

Google test returns results varying from 5 to 610 depending on terms. While it is very sad that a young college student died under mysterious circumstances, I do no believe this person is notable enough to deserve an article. After consulting WP:BIO, I just don't think this person meets those guidelines. Particularly the 100 year test, which says -- "In 100 years time will anyone without a direct connection to the individual find the article useful?" And personally I am not convinced that they will. -- Malo 02:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I haven't heard anything about this case, but I don't pay much attention to the media. Has it received a lot of coverage? I say weak keep for now. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 02:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't say as I have heard of this case before, I found this page using the Random article feature. Apparently the events just took place last month. Sad, but I don't think that qualifies as a guideline of being notable. -- Malo 03:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Tempshill 03:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a memorial. This is just a local interest news item. Friday (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable. Reyk 05:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I read about this case in the Washington Times, making it a lot more notable than some of the other nonsense (the history of virtual flame wars and pokemen characters) that's allowed to stay. 01:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.20.128 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 20 October 2005
  • Delete the article is well written, the incident regretable. Unless there has been a fuore over this, it is only a memorial. If said furore is shown, please notify me and I'll change my vote accordingly. Alf melmac 10:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Factual, verifiable, and neutral article is possible. Trollderella 16:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. People die very day. -R. fiend 17:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tragic, but nn ephemeral local news story. MCB 21:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails on numerous grounds- memorial, crystal ball, NPOV. --JJay 21:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notably sad local incident which was mentioned in the Washington Times [24]. It has a website [25]. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sadly, there are far too many similar incidents. I see nothing worthy of an encyclopedia article in this case. - Dalbury 00:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jjay. Dottore So 13:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete lots of deaths are reported in newspapers, this one isn't notable. --Kewp (t) 15:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is relevant per current events - lately the authorities have begun cracking down on substance, alcohol et al abuse in higher ed especially inside of fraternities. Oh by the way...why does stupid Snowball get an article for dying? No one gives a damn about Snowball. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_%28Hurricane_Katrina_dog%29 --Khatores
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 wonder why nobody made a reference to the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" when the following could be found in the article: "He was kidknapped on November 11th, 2005.". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Walker "Texas Ranger" McKee

Tagged as speedy -- probably borderline, vanity page. Listing here. No vote. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this unfortunately-not-speedy vanity page. Being a "rising star" at the campus tech help desk and getting an iPod are not assertions of notability, nor is owning a Mercury. The car collector bit is unverifiable and likely a hoax. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity page --Reflex Reaction 19:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Gator1 19:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as nn-bio. There is nothing even resembling an assertion of notability in this article, and I even read back through the versions, so I can't see bringing it to AfD, although Katefan0 is very careful in giving it the benefit of the doubt. MCB 00:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7 per MCB. --Metropolitan90 03:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per Metropolitan90. This was also my original plan, before the {{afd}} tag was placed and the afd-debate got rolling. -- SoothingR 08:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:35, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pharmaceutical project

Non-encyclopedic; half the page was a blatant copyvio, which I've blanked, and what remains borders on an instruction manual, which is not what Wikipedia's supposed to be.} Haeleth 20:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete one of a series of text dumps from this source. Secretlondon 20:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:47, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Piker

I've tried to clean it up, but it still looks like a dicdef. chocolateboy 18:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unsalvageable.Gator1 19:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with Gator --Reflex Reaction 19:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above --Rogerd 05:33, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Psyche out

Fails WP:MUSIC Delete --JAranda | watz sup 22:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. There is a band called 'Pysche out' on AMG but it doesn't seem to be this band. --W.marsh 22:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above - Forbsey 23:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 13:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. mikka (t) 17:30, 24 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. — JIP | Talk 10:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] R-Mean

almost nonsensical Delete. -- (drini's page|☎) 03:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn-band vanity --Anetode 03:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Tempshill 03:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable band, article is nonencyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 08:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above and likely copyvio from cdbaby. Alf melmac 10:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per Alf. --JJay 15:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:14, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was transwikied by DragonflySixtyseven. Titoxd(?!?) 01:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ragi Dosa

Wikipedia is not a recipe book. DeleteTranswiki --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to wikibooks, cookbook. gren グレン 05:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wikibooks' cookbook.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. -- WB 08:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The Cookbook now has the recipe. Please choose what should be done with the article here in the encyclopaedia. Uncle G 11:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete after transwiki. Info about Ragi dosa is already mentioned in Ragi#Preparation_as_food. --Pamri • Talk 13:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete after transwiki per Parmi. Thanks for the helpful link. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete after transwiki- I do agree. --Bhadani 16:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. --Optichan 20:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete after transwiki. I'm hungry now. - Sensor 00:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Here's your Ragi dosa. Crappy pic I took today, but sure is tasty & filling. --Pamri • Talk 08:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete already transwikied Wikiacc (talk) 22:20, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 10:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ratfucking

NN dictdef, delete. ComCat 03:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to All The President's Men. Friday (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or possibly move to a Wiktionary entry. This information and term is not included in the All The President's Men article (and doesn't necessarily apply solely to that investigation), so justifies a seperate entry of some kind. Also, I think others should consider your massive and somewhat arbitrary VfD campaign, as your talk page indicates you're pursuing, when evaluating your nominations. --BenM 06:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Its use in Watergate makes it notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 07:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Friday. Interesting context, but still a dicdef. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. Trollderella 16:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the term has usage outside the book, maybe it could be its own article. But I'd want some verification of this. Friday (talk) 19:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've never heard of it and it's dicdef . . . transwiki to Wiktionary but not opposed to keep. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 19:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. --JJay 21:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The term Ratfucking also refers to the practice of selecting the best parts of military rations (or rats, now in the form of MREs) and throwing away the rest of the rations.
  • Keep you guys who were born after Watergate don't understand :) --Rogerd 02:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Friday --Me or a Robin 11:08, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recruit Event Services plc

vanity advertising and not notable just like Carlisle (also nominated) Gator1 21:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 21:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. feydey 08:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No notability established for this company. Article is a substub anyway. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 13:13, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_>|< 00:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Refaat ElGamal

this was previously speedied, but it has some claims of notability, so better go for sure with afd delete. -- (drini's page|☎) 03:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. Its a copyvio from the book description and review found here[[26]]. Plus the info is already on wiki at List_of_secret_agents --JJay 04:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. The article is so small that only facts. facts are not copyrightable. Rephrase and enjoy. If he on the list, he is notable. mikka (t) 22:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The only hits I can get on Google for "Refaat ElGamal", "Jack Biton", or "Zvi Alexander" are for reviews of Alexander's book and Wikipedia articles and mirrors. - Dalbury 00:29, 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. — JIP | Talk 11:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Return of the Ice Cube Trays

Non-notable. Google search turns up 13 hits. Amcfreely 10:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nominator. Such a comical title, yet such a boring and incomprehensible article. I feel strangely let down. Peeper 12:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. More band nonsense. I propose Wikipedia is not Myspace. --JJay 21:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:40, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RPGWorld

Not notable game. WP is not a place to promote an "unknown online 2D game". feydey 20:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, although IIRC there's a fairly notable webcomic by that name. --Carnildo 23:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 12:56, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Runescape: A Reality

Delete. Non-notable movie made by three high school students. DanMS 21:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete it is what it looks like Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Ryan Norton and Dan MS --MacRusgail 09:16, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 13:12, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. It's a non-profit convention, and I don't see any particular subjective praise for it, but hey, I'm just carrying out the consensus here. — JIP | Talk 18:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ruxcon

Advert. Alr 17:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete advertisement --Reflex Reaction 19:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator - blatant advertising. Eddie.willers 21:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:31, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). We have 4d-2k, but I am unsure what to make of the delete vote of Rogerd, "needs to be cleaned up" is not really a valid reason for deletion. I am therefore calling this a no consensus and will make some wikifikations. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan roxie

NN guitarist, although he plays for Alice Cooper. His own allmusic entry is blank, and his solo project does not meet WP:NMG guidelines. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails to meet guidelines - Forbsey 23:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Played with notable musicians in Alice Cooper and Slash and released his own record Peace Love & Armageddon. Meets WP:Music and 12,300 Google hits mostly about him see [27]. Capitalistroadster 01:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - as per Capialistroadster, the folk he plays with are no small fry. --MacRusgail 09:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete needs to be cleaned up --Rogerd 13:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn by themselves. mikka (t) 17:30, 24 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, by a vote of 14d-4k (78%), with votes by anonymous IPs discounted on both sides.--Scimitar parley 18:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sai Ho

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Appears to be vanity. Delete. Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am from melbourne and have seen a number of Sai Ho's plays. Just because you can't find him on google doesn't mean that he isn't a worthy melbourne artist. . --202.158.212.34 03:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • many worthy artists are also non-notable.—Gaff ταλκ 01:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to be some theatre related figure. See here. -- WB 03:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Only the first two links in the google result that are posted are about Sai Ho. They are copies of each other - one a post in a messageboard and other a mailing list - and tells the readers to contact Sai Ho for auditions. These google results are in no way any indications of notability. Tintin 04:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I am also from Melbourne, and attended Monash University. It does appear to be a vanity piece, considering the same author appears to think he's worth including in a Monash University alumnus list from which he claims to have refused to accept a degree from. Besides, how can you claim to be avant garde when the very name of your work is derivative? Delete(unsigend comment from ISP User: 203.58.120.11)

I would suggest that the above comments come from someone who knows Sai and doesn't like him for some reason. He refuses to sign --202.158.212.34 05:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that you can't be avant garde if the name of your piece is derivative. That is utter twadle. The avant garde's function is to discard earlier forms. How better to do this than to parody them??? --202.158.212.34 04:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • You can be avante garde with a derivative title sure. You can also be avante garde and non-notable after having published one play (was it in fact published or did he only write it?)—Gaff ταλκ 01:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • To expand on my reasons for voting delete: this is an encyclopedia, not a place where up and coming young artists, writes, painters, play-writes will be published after getting one work onto a small scene where it impresses a handful of first-hand aquintances and the people in their immediate community. If Sai is in fact the next Van Gogh or Samuel Beckett, then he will make his way here eventually, but does not belong here now. THis is nothing against Sai Ho or his work, but he fails at this point to meet the criteria for notability as a playwrite to warrant inclusion here. Once his work has drawn enough attention that articles, books, etc are made about his life and work, then it would be reasonable for him to have an article here. Having produced one play that has drawn recent attention in the theatre community in in Melbourne area is justnot enough. My first article submitted to WP was on a good friend who was a philosopher, writer, incredible story teller. I wrote it not long after he died. He was a great guy, but the article was deleted. This article reminds me of that one. Sorry but he just does not meet the criteria for notability.—Gaff ταλκ 00:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that the claims put in place by the author are somewhat unsubstantiated and appear nothing more than ego padding. You aren't supporting your argument by not addressing the point - 'avant garde' seems like a throwaway line especially since the summary seems rather formulaic. Admittedly the comment was flip, but I hardly think parody or misspelling 'twaddle' an avant garde artist make.

You are assuming that I am Sai Ho. I simply helped create the Sai page. Actually, as far as I know, he has no idea that the page about him exists. --202.158.212.34 05:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep. I don't think that Sai Ho's inclusion in Monash Alumni is particularly relevant to this page being a vanity article. I am a keen patron of the Melbourne underground theatre scene and he is a very active and well regarded theatre-maker. The very nature of an avant garde arts scene is not one of mass popular appeal, and it is absurd to delete this article because Sai Ho is not famous in the wider "Hollywood" sense of the word. Arguing about the spelling of words is also irrelevant to the claim that Sai Ho is not avant garde. The title "Clockwork Blue" is not derivative; it is using a literary technique called pastiche to draw upon other works, using them to create a "mish-mash" of new characters and scenes. It is an important element of postmodern literature, as it acknowledges the inescapalbe mass of discourse to which any new text is simply added. (211.28.129.240 05:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC))


  • Keep

It appears that many of the above comments are based upon the sands of misperception. No, I do not believe that the artist in question wrote the article about himself. I have met Mr Ho on a number of occassions at underground events (in Melbourne) over the past few years. He shuns publicity and the media -- information concerning his work is often attributed to aliases, which means that those who search for his name on the internet will be largely unsuccessful -- and, from my knowledge of his work, it would be beneath his artistic integrity to write such a piece about himself -- take the fact that he refused to graduate as evidence of this. I would strongly argue that this piece is entirely unauthorised, and hence should be acquitted of the charge of "vanity".

However, even if the writers of the previous comments deny this to be the truth (for how much does truth weigh when written on a computer screen?), and that, in some way, the artist was complicit in the article's writing (or, for that matter, any of the comments on this page, including the "twadle/twaddle" comment above), the article's value should still be apparent. If it were not for fora such as this, admittedly obscure, yet still culturally important works in the unwritten media will be lost for good.

Hence, I do not believe that this article should be deleted. But the complaints levelled at the article should not go unheeded. From my knowledge of the artist's work, the article is far from completion. I hence urge those unnamed forces at work behind it to finish their task, but to do so in a sanguine manner that puts forward the weaknesses in the artist's work as well, in the true spirit of the democratic quest for knowledge. We should accept that initial enthusiasm may later require adjustment and clarification, but it does not mean that we should remove its work for good.--130.194.13.102 05:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable. pfctdayelise 05:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -This guy is notable, though the article needs to be more neutral. Reyk 06:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • How is he notable? He wrote one play like one year ago. —Gaff ταλκ 00:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely non-notable (from a Melburnian). Ambi 10:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Sorry, I feel that I need to write again in response to new comments posted. I can't take seriously the claims from Melbourne residents that Sai Ho is not notable as an artist simply because they haven't heard of him. He is an underground artist, not a game-show host. It is patently absurd for people who seemingly have no intimate connection with the fringe theatre and arts scene in Melbourne to claim that they know who is noteworthy simply because they live there. It's also common knowledge that avant gardists hardly achieve fame as their work is not considered to be popular and is socially challenging. As the arts scene stands in Australia, it is very rare for any artist to become even remotely famous, let alone those who produce work outside of social acceptance. You can't judge Sai Ho against big budget musical theatre productions and touring companies, because in reality they play very different roles within the wider umbrella of the Melbourne arts scene. Anybody with any credibility in their knowledge of art in this country is aware of this, and it would be a disgrace to Wikipedia to delete this article simply because Sai Ho does not appear in "TV Week". This is the sort of attitude that almost resulted in the works of Vincent van Gogh being lost to history- he could barely give away a painting, let alone become famous in his lifetime. I am not saying that Sai Ho is the next Vincent van Gogh, just that one of the great things about Wikipedia is that it allows for obscure yet highly respected social contributors to be recorded. (211.28.129.240 12:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC))
  • Van Gogh was not lost to history. Nor was he discovered by an encyclopedia. Sai Ho's work, if it is as importnat as you all suggest, will then get written about and noted elsewhere, in the alternative press perhaps only for the time being. Having published one play one year ago, dropped out of college, and acted in some community theatre does not a super-star make, even if he is brilliant beyond comprehension. Wait until he has garnered some acclaim and then submit the articel, with some references to back it up (maybe a list of newspaper articles about his work) rather than references to the theater where his play was put on.—Gaff ταλκ 00:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn or too secret, take your pick. How can he be highly respected if he's obscure to the point that no one's heard of him? When he pulls a van Gogh and becomes famous after his death, we'll add him. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 13:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity page. Look, I'm sure he's a very fine fringe artist, but if nobody's heard of him, he isn't notable. The only mentions of his 'A Clockwork Blue' I can find on Google are the audition advertisements for a single production to be given in a "student theatre space". No critical references, no reviews, no nothing. In Britain, even student theatre gets reviewed. Maybe Australia really is a philistine country where everything non-mainstream is ignored, but my Australian acquaintances have never given me that impression. Haeleth 14:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: According to the WP criteria for biographies, "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field" are merited inclusion. It is my honest belief that Sai Ho fits this description, and that his notability falls under the category of "cult following" also in the WP guidelines for biographies. It is a misinterpretation of my previous comment to say that nobody has heard of Sai Ho, he is a very respected man. And, in response to Haleth, there is some truth in describing Australia as "a philistine country where everything non-mainstream is ignored", or at least in reference to the arts. Although widely respect and posessing a cult following, many of this country's great artists, such as Sai Ho, do not recieve widespread popular media exposure. Also, the article is as yet incomplete, and there are other works to be added, and I do admit that the page requires some editing. I give my word that this is not a vanity piece! (211.28.129.240 15:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC))
  • Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. Trollderella 16:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • but non-noatble.—Gaff ταλκ 01:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A Google search for "Sai Ho" play came up with 296 English results none of which related to him see [28].

A search of the Australian New Zealand Reference Centre which includes articles from News Limited, Australias' biggest newspaper chain through my Library's Reference Centre received one hit related to flood victims. A search of Macquarie.Net which includes Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Australian Associated Press came up with no hits at all. Melbourne Wikipedians have never heard of him nor have I as an Australian. This guy is totally unverifiable and if he exists is very non-notable . Capitalistroadster 17:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. Sai Ho's acheivements do not appear to be WP:V as far as I can tell. Based on the text of the article I see a guy who's done student theater and wrote a play. There is no verifiable information this play was ever performed anywhere. I wish Sai Ho luck in his endevors, but right now I don't see anything to set him apart from 1000 other struggling artists that have not yet acheived notability.--Isotope23 17:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment In my google search for Sai Ho, I found a media release [29] for Clockwork Blue, confirming that it was performed at Chapel off Chapel [30] [31], a prestigous and well-known venue in Melbourne seemingly of such importance that it features in newspaper articles about internal theatre politics [32]. News Limited produces mainly tabloids which steer away from any arts coverage except musical theatre. (Crazyandrew 19:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC))
maybe Sai Ho could be mentioned in an article on Chapel off Chapel among however many other talented up and comers in his community are writing plays. —Gaff ταλκ 01:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. While I can find a reference through Australian Google to the play being performed in August 2004, the results do not lead me to believe that Sai Ho should be included in wikipedia. I note that the comment by Crazyandrew is his first edit under this user ID.--User:AYArktos | Talk 19:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, Please note that I am not attempting to sockpuppet this discussion, I have merely decided to sign up for a user ID after another member sent me a message inviting me to do so. I have previously posted on this discussion and have contributed to the article (IP: 211.28.129.240), and I do not claim to be a new user! Apologies if this has caused any confusion! As an aside, I am adding the information regarding venue in my previous post (confirming that Sai Ho is not merely a student performer) to the actual article. I also think that there have been some important points made here and I wish to improve the article, so I will try to add more information and links in the coming days.(Crazyandrew 20:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC))
  • The notability of the venue where his work was produced does not really rule him in as a notable figure. It might mean that he is talented and has a bright future, yet uncertain. WP is not a crystal ball.—Gaff ταλκ 01:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete good luck into the future, may your Apogees be many and grand. Based partially on google: "Clockword Blue" Sai (9 unique) ∴ here…♠ 20:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. --JJay 21:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.mikka (t) 22:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't know about those guys above who say they 'know sai' but i play a small part in the Melbourne theatre seen and Sai is well respected and I don't think this page is vanity as a few comments have suggested. --Mjspe1 23:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment If people care to look. I have added a number of links to reviews of plays that Sai has been involved in. Thanks. --Mjspe1 00:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope that the links that i have added to the 'Sai Ho' page have persuaded those that have called the page non-neutral, vanity, and no original research.... --Mjspe1 00:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. At best, a minor part of Melbourne's theatre scene, so not up to having an article. --Calton | Talk 02:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Dottore So 13:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Snottygobble | Talk 02:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not yet encyclopaedic. I wish him the best of luck, however, in furthering his career to the point where we would want an article about him. Oh, and Gaff, if you could stop responding to those who disagree with you with a "non-notable", that'd be great. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:51, 25 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 KEEP. This should have been speedy kept. — JIP | Talk 18:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saturnia

Saturnia is an ancient town of Etruria, Italy according to the 1911 EB, but I don't know what this is. -- Kjkolb 13:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: nevermind, I turned it into an article about the city. -- Kjkolb 14:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. Good job. MCB 22:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. Nomination withdrawn, maybe the vfd can be closed? Punkmorten 18:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep now. -- DS1953 talk 20:44, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Once again, I disagree with the consensus, but am still abiding by it. — JIP | Talk 18:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Baker

I nominate Sean Baker for deletion because it is essentially a non-notable, vanity piece about a fellow that filed a law suit last May against Rumsfeld and the US Govt. There is very little about Sean Baker in the article. The first version of the article had no sourcing whatsoever. I asked the author to clean it up and now it has several news articles as sources. One of those sources mentions that there is a pending motion to dismiss. Should every plaintiff that files a lawsuit against Rumsfeld have a Wikipedia article? Or should we wait to see what happens in his case. Joaquin Murietta 15:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

  • keep Disclaimer - I am not the person who started this article, although the person who listed this article for possible deletion thinks I am. The person who listed this article for deletion has made the effort to check out a number of articles I have contributed lately. I am happy to have my contributions vetted and peer reviewed by any wikipedian who can be civil and fair in their criticisms.
    • IMO opinion Baker's case is significant because there has been a debate as to whether the treatment of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay by their guards is overly brutal. So, when a guard volunteers to act as a prisoner, in a training exercise, and is beaten so severely that he has a dozen seizures a day, this is a significant, verifiable fact that can play a role in the public forming their own decision over how much force the guards should use.
    • JM, the lister, has been making unwiki personal attacks on my grammar, judgement, maturity and intellectual honesty, in addition to violating wiki procedures by nominating articles for deletion over their perception those articles are POV. See the article on Carolyn Wood, which they nominated for deletion, over POV issues, without even putting an NPOV tag on first, or stating any specific POV concern. -- Geo Swan 21:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The story was covered by the international press; that makes it notable enough for me. The present article does need NPOV-ing, but it sure doesn't fit any criteria for deletion that I can see. Haeleth 16:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. Trollderella 16:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Gator1 19:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to have been a major participant of a fairly major political dispute with international media coverage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep worthy article, keep per Haeleth --Me or a Robin 11:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Internationally notable news event.--OorWullie 08:55, 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. Incorrectly referred to Afd.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Security testing

Um... I think this is a dicdef. I think. Delete either way. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:13, 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 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. If anyone objects, revert me and re-open the discussion. —RaD Man (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Selma Middle School

NN, D. ComCat 03:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep article on important subject. --rob 05:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I tend to find schools notable and even though the links are dead for the bulk of that article some of the information I could find here. gren グレン 05:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. It is odd how some of the more eye catching headlines cited in this article still garner over 1500 hits on Google yet every single last one of them, blog mirrors excepted, turn up dead. In many cases even the Google cache is expired and archive.org didn't get a chance to mirror them. This is an example of how Wikipedia can provide interesting information long after the media has moved on to the next news sensation. For the links which have not expired, what are the legalities of mirroring these on Wikisource before they too disappear? Silensor 06:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Forget about Wikisource, since we can assume the coypright holder won't approve. The stories can be listed in "References" without links, if it's a publication likely be archived in libraries, and you have sufficient details (publication, date, page, article title). I'll do that for older stories I find in my local library's web site, which has the full contents on-line, but not accessible to non-members (so I can't post urls). --rob 07:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, informative about the behavior of school principals in Selma, Indiana. Kappa 07:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - There's an assertion of notability here. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I usually lean towards inclusion when it comes to school, but this article gives me a feeling (more like smacks it in my face) that it was only created to insult the school's principal. — JIP | Talk 08:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote, but if the only notable thing about this school is the incident with the principal, maybe we should have an article on the principal or the incident, instead of the school. flowersofnight 13:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep What a waste of our time. Why nominate schools? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Because of the whole principal thing, we may have to keep an eye on it so it doesn't violate NPOV, but hey, we don't kick out abortion on that reasoning either, because that reasoning isn't valid. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. Please stop AFD SPAM. Trollderella 16:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please the article looks neutral to me it is based on facts not opinions Yuckfoo 17:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for all the usual reasons. Additionally, the principal is a fox.--Nicodemus75 18:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn school --JAranda | watz sup 20:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not inherently notable blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Lord Bob 21:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 22:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The entire sum of information presented about this school is only half the length of the description of the "short shorts" incident, demonstrating either how non-notable this school is, or how unmotivated the author was to provide more than a bare-bones stub, or both. Denni☯ 01:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and stop nominating schools until there is consensus on them --Ryan Delaney talk 03:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep See my argument at this page. Xoloz 03:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • K, N. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. notable my arse. Dunc|☺ 10:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn school. Dottore So 13:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable 'event' took place at school. Evil Eye 16:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no notable events or people associtated with this building.Gateman1997 17:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nomination does not comply with Wikipedia deletion criteria.--Centauri 02:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This topic is nonethless, somewhat noteworthy my its prominence.Voice of All @|Esperanza|E M 02:57, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Titoxd(?!?) 01:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sessions@AOL

Advertising, delete. ComCat 03:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. ComCat 00:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is not advertisting. Sessions @ AOL is a well known avenue of performance for artists. OmegaWikipedia 03:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (Weak) It's along the lines of World Cafe type venues but I do agree with the nominator that we should be careful that it doesn't turn into advertising at least. Nor should it be a laundry list. gren グレン 05:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! I mentioned this in article before but I didn't bother to link it because I figured it would never have an article. I'm pleasantly surprised to see that it now has one. Everyking 11:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable live performance series. Secretlondon 15:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as extremely notable. I don't think it's currently advertising. Besides, if the article were advertising, in the case of an article like this the article could be rewritten instead of simply thrown out. I'm trying to assume good faith, but I am starting to wonder if this was a bad-faith nom, especially with the large list of other articles you have also dumped onto AfD lately. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Come on, now. This is not advertising; it's a legitimate venue. - Sensor 00:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I removed the list of artists Zeimusu | Talk page 00:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge with AOL notable series on the internet. User:UrineForGas 13:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Even though I know the nomination was withdrawn, I actually needed this article!!! Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:17, 27 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. Titoxd(?!?) 01:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sin Vida Padre

Non-notable, vanity NymphadoraTonks 18:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Non notable --Reflex Reaction 19:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not having heard of someone is not a good reason to delete. Trollderella 19:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not whether I've heard of him, it's whether other have heard of him, in sufficient numbers to be considered appropriate for an encyclopedia article, or even if the information presented can be verified. MCB 00:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom not notable.Gator1 19:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There are exactly two non-WP-mirror Google hits for this person's real name. Non-notable. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even under his pseudonym, there are few Google hits that are not either Wikipedia mirrors, simple name-only listings in directories, or are forum posts. MCB 00:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per all of the above.—Gaff ταλκ 02:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. Dottore So 13:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:35, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sketch XIII

  • Delete Under WP:MUSIC criteria. Forbsey 02:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per forbsey -- WB 03:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Tempshill 03:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. They practiced three times for a battle of the bands. Unbelievable. These need to be speedied --JJay 04:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Alf melmac 10:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 01:59, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SKP (band)

I hate band noms on Afd because, lets face it, they're all mostly unknown and yet all have pages on the wiki. However, SKP's guitarist has written "we totally suck. i mean we don't even have any songs recorded with all of our members playing on them" Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Converted. Taking this on face value, they unfortunately do not seem to suck notably. JJay 21:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --JJay 21:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band. chowells 04:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • prick. --SKP 3:00 Eastside Time
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 13:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • ok i'm gonna continue along with my "we totally suck" argument when i ask, 'why has The Converted's page been deleted before ours?' nobody has contested our being put up for deletion, in fact, i practically invited it! there was an actual debate going for The Converted... --tha 1 who Trevs 8:24 Eastside Time
  • DELETE OUR WIKI ALREADY!!! COME ON!!! SKP 7:04 Eastside Time
  • Delete per nom. Budgiekiller 09:04, 27 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 speedied by Ambi. --Phroziac(talk) 14:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] South west hustlas

Looks like... oh, for chrissakes, I'll let this one speak for itself. The article in its entirety: "a crew in south west london and is made up of two crews destructive and violent kids also known as deadly and vicious klan (DVK/y.swh) and sgk shotgun kidz or seriously grim kidz (SGK/T.SWH). the crew is based in balham streatham battersea and clapham." --Captain Disdain 11:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all of these kidz. -- Captain Disdain 11:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination. Put the skidz under the kidz! Eddie.willers 11:59, 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 Deleted by A Man In Black as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stormcallers

World of Warcraft isn't a bad game, but that doesn't mean that individual player characters are notable, no matter how variated their stratergic attacks are. -- Captain Disdain 10:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 10:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I won't categorically deny that a WoW character could be notable, judging by the article this one isn't. Thue | talk 10:44, 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 keep. Titoxd(?!?) 01:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Superscan

I question whether this belongs in an encyclopedia. It looks to me like an advertisment. Tom harrison 22:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I will gladly make cuts to the article to keep it in the spirit of Wikipedia. Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Druid_of_nature 17:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Doesn't read like an ad to me. --GraemeL (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think I was too hasty in suggesting deletion. Would it be appropriate to withdraw my recommendation, or should the vote go forward? Tom harrison 19:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. notable. mikka (t) 23:23, 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 speedy del by request of original author (no other nontechnical contributors). mikka (t) 23:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SymmyS

I wrote this article about a form of poetry I invented. As far as I know, very few people other than me have written in this form, and it has only been published in a college newspaper. I didn't really think about/understand the implications of pushing my own bit of obscure poetry onto the wikipedia when I wrote this, but of course I see now that this is really promoting my own agenda (zany and noncommercial as it may be) and not creating encyclopedic content. Someone nominated this page for deletion long ago, and I agreed to it as well as everyone else, but it never went away... so here I am nominating it again. Unless some well-known poet, unbeknownst to me, picked up this form and published a book using it, I don't think this belongs on the wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Mills Hinkle (talk • contribs) 11:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete as above. Anyone brave enough to look for the old vfd? —Cryptic (talk) 14:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR & per nom —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:23, 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 redirect. --Carnildo 23:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sympathetic nervous sytem

this article appears to be the same as Sympathetic nervous system note the mispellingof sytem Melaen 15:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete if another admin agrees. --Fire Star 16:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or perhaps redirect. (I don't know how many people make that misspelling, but apparently at least one person did.) --Jacquelyn Marie 16:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I have placed a redirect to Sympathetic nervous system, which works. Please keep and delete this AfD section Batmanand 17:48, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] T bone Champion

This article is poorly written and is a hoax. It basically defies a lot of facts including the WWF's renaming in 2002 to WWE and mentions other characters that never existed such as "4 Count". --Oakster 15:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, fan fiction. McPhail 18:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lakes 18:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 62.255.84.18 12:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent nonsense. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsense --Rogerd 03:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pure fiction. --HBK 20:28, 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 delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taikadoru

Hoaxish, zero non-Wikipedia related results on Google. KingTT 02:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment um, did you try searching in Japanese instead of romaji? User:Purplefeltangel/sig 02:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I tried various possible Japanese spellings, couldn't find anything. Kappa 05:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nobody here knows what a taikadoru is (here = Japan).  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No entry for taikadoru in Iwanami's Kokugo Jiten 国語辞典 Third Edition. Google searches for たいかどる,　たいかどうる,　たいかどおる,　タイカドル, 　タイカドール　gave no results. Fg2 10:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as suspiciously unverifiable for something supposedly famous. Haeleth 14:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hoax? Andrew pmk | Talk 19:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 21:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 01:54, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep expanded greatly, way beyond dicdef. mikka (t) 17:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taverna

  • Why is this being considered for deletion? There is no entry for "taverna" on Wikipedia at the moment - this should be a stub at least! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.176.209 (talk • contribs)
  • (This article was nominated by Flapdragon, who apparently was interrupted or otherwise didn't finish the process). Anyway right now it's a dicdef. If the author of the above comment wants to write an actual stub, he should feel free --Trovatore 22:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Give me a chance guys! 213.106.176.209 was so keen to defend this article s/he got there before me and caused an edit conflict. Transwiki to Wiktionary. Flapdragon 22:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally "tavern" is neither a good translation of Ταβερνα nor a good definition of the word taverna as used in English. Flapdragon 23:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • No, it's not. Therefore delete rather than transwiki. Chick Bowen 23:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I suppose what I meant was that it would be good to have an entry on Wiktionary for taverna, it's just not an encyclopaedia entry, but you're right that this isn't any use in its present form, and so I withdraw the transwiki vote. Delete. Flapdragon 00:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am sure that an encyclopedic article could be created about this and its role in Greek life, cuisine and culture despite its current dictdef status. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No doubt, but that can happen even if the current article is deleted. I haven't seen much evidence that inferior articles on a topic promote the writing of good ones later on. OTOH if the AfD motivates someone to write an encyclopedic article before the end of its time period, then it's done its job. --Trovatore 02:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I have expanded the article explaining its role in Greek cuisine and culture. Capitalistroadster 11:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Change vote to Keep. Nice job, Capitalistroadster. Chick Bowen 13:42, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks really good now. Thanks, CR. --Trovatore 15:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and thank you for saving this one, Capitalistroadster. Jkelly 07:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep article is fine --Me or a Robin 11:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per above --Rogerd 13:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it looks good to me - I'm glad I started it off now --213.106.176.209 23:14, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TEMPUS theory

Non-notable, looks like a copyvio too. WB 01:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This is an essay by a guy who's page has also been listed for deletion. Reads like nonsense though it might actually contain some information. I don't think it's much of a theory, more of a principle of a certain group with a website [33].  freshgavinTALK   02:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, original research. Tempshill 03:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Text is a copyvio from the Tempus foundation site and they assert copyright. [[34]] --JJay 03:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! We need more crackpot original research under the precedents set by Jamal Udeen Al-Harith, Sami Al Laithi and Abdul Razeq Joaquin Murietta 08:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. — JIP | Talk 09:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR, if this survives copyvio. MCB 21:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio from [35] and linked pages. Tagged and bagged. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Andrew pmk. - Dalbury 23:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "TEMPUS Theory" gets 113 hits on Google, including the TEMPUS Foundation, Hodie Multimedia Publishing, which I suspect is linked to the Foundation, and this mirror of the Wiki article [36]. Some of the links are for uses of "Tempus Theory" in Linguistics, Sociology, and Economics, so I would say the subject is not particularly notable. - Dalbury 00:07, 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. Titoxd(?!?) 01:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terminal (band)

Bandcruft - delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete seems to fail WP:Music --W.marsh 03:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as above and likely copvio from towerrecords for starters. Alf melmac 10:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Alf. --JJay 21:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:04, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 01:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Begy atomic model

duplication of category talk. -- (drini's page|☎) 22:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, somebody's physics original research, or essay, copied from a talk page. WTF? MCB 01:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, OR, unverifable. Walter Siegmund 03:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - apparently not a notable theory. --MacRusgail 09:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-admitted OR. ManoaChild 23:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete OR --Rogerd 13:39, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Bolla Quartet

Re-nom. This was closed as "no consensus" with my nomination and no actual other votes. Certainly could use another go. Old AfD (and my reasoning) here. -R. fiend 03:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. It's difficult to judge the notability, but the way this article is presented (there's a little splurge about the band and then a much longer section about the history of each band member) really makes it seem like they don't have much of a history and are just a typical bar-band. So I vote on a hunch.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for near enough the same reasons, I would prefer much more about the band itself, they have one record and are reasonably well travelled, if the data refers to one concert/gig in each of the countries does this consititute a tour as such. Alf melmac 11:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. These guys took most of the prizes at the Avignon jazz festival this year- a major event in France- with a 16 year old sax player. --JJay 16:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Factual, verifiable and neutral. Trollderella 16:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per WP:music. Have played concerts in a range of European countries including winning a jazz competition in France and have a record to their credit. Capitalistroadster 19:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Gator1 19:50, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 16:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The "Bush"-Whacked Administration

Feels like blog spam Secretlondon 14:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not blog spam. I have gotten many requests from readers of our blog to make an entry on Wikipedia because so many of our readers use this website. We even have a link to Wiki on our blog page. There are also no ads on our blog and we do not earn any money from it. [37]--KMuniz 15:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete blogspam. Don't know how the "many requests from readers" have come in but as of this moment there's exactly one comment on all the articles shown on the main blog page. Not indicative of a large readership. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete... non-notable blog. Sorry if this hurts the bloggers feelings, but a blog has to be notable in some way to warrant an article. 0-4 posts in discussions per day, no mainstream media references, 57 hits on Google... almost no non-automatically-generated linkbacks... that just doesn't come close to the threshold for notability for me. --W.marsh 15:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. KHM03 17:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

'Sorry if this hurts the bloggers feeling'...nice, only a little insulting. How can something be notable if it can't be placed in an avenue that a lot of people view on a daily basis, I.E. Wikipedia. You place spam alongside advertising in your deletion policy, as I said, we do not earn any money from this site. It was created to be informative and generate discussion. Ans using comments to gauge readership is laughable...not everyone has the time to leave comments or want to leave a comment. The speed at which you decided to delete this page is incredible - have you ever considered leaving something online long enough to see if it generates any hits? And the comments from W.marsh are written in a very egotistical, self-satisfying way. --KMuniz 15:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

And just what is your 'threshold for notability' W. Marsh? --KMuniz 16:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not free advertising. The argument that "This page might be notable if Wikipedia publisizes it enough!" is not very good. I really am not going to get into a flame war here though... KMuniz is welcome to stick around WP and realize a handful of bloggers try this every day and meet with about the same response. --W.marsh 16:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

W. Marsh is taking things out of context as I was not implying that it should be advertising. And don't quote me if you are going to make up your own words - that's NOT a quote. The deletion policies for this website are convoluted and deceiving. 'Anyone can start an article', but only if it complies with the Deletion or Notable police.

Anyone can start an article. If other people disagree that it should have been started, then a debate ensues, and the person who started it gets the opportunity to explain why it should be included. This is the process we are undergoing now.
The problem is that this is an encyclopedia. You cannot add your blog to an encyclopedia just because you think it should have lots of readers, any more than you can add a word you made up yesterday to a dictionary just because you think it should be part of the English language. You need to find readers by other means: advertise on other blogs, or in web directories. Write posts that everyone tracks back to. Gain mindshare. When you're well known, we'll be queuing up to write the article for you. At present, however, your article falls into the situation where the vast majority of Wikipedia users will agree that it does not belong here. Therefore it is likely to be deleted, not because we're trying to deceive you or because we're a police state, but simply because you have mistaken Wikipedia for something it isn't.
Our policies for deletion often seem convoluted to people who haven't bothered to find out what they are, but they are perfectly straightforward. You have already been referred to our page on what Wikipedia is not: I draw your attention to the fact that it is "not a web directory". I will also refer you to our proposed guidelines for the inclusion of websites. This suggests that "an article discussing a website should be able to demonstrate that the website has had some impact on people beyond its core user base", and proposes a number of criteria by which this can be judged. Unfortunately your blog does not meet any of these criteria, so, until such a time as this ceases to be the case, the article should be deleted.
I'm sorry you've wasted your time in pursuit of a misunderstanding. Haeleth 16:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable blog.--Isotope23 18:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment KMuniz, I'm sorry your introduction to Wikipedia had to be this way. It seems to me that you created this article in good faith. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of thing that Wikipedia is for. I am also sorry that you had to come to AfD so soon -- Wikipedia is a very large site, gets a lot of contributions every day, and therefore has a large amount of these processes to go through. We all try our best to be polite, but we have a lot of work to do and our debates may seem short and unclear to those unused to them. Please try to understand that this isn't an attack on you or the website you have written about. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I too must vote Delete on this AfD. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per W.marsh. MCB 22:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN - 700 hits for a blog is a joke abakharev 08:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

abakharev, you are a world class schmuck aren't you? I am sure the authors of Bush have worked hard on it. And you call it a joke. I am an avid reader of their site, and think this should have been kept...but I also understand Wiki's stance on blogs. All the same though, I don't think your comment was needed...

  • Comment. There is no content at present. Based on previous content, Delete. --Meiers Twins 18:36, 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. Titoxd(?!?) 02:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Clutchbone

Here are a couple of messages I posted to the discussion area of this article, requesting sources for the claims regarding the "Clutchbone". The authors have not replied.

Read them - I think they're pretty self explanatory as to why I think this article may be fraudulent.

/.../

Talk:The Clutchbone From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

To whoever wrote this article...

I am very interested in both folklore and cryptozoology/forteana, and the subject of the Clutchbone is completely new to me. I am curious about this, and I would greatly appreciate if you let me know what source(s) you have used for the article, plus any additional material that provides information on the subject. I am especially keen on learning more about this because of the statement that there have been alleged sightings in my native Sweden.

Kind regards,

Jonas Liljeström, Gothenburg, Sweden [edit]

Monika Zetterlund??? Sources please!

Again I must ask that whoever has written and/or edited this article provides some sources for it. I am particularly surprised by the claim that "some insisted" that the recent demise of Monika Zetterlund was caused by the Clutchbone. Who has made these claims?

I am a Swede and fairly well versed in folkloric matters (including postgraduate studies at Gothenburg University), so I'm quite surprised that I have never heard of this creature before.

I'm starting to suspect that this entire article might be an elaborate hoax and I'm considering the possibility of reporting it, so please respond and answer my questions! Normally I wouldn't take this matter seriously enough to ponder the possibility of requesting the deletion of the article - but when a hoax/joke begins to involve spurious claims about authentic deceased persons, it has gone far beyond decency.

Jonas Liljeström

Hi Jonas, I have no idea if this is a hoax or not, but I removed the claim about Monika Zetterlund. Wikipedia is not the place for speculations, and my personal opinion is that this is a rather distasteful one. If you consider it to be a hoax, please feel free to list it at Articles for Deletion. If you'd like some help with that, I'd be happy to help you. Regards, JoanneB 12:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

/.../ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.57.48 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • weak Delete - google clutchbone to the end (page 14) has practically only web-edited sources (wikis, public dicts, etc.) Can anyone find a real source for this? ∴ here…♠ 21:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • del nonverifiable. mikka (t) 00:06, 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The_Eligible_Bachelors

Absolutely no responses to this whatsoever, so I'm relisting here to try to get at least one opinion. Rob Church Talk | FAHD 00:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Vanity page of non-notable band Harvestdancer 22:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No evidence of complying with WP:music. Capitalistroadster 01:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. Another non-notable band... --W.marsh 01:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable band, no AMG entry, web site has no Alexa rank. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; NN, no WP:MUSIC criteria met. Sneak-attack hoedown, indeed. - Sensor 01:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per Andrew. -- WB 03:43, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The lonely h

Bandcruft. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nonsense bandcruft.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who do they think they are? Dylan? --JJay 21:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity-- Dakota 21:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)21:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)21:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:34, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep with the meaningless modifier weak. brenneman(t)(c) 06:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Magic of Christian

Not notable. Vanity page created by anon user. Link farmed into other articles. Very little additional information available in English. Dubious entry for English encyclopedia. -- Krash 21:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - appears to be notable within his field. Lack of English-language Internet references shouldn't be grounds for AFD. The honor by the Hollywood magicians pushes this past the bar of notability for me, just. 23skidoo 13:57, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Somewhat notable. A medium fish in a small pond --Rogerd 13:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as above. i read somehwere that austrian card manufacturee Piatnik used to do cards under his name/with his designs. if so.. KEEP! Tiksustoo 10:51, 26 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. I burned my fingers the last time I tried closing a debate with a number of suspected sock/meatpuppets so I have made a more thorough check this time around. The author of the article gets to be counted as a valid keep vote, although s/he should be advised to read the deletion policy and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. The other keep votes come from the same IP and are most likely wither the same person, or friends, and such votes are disregarded; the "voting" system here is more about discussion, and one reason it is not a poll where all "votes" are equal is to avoid ballot stuffing. Against approximately 10 people wanting to delete, the consensus is clear. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Matthew Crabtree

Originally nominated by PJM as vanity. Completing AFD. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • maybe vanity is just a part of this "The Crabtree's" charm. I say give it a chance.
  • I am in favor that this entry stays. perhaps it began as vanity but due to the throught out re-edit I believe this shows there is some promise in it. It may be something we don't understand and we should give it a chance for it possibly having a cult following.
  • i think we need to keep this page becouse i belive it will grow larger and more usefull in time. once the fans of "the Crabtee" find it.
    • (preceding unsigned comment by 24.53.140.85 (talk · contribs) 20:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete Vanity. You're never going to get famous by listing yourself on Wikipedia. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant vanity - Forbsey 23:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete should have been speedied. "The Reyk"
  • Delete --MacRusgail 09:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Everyone should be given the chance to freely publicize themselves; I say that it should stay.(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )
    • Let it stay! We all need to have knowledge about "The Matthew Crabtree." Anyone that is willing to put themselfs on-line to be critized by the masses should be allowed to stay.(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )
  • STAY! It is not blatant vanity, just confidence.(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )
  • Delete Please...just imagine another 1,000 entries like this one; take it out.
  • are you questioning the power of wikipedia? this sites can handle things like this, and I don't see how this negativly or adversly affects anyone. I say let the knowledge be free. If you don't like the "Crabtree", leave him alone, but don't try to destroy him.(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )
  • Delete there are lots of other ways for people to promote themselves and friends...why should a Wikipedia article be one? Start a user page instead. PJM 12:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • it is not promotion, it is a simple archive of biographical imformation on an up-and-coming dynamo. How is this any more promotive than an article on Tom Cruise or Milli Vinilli?(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )
  • Yes it is blatant promotion, of a generally unknown individual. A 'Tom Cruise' already has mass interest, so it's silly to even compare.
  • so mass intrest is the criteria for an archive of accurate information? I think at least a fair level of local intrest is enough for an article. This "Crabtree" may be the next Tom Cruise and the fact he may not or never be is no reason to erase the archive of his work.

and besides, how about comparing him to Milli Vanilli? you haven't answered that one(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )

  • Well, Milli Villi are infamously known worldwide...so that's another bad comparison. Why not compare this Crabtree to my neighbor Bob? Bob's written several novels that will be published one day, and has a great singing voice (I can hear him when he showers in the morning). He should have an article here too. No?

If he has a authoring career that has a fair chance of coming to fruition, I think by all means you should write an article about him. I for one would read it.(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )

    • I'm from oak hill and i think that the crabtree's article should stay because it allows the public to learn about the importance of new artists in comedy,humor,and comics . Lewellen,Ray(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )
    • This is the crabtree i shall not be silenced. My work will be heard those who say that fame can not be attaind by the use of wikipedia they in saying this prove themselves wrong by the fact they are reading this .(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )
    • I feel that if your neighbor Bob is what you bill him as then he also should have his own article as well(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )
  • D clearcut vanity. Fawcett5 14:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable... borderline speedy as CSD:A7 because the "claims" of notability don't even qualify IMO. Oh, and sockpuppet threshold reached.--Isotope23 15:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
should mention most of the puppet votes are by the author of this article, 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs).--Isotope23 16:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Meatpuppets -- that address is a proxy server for a bunch of Ohio public schools. — mendel ☎ 19:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Er, yeah... I meant meat... thanks for the correction mendel.--Isotope23 01:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The article should be kept on Wikipedia for the archiving of "The Matthew Crabtree"'s life, however it is written. Wikipedia is a great source for information and this is information. Many people will have a chance to see this article and the person's family and friends would be able to look at it later as a record to remember him by. The article should stay on the basis of its biographical and, in the future, nostalgic value. Gkf411

Isotope23 should know that the Crabtree can also do sock puppets very well,and i also love The Wombat. i don't think others can judge becouse thay do not know him or have never read the Gentlemen, its is truly one of the funnest thigs EVER! kept this and the overall site would be much better!!

for the information of those confused by the ID number of those numerous comments, several people we know do share a server together. though as most of the comments were by various friends and admirers of "The Crabtree", I suppose that is up to debate whether these admirers should be considered puppets or not. Nonetheless, for the record, only the comment that explicitly states as being by "The Crabtree" was actually written by him. The rest were different people operating on a connected server.

Again, as a longtime Wikipedian lurker, I offer my vote for the Crabtree as I see great things in his future. 24.53.141.174 19:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Brandywine

  • Delete nn bio. Look, if he has great things in his future, then he will deserve a great article in the future. But he doesn't deserve an article until he's done the great things. We would have said the same thing about Einstein if we'd been around before he'd started demonstrating his genius for the world to see. Haeleth 21:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I for one would have loved to have read an article about Einstein before his fame rose. I could say I was a fan from the beginning. Besides, potential needs to be recognized, not just demonstration of what it can do. This provides for a more creativly nurturing international environment. I would have felt quite the fool to write Einstein off before I can see what he can do. Also, with such interesting projects as his soon-to-come comic book and film-role, not to mention (as I've heard now) the rapidly developing and brain-storming comedy team the "Gentlemen", I think it would be beneficial to leave this page up. Give it a few months at least, I think, to give him a chance to complete his projects and put them into circulation. then we'll see if this Young Einstein will wow us with his prowess. 24.53.141.174 21:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Brandywine

I don't know this "crabtree" fellow, but I think this article should stay. It is interesting. It may have some real importance someday, who knows. i'l agree that "the crabtree" should stay, but what does that jimmy guy have to do with any thing? and why is there a link to see his bed room? thats worse that that guy up there hanging out around the guy next doors bath room while he sings? will one of you pro crabtree people tell me what thats all about.?!

  • Delete vanity --Rogerd 13:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If "The Crabtree" stays the Jimmy stuff will most likely get removed. It seems irrelvent now, but originally it was going to have a page on Jimmy too. They're both into this "Gentlemen" project and from what I've heard that should be up and running in a couple of weeks and from what I know it sounds pretty funny. Sort of a "Stella" type of thing. If "The Crabtree"'s page is taken, it's doubtful "the Gentlemen", as a group or separatly, will have any further Wikipedia-listed info. I suppose then we'll have to wait for the Comedy Central Special in eight years (haha).

24.53.141.174 23:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Brandywine


This is a great article. Though I do not know this "The Matthew Crabtree", I admit I am intrigued and would like to see more. I say we give it more time to grow and see if anything interesting comes of it. {MHoO)

  • Mach, if you'll re-read this discussion you'll notice that it has already been mentioned numerous times that the "creator" here posted from a proxy server and cannot be responsible for the content posted by others using the same server.

24.53.141.174 21:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Brandywine

  • I've checked the contributions of the proxy server, and I must say some of the things done on it were rather shameful acts of vandalism. I, on my own behalf (and on behalf of "the Crabtree" by his request) apologize for those acts of vandalism (though I say again they were more than likely not committed by those we know personally and therefor also not those involved in any way in "The Crabtree"'s page or this discussion.) Nonetheless, we apologize for whoever did it. Obviously idiots.

Further, "The Crabtree" (with myself in agreement) wishes it be known (he doesn't actually have home access to the internet and he's a bit reluctant to use that server now) that there should be no hard feelings if the majority votes out his article here. He and I both have great respect for the Wikipedia community and the accuracy and wonderful service it provides. "The Gentlemen" apparantly finish up their work this week and begin actual filming on the coming weekend. If this goes anywhere (as they have some real plans for it that may come into action at any time after the editing) I personally will try again a page for it if it has some degree of success or notoriaty at home or elsewhere. We can all have that one out in discussion when the time comes. Many thanks to the wonderful regulars here at Wikipedia who pledge their time and effort into keeping this place accurate and bountiful.

24.53.141.174 22:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Brandywine-In Association with "The Matthew Crabtree"

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Titoxd(?!?) 02:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Themacdevil

Website advertisement. Google hit [38] less than 20. NN Hurricane111 18:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - also note there are several other pages with the same content that I have redirected to this one. -- Francs2000 18:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisting --Reflex Reaction 19:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert --Rogerd 05:39, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 02:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three Is Trouble

Story about three persons who got together to try to make a webcomic, but didn't succeed in getting anything done. Not encyclopedic. Thue | talk 10:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • A speedy delete methinks. Marskell 12:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - for obvious reasons. --Phroziac(talk) 14:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 21:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:40, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 02:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thrillnetwork

Vanity, non-encyclopaedic Just zis Guy, you know? 12:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Also removed multiple linkspam per Special:Contributions/68.175.108.130

  • Delete per nom --MacRusgail 16:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:57, 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 speedy deleted as nonsense. Friday (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time trial bicycle

Vulgar and concept seems to be original research. Molotov (talk)
20:06, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Traci Islands

Unencyclopedic advertising for a non-notable "adult entertainer" - no evidence of any actual notoriety, even locally. CDC (talk) 18:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.Gator1 19:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. Haeleth 19:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:43, 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 speedy deleted per A7. Friday (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uber jedi

"This is not a vanity page." Yah. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - vanity. -- WB 03:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, nn sub-bio. Tempshill 03:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete of course...unless his teacher writes him a note. --JJay 04:16, 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 KEEP. It can't be transwikied to the Turkish Wikipedia as it's not in Turkish. — JIP | Talk 08:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ugur gurses

Non-notable, personal article. See the article to see why. WB 01:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I don't know how to go about this one. It gets 46,500 Google hits, but most of them are in another language. Perhaps Transwiki to the Turkish Wikipedia? Acetic'Acid 01:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've decided to go with Keeping the article. It would be nice if we could find a user who speaks both Turkish and English and would be willing to expand this (given that most of the resources are in Turkish). But he is notable, so he gets to stay in the 'pedia. Acetic'Acid 01:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Radikal is a Turkish daily newspaper published in İstanbul. [39] It has no English version that I can see. Ugur Gurses may be a notable author, but not for the purpose of the English Wikipedia. Therefore, transwiki to the Turkish Wikipedia. - Sensor 02:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Turkish. If it already exists then be away with it.  freshgavinTALK   02:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand: If he's "notable for the purposes of the Turkish Wikipedia" then he's notable here. Stop systemic bias. User:Purplefeltangel/sig 02:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess we could do that if we can get someone who can read Turkish. But I guess transwiki-ing is a better idea. -- WB 02:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't mean to encourage 'systemic bias', but the problem seems to be that this journalist is notable only in Turkey (if indeed he is even notable; I wasn't able to find any articles by him on Radikal's website, although I admittedly can't read much Turkish). If someone can stubbify and expand this article, great. Otherwise, it should be transwikied. - Sensor 00:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
        • This article is not in Turkish. Kappa 00:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, legitimate journalist. Transwiki-ing is not appropriate because this article is in English. Kappa 04:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I basically agree with what purplefeltangel says, but if he doesn't even exist in the Turkish Wikipedia, then how can we assert his notability? (I can't be sure if it does exist or not in Turkish, though, because I don't know how to spell his name.)  freshgavinTALK   06:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep We need foriegn languages to decipher the articles of the future, such as User:Geo Swan/working/AP List and User:Geo Swan/working/Algerian six. Joaquin Murietta 08:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Purplefeltangel and Kappa. Does the Turkish Wikipedia not have some kind of talk page, along the lines of Chatsubo on ja:, where we can look for someone knowledgeable enough to expand the article and/or explain why he isn't notable? Haeleth 14:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    Try the Wikipedia:Embassy Kappa 00:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, and depreciate people listing things simply because they don't understand them. Trollderella 16:37, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 02:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Umbrakinetic

  • Hey, I'm as open to extreme possibilities as any other X-Files fan, and the concept could deserve an article even without any evidence that there is such a thing (we've got plenty of those). But there should at least be evidence that someone else thinks there's such a thing. Delete unless it can be sourced and notability established. --Trovatore 22:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, and by the way, it's also copyvio --Trovatore 22:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - the writing is terrible, and full of POV. They also form plurals with an apostrophe. :( --MacRusgail 09:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Umbrakinesis and Umbrakinetic get a hundred or so hits on Google. This article is terribly written, and probably at the wrong place (Umbrakinesis would make more sense). However, I'd rather there was a well-written NPOV article than nothing at all. Sadly, no one seems knowlegable enough to do it. See also -kinesis#Umbrakinesis --Sum0 19:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Nothing prevents someone from writing such an article later. Or now, for that matter. I think "someone could write a good article on this topic" is almost always beside the point in AfD discussions. --Trovatore 22:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Though I suppose we could also consider redirecting to -kinesis. --Trovatore 22:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Good points. Personally, I think the best course of action would be to redirect this and Umbrakinesis to -kinesis, although what's there doesn't make much sense either. --Sum0 22:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Junk --Rogerd 13:32, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] United Mthwakazi Republic

Factually doubtful (no Google hits outside of the sole website promoting this concept and Wikipedia mirrors) and POV (anti-Mugabe propaganda). —Seselwa 23:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • del nonverifiable. mikka (t) 00:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotion of a self-created separatist movement. Reasoning per nom. This article was created by User:195.93.21.101 and an entry on List of active autonomist and secessionist movements (diff) was created around the same time by User:195.93.21.103. These are almost certainly the same user. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 13:40, 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 speedy delete. There are some things that don't fall under a specific category in CSD, but that clearly don't belong in an encyclopedia. This is one of those. --Carnildo 23:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U.S._grade_level

nonsense Arobertsc 21:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a fictional narative (a poorly-written one at that), and the article doesn't relate to the title in any way, but it's not nonsense. Regardless: it should be deleted. -- Super Aardvark 20:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete. —Cryptic (talk) 14:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect, articles with this name have been deleted 6 times already. -- Kjkolb 15:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete and protect as above. — brighterorange (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:52, 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 DELETE. -Doc (?) 23:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vegan menu items

Unencyclopedic. The page is a Yellow page listing of prominent vegan menus. Wikipedia isn't a repository of local restaurants and their phone numbers. Idleguy 12:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Idleguy 12:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. It's a reasonable concept, but not for here. - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki somewhere else if reasonable. Additionally, "French Toast Sticks contain animal-based flavoring." <-- don't we call that egg? --Phroziac(talk) 14:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was never much of a fan of this article. Actually they are all fast food chains in the U.S. If it expanded to local restaurants it would become huge and unmaintainable. It's just not an encyclopedia topic. Rhobite 15:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- with caveats. We should make a note in Veganism about how to find out whether or not the food in a restaurant is vegan. (ie, stick in the weblink, if it's not in there already, and maybe a small paragraph.) This list is too specific, but the general topic is important to vegans. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and I mirror Jacquelyn Marie's opinion.--Isotope23 18:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Rogerd 02:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Good list but can be found on other webpages, and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Oh, and Phroziac, the french toast sticks could have lard or any number of other "animal-based derivatives". Devotchka 02:06, 26 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 Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell. -Doc (?) 23:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vernon Wilkes Jr

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Doc (?) 23:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Walkmoor

Apparent hoax by Willy vandal Solar-S (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). "Walkmoor Bedfordshire" gets zero hits on Google. -- Curps 12:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - streetmap.co.uk returns 'no matches' for Walkmoor anywhere in the UK. --David Edgar 15:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - one duplicated Google hit for Walkmoor, in German. Proves nothing, known hoaxer. Fourohfour 15:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax vandalism. Sliggy 17:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Ive tidyed it for if its kept but the only walkmoor i can find is a castle in scotland, so delete. BL kiss the lizard 00:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this hoax. Carioca 00:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:41, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc (?) 23:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wannawiki

NN, D. ComCat 03:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no assertion to notability. — JIP | Talk 08:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, as per many similar. Maybe there should be a page for minor Wikis. Or not. - Just zis Guy, you know? 12:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless nom has a problem with the list of wikis, where it must have spawned from. There are more redlinks there, so I fear we are going to have a few more of these discussions. If the issue is whether or not list of wikis should be so extensive and wide-open, well, then, we should have that debate instead of this one. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Nothing about notability in the deletion criteria. Trollderella 16:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Notability is the main criterion of the whole wikipedia, however if cannot be formalized, hence votes and discussion. mikka (t) 22:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Minor website. Statistics say only about 220 content pages. --Carnildo 22:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • del Absolutely nonnotable for a website: 43 unique google results. And remove from the list of wikis, btw, and clean this list from other garbage. mikka (t) 22:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Its Alexa ranks is 3,030,119, see Wikipedia:Alexa test. And clean up the list of wikis to list of notable wikis. -Hapsiainen 23:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn Dottore So 13:43, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] War of Iraq

This page is duplicative of Iraq War and was only created to showcase Reddi's version of that article. Mr. Tibbs 06:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This article covers the 'War of Iraq' that was between the multinational forces and the old Iraqi army (something that needs to be doen to conform to a higher standard of quality; and is a military science subject [inparticular a military history subject]). Contrary to Mr. Tibbs allegation .... a division is necessary to differentiate it from the loose collection of different violent events of the "colloquial" use. The Iraq War article covers this informal colloquial use. JDR 15:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. - Mr. Tibbs 06:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per nomination.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  07:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Iraq War. -- WB 07:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Iraq War. Saberwyn 08:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per WB and Saberwyn. -- Captain Disdain 10:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. 23skidoo 13:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect, to Iraq War, -Andrew 15:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This issue seems to need some arbitration, not an AfD vote. --Jacquelyn Marie 16:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Iraq War. --Optichan 20:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Iraq War - Forbsey 00:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. To Iraq War all as per above. --Meiers Twins 18:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. StarryEyes 00:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Iraq War - It's silly making a distinction between not-obviously-different titles --Khendon 19:18, 25 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World's worst HR complaint

This is a short meaningless rant about another, longer rant which it contains in full. Nothing remotely encyclopaedic, notable, interesting or even amusing about it, alas. Peeper 11:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, but then as I nominated it I would say that. Peeper 11:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Brandon39 11:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as world's worst attempt at Wiki inclusion. Totally non-encyclopaedic. Eddie.willers 12:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. Oyvind 12:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless rambling whining irrelevant nonsense. Can't it be speedied? - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. (Though I have to admit it had a few good points.) --Jacquelyn Marie 16:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Actually quite funny to read, but can people please post this kinda stuff on their blogs? Batmanand 17:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and BJAODN. MCB 21:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:40, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] You Have Bad Taste in Music

  • This website has a cult following, similar to that of many websites listed in the Internet phenomenon article. I don't see why this doesn't deserve its own article if many of those websites do. --taestell 23:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. 63.202.173.95's comment on tagging the article was "delete per wiki policy of no puerile vacuity". I agree. Delete, doesn't meet WP:WEB. Alexa rank 890,994, no forum that I can find, no evidence of national media attention. —Cryptic (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Trivia only, it seems. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. KHM03 17:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete puerile vacuity, nice turn of phrase. WP:NOT a web directory. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN vanity --Rogerd 04:00, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Young Money

nn production with nn bands/performers Gator1 17:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 17:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this article. This is not a non-notable production group with non notable performers..check Lil Wayne if you would like to see what I am talking about. -- SoothingR 17:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge content and Redirect to Lil' Wayne. Non of the artists mentioned here pass the WP:MUSIC test. This production company and its stable of artists are not notable in and of itself at this time. Better covered under the canopy of Lil' Wayne.--Isotope23 18:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Lil Wayne. Capitalistroadster 00:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Young Money is notable for those who enjoy this type of music. I just found this article trying to find out info about them. - Stoph 03:07, 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 delete. Titoxd(?!?) 02:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zak Koretz (magician)

Not notable. Vanity page. -- Krash 16:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.Gator1 19:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete magic castle, junior members. ∴ here…♠ 21:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:56, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 02:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zsuzsa Hickel

This seems pretty much to be a vanity page. According to the Google Wikipedia is the main reference for this lady - an article just appeared in the Hungarian Wikipedia and it states she was born in 1975. Anyway does not seem to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. My opinon is, this one should be deleted. Serinde 11:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. Alensha 18:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn-bio. 182 Google hits (including WP mirrors), and not sure if she was born in 1975 or died in 1975 (hard to tell from Hungarian pages). MCB 21:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • born in 1975 -- she was also listed in Enwiki on the page February 11 until I deleted it. Alensha 21:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 02:41, 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.