Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 26 October 28 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] October 27

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by RobyWayne as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Chidgzey

nonsensical vanity page about a person with no google hits who may or may not exist. perhaps speedy is in line. Alhutch 07:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Already been speedied--Alhutch 07:04, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!?) 04:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ahnlab

Ad. Delete quickly. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:19, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aim for the head

Band that has only released demos -- Kjkolb 11:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete disbanded band CambridgeBayWeather 11:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for failing WP:MUSIC - Mgm|(talk) 20:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not for being disbanded, but for not meeting WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 15:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for WP:MUSIC failure. Even the band they went on to become is red-linked. Budgiekiller 14:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandar J. Hossler

Getting knives stuck in your gut is unfortunate, but doesn't necessarily make you notable. -- Kjkolb 07:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. To me this looks like a hoax as well. Searching for 'Alexander Hossler tornado' on Google turned up nothing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as, hoax or not, the article does not establish notability. Sliggy 13:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable and unencyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 20:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn-bio if true, as hoax if not verified. MCB 01:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE Not notable. Not encyclopediac Prashanthns 17:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Definitely not notable, probably not even true. WriterFromAfar755 22:36, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 09:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alice Barrows

Article does not establish notability. She gave somebody some "unspecified information". --Lee Hunter 02:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Looks to be of some historical significance. Maybe merge into article on Red-scare, McCarthyism, etc.—Gaff ταλκ 03:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thankfully, establishing notability is irrelevant to deletion policy. So is the comment about "unspecified information" - how about improving the article? Trollderella 03:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Lee Hunter 11:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Content has been added and clarified (a portion of the decrypts were unrecoverable). nobs 03:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
A huge amount of fluff was added to make it look substantial. I still don't see anything there except for a name. When you boil it down the entire article is that this person gave some unspecified information to another person. That's it. The rest is all background information about other people --Lee Hunter 11:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lee Hunter. Maybe we should have an article on the "Wirt Incident" if it is as important as this article claims, and give Alice Barrows a mention there. But no more than that. flowersofnight 13:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and maybe if/when appropriate target is made, it can be merged/re-directed. --rob 14:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: notable enough for me, merge later if appropriate. -- Kjkolb 18:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, assuming the sources are legitimate. --TantalumTelluride 22:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep communist infiltration. Klonimus 02:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Once you scrape away the background, there's nothing left that'S actually biographical. Less than a footnote in history. --Calton | Talk 00:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Googled both Barrows and Wirt with no hits on either one. They may have existed but they are evidently not noteworhty.-Dakota 00:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. This is a perfectly good article. What is great about Wikipedia is that more information can be added in the days to come. The person is of interest and note! The user who put this iformation up for deletion is a known censor on articles such as this. If the article is erased from Wikipedia it will never be allowed to be brought back. Absolutely notable. Keep! Dwain
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anaconda (poker)

Instructions for playing a game. -- Kjkolb 23:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • keep Does appear to be an existing poker variant (a few hundred google hits for "anaconda poker"). Definitely needs expansion though: the problem with this article is not what it is, but what it currently lacks. Dxco 00:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: if it was turned into an actual article, I might say keep, but this is just a how-to guide. -- Kjkolb 01:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, real poker variant, AFD is not cleanup. Kappa 04:59, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 19:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew C. Zinn

Non-notable singer and poet. -- Kjkolb 09:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Logophile 14:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement. Punkmorten 15:17, 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. Titoxd(?!?) 04:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Hart

NN. Probably vanity. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:V and WP:BIO. There is nothing relevant in Google from a search for "Andrew Hart" explorer as the pages all refer to Internet Explorer. The article concludes "Little else is known about this reclusive fellow."

Capitalistroadster 06:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy nn vanity. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 10:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this is not a speedy, as there is a claim (regardless of the merit of the claim). The real problem here, is there's nothing no source of info to write an article here. I don't worry about WP:BIO, until WP:V is taken care of. --rob 14:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per CapitalistRoadster. --TantalumTelluride 23:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:18, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Animal rights activism

This article is very slight, and violates NPOV in its content. The bias of this article suggests that the majority of animal rights activists support activism through criminal acts. Rewriting this article shouldn't even be necessary, it can simply be redirected to the already thorough and much more NPOV animal rights article.

  • Delete per nomination and redirect to animal rights. I haven't simply changed the article to a redirect because there is some content being maintained in it. Dayv 18:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect. Redundant and misleading. Agree with the nom. Devotchka 18:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak DeleteThe article is much more concise than the one on animal rights, but is somewhat redundant although it distills one facet of the animal rights debate into a readable article. Ultimately I think the animal rights article could probably do with pruning, at which point this definitely would be redundant. - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As above Honbicot 22:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - the Animal rights article is getting long. I can see a role here for an article specifically about activism, as opposed to philosophy (etc) which is covered at the animal rights article. Johntex\talk 22:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. The whole animal rights issue is undeniably POV and prone to emotionalist cant from both 'pro' and 'anti'. If this article is to be kept then it should be a sub-section of animal rights rather than a stand alone. Eddie.willers 02:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Lots of things inspire strong feelings, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be covered. - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Idleguy 05:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Animal liberation movement. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 00:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] APfeL bITs

Band that hasn't even released their self-published CD yet, no All Music entry. The previous article with this name was apparently different. -- Kjkolb 11:58, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 19:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arild Drivdal

Is a filmmaker, but neither he or his movies have IMDb entries. Very few Google results for his movies, some of which seem to be irrelevant. 54 unique results for his name. -- Kjkolb 12:53, 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(?!?) 04:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Artificial Gallery

Website advertising. No Alexa rank. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, advertisement for non-notable commercial website. --Stormie 11:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable, spam. Fourohfour 12:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - without doubt non-notable and spam. -- Solipsist 12:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 15:19, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ATTAC Austria

Delete as unencyclopedic vanity/promotion of web site and ministry; appears to be some sort of religious pastoral letter. MCB 01:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Can this be speedied? Probably copyvio, same text appears in various places, eg [1]. Flapdragon 02:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. utcursch | talk 04:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Newyorktimescrossword 04:27, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attack of the nerds

Nonnotable podcast. tregoweth 23:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete Non-notable, vanity page for two kids' podcast. Dxco 00:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete another non-notable podcast (YANNP?). - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep A real internet meme-- becoming "famous" and a worthwhile entry to have here. (unsigned comment from User:68.162.220.243)
  • Delete Not notable. Tsuba 07:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 01:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: I recreated the page with an article for a town in Russia, with DAB page that preserves the deleted info about a fictional character. mikka (t) 03:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bakal

Incorrectly tagged as speedy with this note: not noteworthy enough for own article, already addressed at List_of_species_in_fantasy_fiction Listing here. No vote. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per above WAvegetarian 19:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn fictional character. "Dragonlance Bakal" gets only 66 hits[2]. "Dragon Lance Bakal" gets only 776 more. Some are probably duplicates. Johntex\talk 22:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

*Keep, real fictional character, would belong in an encyclopedia of whatever work it's from. Kappa 05:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Abstain since the list and the article disagree. Kappa 14:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. We all agree that it's real. It just isn't separately notable from Dragon Lance. Please see the comment above and page link. As, in it's current state, it only duplicates info found at the above link, it should be deleted, unless you think that it will at some ppoint be changed into a full article. In that case, would you write a stub for it?WAvegetarian 08:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is not much more content in the article than in the list (even though the list extends only to mentioning the species and fantasy of residence. According to the article, the Bakal are not a species, but a single character, in which case the entry in the list mentioned above should also be edited out. Saberwyn 08:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why not merge the content of the article into some other page? (perhaps along with other contribs by the initial stub author as well) ----Unforgettableid | Talk to me 15:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn fictional character. mikka (t) 01:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was COPYVIO', taken to CP. -Splashtalk 00:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barber Manufacturing

This article is a copy-paste job from http://www.barbermfg.com/ (Click on Heritage); appears to be an advert for a non-notable bedspring manufacturer. 84.43.1.92 00:06, 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(?!?) 04:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beepjeep

Apparently not a neologism, this word "stems back to ancient roman times, referring to a 'Lord BeepJepaniar' who ruled the land of BoopJooria." The problem is that this is quite unverifiable, where and when was BoopJooria? Hoax, unverifiable, not a common term anyway. Borders onto patent nonsense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Can't we speedy it for being patently untrue? Average Earthman 12:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It has been pointed out to me that sometimes apparently insane comments from from a work of fiction, warranting inclusion. However, since this one states it comes from the mind of someone who's article has been deleted twice (and was created by the same person as this page), this would not appear to be the case. Average Earthman 19:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kappa 05:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. "Untrue," sadly, is not a CSD. This is one is really a disguised A7, however. Chick Bowen 22:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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(?!?) 04:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biddaling

I biddal this article and request that it be deleted. "Biddlephon" does not return any Google results. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 00:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete ridiculosity that is utterly, totally and completely eternally and foreverly unverifiable from anything coming nearly close to nearing an approach to a reliable source. -Splashtalk 00:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speedy if possible. Utter rubbish. ♠DanMS 00:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete lol, it's still funny though. Lord Of Ketchup 20:34, October 26 2005
  • Delete as unencyclopedic nonsense. Not funny enough for BJAODN, if you ask me. MCB 00:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Flapdragon 01:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete speedier the better. agree w/ nom&above.—Gaff ταλκ 03:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 04:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Gives book as further reading, that as far as I can tell doesn't exist. - Mgm|(talk) 08:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's filled with disparaging remarks and POV. Should have been a speedy. PJM 12:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above (well, except that it's funny). Janet13 14:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as spurious and offensively written. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not verifiable. Google search returns only three hits and suggests that the query is misspelled. --TantalumTelluride 20:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete absurd. Newyorktimescrossword 04:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:04, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 19:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Board events

This article appears to be an ad for a lifesaving competition. -- Kjkolb 20:44, 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 Speedy Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 05:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bobertism

No factual content, created by friends who thought it was amusing...after originally fixing it up thought better of it and decided to mark it for deletion Robbjedi 02:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It does have factual content. While I have to agree that it was amusing that is not a good criterion for deleting it. It is a factual article detailing facts about a religion. just because it is not a very mainstrwam religion does not give you grounds to discriminate against it. You are trying to make excuses to delete content that you disagree with. Soem people might find it sacriligeous but that is not a good reason to delete it.

  • Delete. Non-verifiable. Non-notable. Even a new religion needs to become established before it can be in an encyclopedia. Good luck.—Gaff ταλκ 03:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete non-notable/vanity. "Me and my classmates were bored after school, and now wikipedia gets to suffer for it." Wikipedia is not here to immortalize the cooky zaniness that freshmen find themsevles involved in at uni. Dude! Wheres me beer bong?!Dxco 03:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I notice that the author created a number of pages linking together on the topic. Uffda. Dxco 03:41, 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(?!?) 04:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Broomsticks and Owls

Web site advert.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 05:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. Devotchka 05:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom. -- WB 05:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Throw into a nuclear reactor or a steam-boat furnace. Destroy all ads. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Spam, Kill. Fourohfour 12:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If you were a spammer, wouldn't you have put a link on the Harry Potter article? --TantalumTelluride 22:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam - stupid spam, in fact, per above. - Just zis Guy, you know? 16:19, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buildingonline

Delete. Tagged as copyvio, but I can't find it online, and neither could the tagger. Is just one big horrific ad, however, which WP:ISNOT. -Splashtalk 00:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Ad. utcursch | talk 04:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Burn all ads and flush the ashes. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, blatant ad. - Mgm|(talk) 08:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone thinks it's important enough to rewrite -- ads have no place at Wikipedia, ever. --Jacqui ★ 14:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, shoot authors and burn the bodies. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but do not shoot anyone. Shooting people is sometimes illegal in the United States. --TantalumTelluride 20:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Newyorktimescrossword 04:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. --Meiers Twins 11:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:05, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bydgoszcz City Fans Association

Another one tagged as copyvio without any source, that sounds rather unencyclopedic to me. -Splashtalk 00:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable Tedernst 20:32, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Casino Party

This article is about a party at Rice University. -- Kjkolb 21:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn college party. Only 433 Google hits for "Casino party" "Rice University"[3] Delete the ricecruft. Johntex\talk 21:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN student party - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete nn. Dude, where's my beer-bong? Dxco 01:04, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 09:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chelsea Smile

Dicdef of a slang term. WP:NOT a dictionary, and particularly not a dictionary for slang. Google search returns 1,660 results, some with this meaning, some not. -- Malo 04:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Expand beyond dicdef, well known form of mutilation cum urban legend--MacRusgail 20:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand per MacRusgail. This could an interesting article that would help the internet "not suck" Youngamerican 02:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable form of disfigurement. Kappa 05:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Can't find a decent category for it though. --MacRusgail 16:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • i added it to the Gangs cat, for now... Youngamerican 17:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this is well-known one. Should be moven to lowercase "s" probably.  Grue  13:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECTED to Plame affair by Stevertigo. Robert T | @ | C 00:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheneygate

This appears to be a neologism. Yahoo search yields ten hits [4]. Article is redundant, appears to exist solely for POV pushing; all of its content appears in other articles, such as Plame affair Brandon39 22:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neologism, no legs yet (although I get about 112 non-wiki hits on Google).  BD2412 talk 22:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The only problem with this article is the fact that it does not note that the scandal is also called "Libbygate," "Rovegate," and "Plamegate" by some commentators. Combined, these names get huge numbers of hits. (It makes sense to write the -gate article on this scandal in Cheneygate because Cheney is the most notable.) It's safe to say that -gate whatever is becoming the common name for this stroy. JMaxwell 22:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is not the failure to note alternative names, it's the fact that the name of the article is not in anything resembling mainstream use. Maybe it will be in the future, but it is not the function of Wikipedia to get it there, or to report it before it's there. I suppose a redirect would be harmless at this point, tho.  BD2412 talk 03:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to main Cheney article. - Just zis Guy, you know? 23:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Plame affair, according to what JMaxwell says. mikka (t) 00:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let's wait and see what Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald says in his report. As the nominator says, this is a neologism at the moment with 424 Google hits with this article at the top followed by an article in a Lyndon LaRouche publication see [5]. Capitalistroadster 01:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. Ambi 01:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of scandals with "-gate" suffix. --Jacqui ★ 04:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to Plame affair, per mikkalai. — RJH 15:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect - no need to fork plame affair. -St|eve 17:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - There's no NPOV reason for this name to be used. The Monster 17:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect: the large number (almost 1000) of Google hits means that it is a well-used term, but all the information in it should be contained elsewhere. It must be merged. JDH Owens talk | Esperanza 18:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Plame affair --CFIF 19:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Plame affair; move sentence on possible Philipino leak to Dick Cheney, if necessary. No point to two articles on one subject. Septentrionalis 20:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Plame affair --Liface 21:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect -> Plame affair --Bk0 22:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect -> Plame affair -- I think this was a stub that was hit with a vfd, it's worth maybe a side mention in some section of the refernced article. I've not heard the term "Cheneygate" in any common media sources and none are mentioned in the stub as it stands. Clearly, a merge, redirect would be the way to go. Calicocat 00:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect -> Plame affair; "Cheneygate" might become the consensus term for the Plame leak scandal in the future, but it currently isn't. It's notable enough to merit a mention in the Plame affair article, but not to get an article of its own (yet). Redxiv 00:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect -> Plame affair; 'I never heard of Cheneygate before I saw a link to it on Dich Cheney's page. (Bjorn Tipling 09:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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(?!?) 04:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Church of God (Seventh Day) Meridian, Idaho

This article makes no claim as to why it is really notable. Google search returns 391 results however I think most of those are wiki mirrors, or local news organizations that are simply posting the phone number and address of this place. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information -- Malo 05:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A local church congregation is not notable. Logophile 14:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Logophile Pilatus 20:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, established church. Kappa 05:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not all established churches are encyclopedic. Johntex\talk 08:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. Radiant_>|< 12:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Churches are not public institutions; anybody can establish one in their backyard and/or imagination. Some bound of notability must exist to prevent solipsisms, and small local congregations don't make it. Xoloz 18:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as vandalism or WP:POINT. <unsigned, by user:Curps> (mikka (t) 23:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Clan Snow Raven can move pages, did you know just anyone could come along and move pages anywhere you want?

This article was created in order to vandalize another article. Axeman89 23:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete This page serves no purpose, other then part of the vandalization of another page. - Axeman89 23:19, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 19:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clinical study design

Just a list with no context, needs a total rewrite if it is to be kept. It's probably a copied and pasted from somewhere, like the poster's other articles, but I can't find it on Google. I'd rewrite it myself if the article gave me more to work with. -- Kjkolb 12:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Whatever this is, it is not an encyclopedia article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sjakkalle - what is the article meant to be about? --Meiers Twins 11:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete, sockpuppets aside. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Croatian Fighting Toads

  • Keep, I believe this is real, as I have travelled to many eastern european countries in my time and have heard of such creatures from many a person.

Per the article, there are no reports of such creatures in this or any other area prior to [1979]. None subsequent either, per Google. Delete all hoaxy toadiness. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, hoax. Devotchka 23:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, hoax. Am amazed to see that there is such a thing as toad fighting tho. Whodathunkit? Dxco 00:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, difficult to say. Best to ask someone from Hvar lest we delete a genuine article. As Dxco said, "Whodathunkit?" RumpledStilts 00:38, 28th October (UTC)
    • Comment Shouldn't it be "toadliness"? As in "cleanliness" and "worldliness" and such other gems? RumpledStilts 00:51, 28th October 2005 (UTC)
    • Rebuttal I'll have you know I have made several edits, you cheeky monkey. Plus, you've only made about 70 - perhaps we should be slightly suspect of you...

RumpledStilts 00:51, 28th October 2005 (UTC)

  • It seems to me if it was real they could've just asked these beaten up people, after they regained consciousness, who attacked them, and I'm sure they'd have been eager to tell their story. Anyway, it sounds totally hoax-ish to me. Everyking 01:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, that logical flaw has now been addressed, making the hoax slightly less absurd. Everyking 05:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well obviously they must have done, or nothing would ever have been written about the toad at all. No survivors would equal no story. Ominous. Though I agree it sounds suspect - suggest consultation with a Croat. Anyone know any admins from the area? Zaphodsjusthisguyyouknow 01:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment this user appears not to be unconnected with 195.137.118.3 as well. I'll go and consult my socks as to what they know about puppetry. Tonywalton  | Talk
In addition, his name might be too similar to User:Just zis Guy, you know?. Punkmorten 15:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and BJAODN it. - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Outrageous! Hey - that guy totally stole my stolen name! Police! Zaphodsjusthisguyyouknow 11:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The Croation Fighting toad is a real, but rare creature. For more reference, look up the works of the well known amphibian researcher Blaustein, and his work at the University of Croatia...
  • Delete hoax. ManoaChild 21:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • WatchOut - I put it to you that ManoaChild is a hoax. Look carefully at his member page - it says that he lives in Hawaii - but we all know that nobody LIVES in Hawaii, it's just a holiday place! Mighty suspicious if you ask me! - Zaphodsjusthisguyyouknow 11:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This seems unfair I was told stories as a child about these toads, and how they would lie in wait for the unwary Eastern Europian (although Croatia wasn't specified). My grandfather, whose family was Polish, told tales of how they would come raiding in the winter. Now whether this was true or not is debatable, but surely the article should be preserved as an example of the rich folklore of these parts?

  • Delete and send to BJAODN. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Vandalism! Some bloke seems to be reverting to his version which removes some words and adds a reference to Jimbo Wales, which is excruciatingly not funny. Suggest legal action - it just makes the article look silly. - RumpledStilts 12:38, 29th October (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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(?!?) 04:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Order of the Messiah

Article is about a secret society devoted to resurrecting Satan as a mortal. No details are given regarding this process. Or indeed any verifiable facts at all. Also, unless I've misunderstood something a central figure appears to travel back in time at one point from 1871 to 1771. This article has been speedied twice as nonsense, which seems a little harsh as it is not patent nonsense. Additionally the page creator has indicated unhappiness with the application of the nonsense speedy tag. So I've brought it here for fuller consideration. My opinion is that it is confused and confusing, unverifiable and unencyclopedic. Sliggy 17:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for the reasons above. Sliggy 17:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The article sounds plausible but failed several attempts to verify so even if it were true it would almost certainly qualify for deletion as NN. - Just zis Guy, you know? 18:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. No references given. Will reconsider vote if good verifiable source references are presented prior to expiration of AfD. In general, for any article on a "secret society," the onus should be on the submitter to demonstrate verifiability. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, other votes, and questionable other edits from article creator. --Syrthiss 13:49, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Das Bus (TV Series)

Looks to be a hoax to me - cannot find any reference to this "reality show" via google, IP that created it has a number of other dubious edits concerning Shaler Area School District. Stormie 13:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete either a joke or possibly (though very improbably) a cable-access show. Note that Shaler Area School District seems to have suffered some dubious content, with comments about its "lack of athletic talent" etc. Apparently somebody who hates their school learned how to edit WP. Yawn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I only see this name as a Simpons episode and a film, but no reality tv show. But, the track record of the anon creator is what really convinces me it should be deleted. --rob 14:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I've actually heard of this show, it's currently filming and will air during the Summer/Fall Season. Filming wraps up around June. I live in the Pittsburgh Area and have seen photos taken by a photographer for the show. (Website? Promotions?) There were cast photos, one of the actual bus, and a dark haired boy throwing a paper ball at a red haired boy with glasses. I will contact the photographer to see if I can upload some photos. FireSpike 19:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as an obvious parody of 'Das Boot'. Eddie.willers 02:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • How is that a reason to delete? Kappa 05:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. I meant that this is a joke article and the giveaway is the title, a parody of the German war movie Das Boot. Eddie.willers 20:46, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Bernardi

Non-notable writer with no works listed. Google only brings up hits for unrelated people. Bearcat 22:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • So what? (Unsigned vote by User:216.249.54.113.)
    • So Wikipedia has rules; a person has to be notable to have an article on here. Bearcat 22:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • So what you're saying is that just because Google doesn't post it, the author can't be posted? Google doesn't bring up every author, you know. Especially not in Northern Ontario. Encyclopediae are supposed to cover as much knowledge as possible. If you really want, I'll send you a copy of the book. It's entitled "The Rest Has Yet to Be Written", published by "PublishAmerica". Just look up Bernardi in the North Bay phone book; there are only two families with that last name. Hint: Don't start in alphabetical order. Sheesh. (comment left by User:24.235.185.65}
        • He published his book with PublishAmerica, the known vanity publisher? Now if he had managed to get a regular publisher interested in his work or if he could present sales figures we could discuss if this should be kept, but since he couldn't this screams vanity. Pilatus 23:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
        • No, what I'm saying is that to be on Wikipedia, a writer has to (a) make a bestseller list, (b) win a major literary award, (c) be generally accepted as an important influence on the development of a national literature or a genre, or (d) meet some other criterion which proves that they're notable. Just existing isn't enough; being able to mail me a copy of the book isn't enough. Bearcat 00:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, PublishAmerica is a known vanity/POD publisher, saddly of the somewhat notorious kind (the type depicted in "Foucault's Pendulum"). Interesting article about them in the Washington Post, by the way. Dxco 00:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. Devotchka 22:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. Pilatus 23:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity page.Dxco 00:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN vanity - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:31, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Puder

I think they try to assert some sort of notability, but a college rower and the brother of a wrestler fall below my bar. Joyous (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Definite NN. Devotchka 22:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I can't find any trace of notability either. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. - mdd4696 22:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete nn. Dxco 01:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn-bio, borderline speedy. MCB 01:47, 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 - G1 - Hoax. Johntex\talk 22:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Swanson

No pertinent Google hits for '"David Swanson" "Britney Spears"', '"David Swanson" "Paris Hilton"' and '"David Swanson" olsen'

Delete as hoax, unsure if this qualifies as Speedy Delete. Pilatus 20:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedying under G1 - hoax. Johntex\talk 22:14, 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. Kirill Lokshin 06:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Demosphere

This seems to be advertising, and is about a website that is not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article ---Aude 15:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Alexa says no information, presumably because it is new; Google gives a respectable 451 results for 'Demosphere Schroder]. For now I vote keep and copyedit so it does not read like advertising, and watch like a hawk to check that the site does develop into something notable. It may go belly-up quite quickly, or it may thrive. But strip out all those pointless interwiki links to voting systems. David | Talk 15:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. - Oldsoul is the primary author of this article. He/she had added this site as an external link to Canada, Alberta, and Edmonton, Alberta. I wouldn't have noticed thie article had it not been for the linkspam. ---Aude 15:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The categories in this article were entered with a "|" and a space afterwards, in order to force this article (inappropriately) to the top of the category listings, which seems like a clear attempt at promotion or advertising. --Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 18:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, Oldsoul removed the article for deletion notice. --Kevin Myers | on Wheels! 08:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like advertising. --Carnildo 23:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I know that it says not to modify this page, however I'm not sure where the "appropriate discussion page" is. I think this was far too speedy of a deletion, and especially because the votes were essentially 2-1, when I of course would have also voted to keep it, that would have made it 2-2. "Looks like advertising" is not nearly as strong an arguement as the hits on google (400+). This was deleted because "Demosphere.net" is simply not as big a site as say, Indymedia.org. But where do we draw that line? There are many many regional Indymedia.org sites which are barely active and yet Indymedia has a strong article presence on wikipedia.org.
Given that this project had garnered press on both wikinews and indymedia.org, I think it's fair to say that Demosphere deserves an article on wikipedia as well. As far as the categorization mark-up, I had no knowledge as to the effects of including the "|" separator beyond the stylisitc effect which I've seen on other pages.
Instead of deleting this article I think those who voted for a deletion should have made an effort to improve the NPOV, which given the effort put into it by myself and other colleagues, had been achieved, but obviously could have been improved upon.
I'm not sure if there's any way to retrieve the article, if not to re-instate it based on my defense here, but then at least to move it to a personal temp page. Thank you for your time and understanding. Oldsoul 22:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 06:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dextroverse

The web site is non-notable and thus, doesnt deserve a seperate article on on Wikipedia.

I know the dexheads will swarm this with their over-the-top harm reduction beliefs but just listen for a second first. The Dextroverse already has a link at the bottom of the non-medical use of DXM page so having a seperate article is no necessary. It is not like the Dextroverse is as noteworthy as Erowid. delete There is nothing to merge that isn't already there. --Arm 17:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Agree with nom, that a separate article is not needed. ---Aude 16:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable and already mentined elsewhere.--Isotope23 17:04, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dhokke

Neologism/hoax. Joyous (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Flapdragon 01:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. neologism. ERcheck 02:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. neologism. —Gaff ταλκ 03:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Question: can obvious neo-logisms like this be speedy? Anyone knowing what template to use, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks!—Gaff ταλκ 03:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 04:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Complete neologism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete even if not neologism, is dicdef at best. KillerChihuahua 11:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Neologism and dicdef, certainly, but "a mnauever that is off the chains"? It's also nonsense. Delete. TheMadBaron 16:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's been found in several catagories it does not belong to (i.e. longest word) and has also been found randomly linked in other articles (i.e. Floccinaucinihilipilification) Axeman89 22:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I just removed it from Igor Pavlov. It was through such a random link that I first noticed the article. Joyous (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:09, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dooter

Dicdef of a made up word. 0 results from OneLook About 800 results from its google search However none of those seem to match up with it's meaning here. Hence not a canidate for wiktionary, and not notable enough to stay here. -- Malo 06:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--Alhutch 07:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Thanks/wangi
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:21, 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 redirect. Kirill Lokshin 06:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dysfunction (Staind album)

The page is a duplicate. The more informative page is at Dysfunction (Album) [6]
This is my first time requesting an article be deleted, so let me know if I did something wrong. --Gflores 22:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Dysfunction (album). In this type of case, feel free to just make the article a redirect yourself, no need to bring to AfD, really. (Also, there was a typo in the AfD daily log page preventing transclusion of this page. Be sure to use the {{subst:afd3|pg=name}} template instead of hand-typing it in.) MCB 02:11, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eccoz

Non-notable, possibly vanity. —Ashley Y 06:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete —Ashley Y 06:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would say this goes beyond "not notable". To me the whole thing looks like a completely made up "religion". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Sjakkalle. Thanks/wangi 09:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. At best original research; at worst, total nonsense. MCB 01:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:22, 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 Keep by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. Also, I will move article for sake of capitalization of title. -- Psy guy (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eleven international publishing

Hmm. Well, they do genuinely exist, but you'd think an internationally-known publisher of academic textbooks and such would have more than ~90 Google hits, wouldn't you? DS 14:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep noteworthy publisher of academic texts. I've seen numerous notable items fail Google tests and this seems to be one such cases. Google is not the end all to establish whether we should have an article on something. - Mgm|(talk) 20:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the article. I am an author and editor at eleven myself having an experience of roundabout 30 years in editing and publishing with various distinguished international publishing houses. But I never worked with a publisher which offered such a good professional support and service to their authors and editors like eleven. Therefore I think that information about eleven should be made available to a broad public via Wikipedia. M.Benkö http://www.uni-koeln.de/jur-fak/instluft/index-e.html


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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(?!?) 04:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Family Altar Christian School

Average grade school, not notable --Bitmappity 04:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. For some reason, nominating schools for deletion is one of the most controvbersial things you can do on Wikipedia. Nonetheless, this article has serious deficienies, first and foremost the article doesn't say where the school is located, although a Google check indicates that it is in Battle Creek, Michigan. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverified. I just see some directory listings of the school, and don't see adequate info for an article. The one in Battle Creek seems to be the one mentioned (as said above), but it's not made clear in the article. In any event, the school closed in 2002, so there seems little point or potential in an article. --rob 10:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: A reminder why sites like "privateschoolreview.com" should not be overly relied on is here. Notice it doesn't bother saying the school is closed. It makes no mention of the new Calhoun Christian School. --rob 12:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, horribly small and incomplete stub, non-verified topic, and private school... comes together to equal a big fat delete.Gateman1997 17:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Even with rewrite my vote remains delete as the new school this article points to is even less notable then the unverifiable one the article originally was implied as being attached to.Gateman1997 22:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable, unexpandable, and even defunct. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable and fails to discuss the school the article is named after. Also doesn't say enough about the other one. - Mgm|(talk) 20:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. So as I understand it, it's about a little school, that's been closed for 3 years? It could be made into a one sentence addition to the article about the school that replaced it. --inksT 20:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article has been rewritten. Call (269) 965-0488 tomorrow and see if they're actually closed, I am unable to find any references online regarding the closure of this school. Silensor 22:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no way of telling which Family Altar Christian School the author had in mind, since no sources were provided in the original article before it was rewritten. But the fact that the Battle Creek Community Foundation recently set aside $13,800 for the one in Battle Creek, Michigan [7] leads me to believe this one is still alive and well, so I will vote accordingly.
    • That's the DEFINITION of original research. Wikipedia is not the place to publish the info you get from contacting the articles subject! - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • You miss my point, completely. What evidence is there that the school is closed? I just provided an external link which demonstrates that a great deal of money was granted to this school during the 2004-2005 school year. There is an obvious discrepancy here if someone else believes the school closed in 2002. Silensor 22:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
        • If there's no independently verifiable information, it's time to just put this one to rest. What are you going to do when you do call them? How is that at all a verifiable source?
          This is another problem with school articles in general. You're forced to rely on contacting the subject to get most of the information. How is someone, person or entity, ever a reliable source when their own interests are involved? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
          • No one is forced to do anything to get information. If you wish to conveniently ignore the fact that a generous sum of money was donated to this school, according to the link I just cited, then by all means please continue revelling in all your bliss. Save your dime and read the link. Silensor 23:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
            • You still have the problems of verifiability. How can you substantiate any of the claims even in this nascent article, other than information from the subject itself? For example, they have a very good student-to-teacher ratio; how do you know it's accurate? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
              • he told you go read the information on the link regarding verifiability and yet you still haven't done so. The verifiable accuracy of those aspects comes from the Battle Creek Enquirer newspaper, A profile published by a local newspaper is precisely the sort of source called for, (and used as an example) in WP:V. Professional journalistic publications are sufficient for WP purposes. It is also irrelevant if the information provided by the Battle Creek Enquirer is "true". It is clearly stated in WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.". --Nicodemus75 01:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite for the reasons expressed at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 22:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not because its a nonnotable school, but because Wikipedia is not a telephone directory. --TantalumTelluride 22:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - How is this not an advertisement for this school or a phone book entry, both things Wikipedia is not? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a phone directory. --Carnildo 23:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this perfectly good re-write, despite poorly conceived arguments by "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles"--Nicodemus75 23:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I'm somebody who "routinely nominates and/or votes to delete unverifiable articles". As mentioned above, the original version of this article stated the old school was closed, and kids went to the new Calhoun Christian School. It seems the existence of the new one proves the non-existance of the old one. Also, I don't have to prove this doesn't exist, the article must prove it does exist. This is a matter of policy per WP:V. Also, its seems odd to justify keeping an article on the grounds the original version was entirely wrong regarding the school's status. --rob 00:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Could be that the original version is this that or something else. It really doesn't matter if the original version of the article said "this is a sex school for crackheads on the dark side of Uranus". My vote, as clearly stated, is about keeping the re-write. It verifiably exists as referenced by the links added to the article and is verifiably a school. Two sources to verify it are provided along with it's address and phone number. Anyone who wishes to verify it can phone it. Phone a school to see if it is real is not "original research". Also, see my comments about re: the sourcing by the Battle Creek Enquirer, which as per WP:V is more than sufficient to meet the criteria of verifiability.--Nicodemus75 01:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NO history, NO special programs, NO important alumni, NO community involvement, NO significant or notable staff, NO reason to live. Denni☯ 23:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as written now it seems fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable and possibly closed.-Dakota 04:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite, notable topic. Kappa 05:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Abstain since it is claimed to be unverified. Kappa 16:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Real schools tend to be notable, but non-existant schools generally are not. Look at the article's own "source" at greatschools.net. It says the school is associated with the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI). However, ACSI does not show a school by this name in Battle Creek (or any similiar named school in the state). They do however list Calhoun Christian School. The original version was unverifiable (warranting deletion), but the new version is verifiably false (needing to be deleted even more). --rob 06:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. Whether or not it is currently open is irrelevant; it is very verifiable that it once existed and is therefore notable. —RaD Man (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It doesn't seem to have been notable when it was open, certainly not now that it is closed. Johntex\talk 08:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I substantially revised the article, to put the school in the past tense. Anybody voting from now, should look in history, as there are at least three fundamentally different versions of the article, and it's anybody's guesse which one will be used if this article is kept. --rob 11:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this NN closed school. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • WHY? Wikipedia is NOT a collection of useless information which this article clearly refers to.Gateman1997 22:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please it has been rewritten already thank you silensor and rob Yuckfoo 18:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, I've called all numbers associated with this school personally... it is closed and has been totally disbanded.Gateman1997 23:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I checked the article again after the rewrites. While I appreciate the attempt to improve the writing, it does not change the underlying NNN (non-notable nature) of the topic. Therefore, I am still in favor of deletion, as above. Johntex\talk 23:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Radiant_>|< 12:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonexistant school.  Grue  13:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I keep a lot of things around, but this has certainly got to go. I'm still not convinced that the school is no longer in existence, but we have a problem with verifiability either way. Hopefully if it does still exist, someone who knows and loves the school will write a new article with the proper proof nexttime. Delete. Jacqui ★ 16:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable, it seems; local-interest only, at best; and non-notable: take your pick. --Calton | Talk 00:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable.--Kewp (t) 19:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Rob --redstucco 09:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fardo

Neologism used by a few students in Arizona, although it does seem like a useful term. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 19:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Very useful term but probably belongs on Urban Dictionary or something. I'd be persuaded otherwise if the article could prove widespread use of the word. Devotchka 19:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Kind of the authors to have done the dictionary searches first and proived non-notability :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 19:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Neologism per nom. Johntex\talk 22:48, 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 speedy delete as attack page/attempt to communicate. --Carnildo 00:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FDNP

Non-notable. External links to myspace group and site with Alexa ranking of 828,064. Myspace page says "WE NOW HAVE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ENTRY HA HA HA", but I wasn't sure if this apparent contempt for Wikipedia was enough to speedy it as vandalism. Delete. Joel7687 16:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • No it isn't, but I'd say this is a good CSD:A4 speedy candidate because the text of the article is primarily designed to communicate with members of FDNP and interested parties for the express purpose of redirecting them to their myspace forums. If I'm totally off my rocker then just Delete.--Isotope23 16:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or even Speedy Delete. Random obnoxious advertisement, though they aren't trying to make money off it. Devotchka 17:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and speedy if at all possible, per above. - Just zis Guy, you know? 18:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I speedied it since nobody else had.--Isotope23 20:33, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed Reference

Not much more than an external link of pointless thing. Has had a notability request on it for months bodnotbod 22:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. MCB 01:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete its my site but I never created the page and don't think it is needed --BozMo|talk 20:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Four Pillars of the Morning Star

Part of Message of the Morning Star religious propaganda. -- Kjkolb 21:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. WP:ISNOT a soapbox and the Morning Star lot don't lok to be particularly notable. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per nomination. I notice as well the references are very poor: two are "projected" to be published in 2006, and one is a "restricted document". Dxco 01:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV religioncruft. MCB 01:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fox Select

This show has changed recently, and I feel no longer requires an article as it is the same as every other show on the station} 86.137.17.180 13:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • User 86.137.17.180 did not complete the AFD process. Listing now. No vote. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 19:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Major show for the station. The fact it's changing warrants an update. Not deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 20:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, wikipedia is timeless, there is no such thing as "no longer requires an article". Kappa 05:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Even if the show goes off the air, that is not a reason to delete. Vegaswikian 05:14, 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 relisting. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:57, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gamepost

Vanity. Aecis 11:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Redirect per Mgm. Vanity is right. -- Captain Disdain 14:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Game-Revolution (the site it belongs to) and include a quick line about the forums (not the moderators). - Mgm|(talk) 20:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If you delete this article, I'll shit in your mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.179.147 (talk • contribs) UTC 15:04, 30 October 2005 The preceding comment was deleted by 68.62.15.170, the author of the comment below; I have restored it in all its glory. 68.62.15.170, please do not edit the votes and comments of others, even when they are of, uh, such sterling caliber as the one above. -- Captain Disdain 02:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC))

The Game Revolution gamepost is a forum for many people and it discusses many important topics. Not only does it keep up to date on everything videogame, but it has made strong friendships and even brought lovers together. The site is very important in the lives of many, and this page will give a history to ease the burden of retelling the story over and over. It will become more insightful as the history is written and will be very useful to hundreds of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.15.170 (talk • contribs) UTC 16:00, 30 October 2005

  • I understand where you're coming from, and please understand that this is not a slight on your community. If you want to document the history of your community, that's entirely understandable and even commendable. Go for it. However, Wikipedia is not the place to do it; it's not a free webhost provider. Generally speaking, "useful to hundreds of people" is not really enough to warrant inclusion to Wikipedia, unless it's a particularly obscure, yet notable topic. Gamepost, in the end, simply yet another web forum, and while I don't mean to belittle its significance to you, I must say that as far as the rest of the world is concerned, it's simply not big and influential enough to merit mention, any more than my personal blog or the various online forums I've been known to hang out at are; just because they're important to me, that doesn't mean that the rest of the world cares. That may sound cold, but please understand that I'm not trying to offend. We're building an encyclopedia, not a place where relatively small communities can showcase themselves. -- Captain Disdain 02:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • What about other forums that get mention such as Neowin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Gero (talk • contribs) UTC 03:08, 31 October 2005
      • Please sign your comments. You can do that by typing out four tildes, like this: ~~~~. That'll leave your username (or IP address) and the time when you left the comment -- that way everyone knows who said what. And to answer your actual question, I'm not actually all that familiar with Neowin, but judging by its article, it is a far more notable forum than Gamepost is. Honestly, it should be fairly obvious why this is the case, but since you ask, I'm going to quote a couple of relevant bits from the article: "Powered by Invision Power Board forum software, Neowin has an active technology forum consisting of 118,979 registered users (October 26, 2005) and more than 5 million posts." That's a lot of users right there. Compared to Gamepost's 10,000+ users, that's a whole different order of magnitude. Size does matter. One of their articles has also been the "most viewed story on Slashdot ever" -- not a huge claim to fame, but that's not easily pulled off, either. Apparently, theirs is a fairly influential webforum, and a very, very significant number of people go there for their Windows-related news. (Note that as 118,979 is just the number of registered users, it's likely that far more people actively follow it.) Gamepost, on the other hand, is not readily distinguishable from numerous other game forums. Also, please note that Neowin's forums do not have an article of their own. In fact, Game-Revolution already has an article on Wikipedia, and that's not going anywhere (though it could certainly use some work). The current consensus to merge the articles means that the (relevant and notable) information on the current Gamepost article is preserved and moved to Game-Revolution, so it's not like Gamepost is getting treated any different from Neowin. (Of course, if the forums themselves are somehow notable enough to deserve an article all their own, please tell us why this is so; if you can do that, I'm sure that we're more than willing to revise our votes. It's not an uncommon thing to happen during the AfD process, though I should probably point out that generally we favor hard facts over emotional pleas.) Hope this helps. -- Captain Disdain 03:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gazebow Unit

Band vanity, as per WP:MUSIC. --Allen3 talk 01:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:music with one self-distributed album. Problems under WP:V as article states "Although little is known about the group, it's widely believed that they are a joke." No Allmusic.com and 10 Google results, none of which is particularly authoritative confirms notability and verifiability problems see [8]. Capitalistroadster 01:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete fails WP:MUSIC, no allmusic entry, not notable. -- Malo 05:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 19:01, 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 SPEEDY KEEP. The nom doesn't want this deleted, just merged. Be WP:BOLD and merge it. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ghal Maraz

Non-notable fictional item; merge with parent article - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • EXTREMELY STRONG KEEP. It is not non-notable. It can clearly be much improved. There are over 50 articles in Category:Warhammer Fantasy, most of which are stubd. Please refrain from adding every small article to AFD. This is considered vandalism.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Article merger does not involve deletion at any stage. Do not nominate things for deletion where you do not actually wish an administrator to delete anything. Uncle G 15:44, 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 keep. It appears that the article was rewritten/translated during the course of the debate, and so the argument that the article was untranslated no longer applies. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gianluca Basile

Probably misplaced user page but my Spanish isn't up to it - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Please don't add articles to AFD if you don't know what thay mean.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Babelfish yields that this is in Italian, and appears to be patent nonsense. See what I mean here. (forgot: Wcquidditch | Talk 16:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)} Changing vote, see below.
    • Foolish me for not thinking of pasting the Babelfish link, that is after all precisely what I did with it... I tagged it AfD not speedy because it may be that some linguistic nuance for the native speaker makes it notable, but Shreshth91 points out that the correct process would be to tag for translation and then let the translator tag it for speedy if valid. Put it down to an excess of enthusiasm on a slow Thursday afternoon :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 17:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The chap is a basketball player who competed in the European championship and at the 2004 Olympics and at present is with Bologna. Might be worth to translate. Pilatus 17:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite. I'll admit that he is notable, but it's Italian and not worded as an encyclopedia article. This needs a major rewrite to be an actual article, not some odd "thank you". Wcquidditch | Talk 23:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • List in the articles requiring translation with the comments from this discussion attached on the talk page to assist the translator given that writing as well as translation will be involved. Capitalistroadster 00:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's not nonsense; it's just rather poetic and extremely POV. I'll translate and NPOV it when I get a chance. Chick Bowen 22:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I took the easy way out and translated it pretty straight, just toning down some of the florid prose. It's still POV; feel free to fix it. Also, I have no idea if his identity card really says "agricultural laborer" or if that's a metaphor. Chick Bowen 22:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep- I've made a major cleanup to the article, I've translated some things from the Spanish Wikipedia, and deleted some nonsense sentences. The article now is a stub, you can keep improving it... Tsuba 17:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep based on excellent rewrite. - Just zis Guy, you know? 23:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gimmickry

Appears to be neologism. The term gimmickry has 200k hits but impossible to distinguish relevant link. Term "gimmickry movement" only has 13 hits from google and only one not in wikipedia and its mirrors. SYSS Mouse 01:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity article, creator of this article actually has a wikilink unto himself, in the same article, (ie User:Levin Dean) Also not notable. -- Malo 05:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. There is no evidence that any such movement actually exists, and the topic itself appears to be non-notable nonsense. TheMadBaron 15:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it can be redirected to Gimmick? - Mgm|(talk) 19:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity or original research. --TantalumTelluride 22:11, 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 Redirect to Fall line. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gnat line

Likely neologism. Google for "gnat line" georgia = ~900 hits: [9] Incorrectly tagged as speedy; listing here. No vote. · Katefan0(scribble) 05:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

*Delete It is a neologism, even if it happens to be a neologism mentioned at usinfo.state.gove. Also, it is not obvious to me that the supposed Gnat Line is caused by a Fall Line, or that the next reader would see any connection - therefore, I think that is the wrong place to redirect. If we keep, we should redirect to Gnat, but I think deletion is the best choice here. Johntex\talk 23:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • The gnat line has nothing to do with gnats, except that gnats are bothersome pests throughout the entire Southeast United States. There is no merit to the claim in the article that the gnat line is a congregation of gnats that bisects the state of Georgia. Gnat line is apparently a neologism refering to the fall line. --TantalumTelluride 23:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Nothing to do with gnats, eh? In that case Redirect to Fall line. Johntex\talk 08:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have deleted the nonesense in the article and replaced it with relatively factual information (and, I admit, some speculation). In any case, it is better now than it was before. Still, I think that it should be redirected to Fall line. --TantalumTelluride 04:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:17, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 10:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Green Tortoise

Two hotels and a bus make not an encyclopedia entry, except if it is vanity, spam, POV, like this. Dunc|☺ 13:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - Unreal. Frustrating -- I suppose it makes sense that a flurry or work and changes would prompt it all getting deleted. This community is a legend with a group that is not extremely internet savvy (thus I'm sure it is weak on google test, etc -- actually ~60,000) Published in major magazine (travel weekly, 1987 [10]) I'm sure there are others. It dates back over 30 years and has had significant social impact, particularly on the west coas*t. As accused:
  • Vanity?, the article still reads like they'll take your money and drop you naked in the desert. (with a veggie meal)
  • spam? riiight.
  • The NPOV template was already on the page, we're working on it.
Amazed, best.. ;) ∴ here…♠ 14:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - a far from perfect article, but also very far from deserving deletion. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Nothing in this article right now would make me vote keep. The best assertion of notability ("It dates back over 30 years and has had significant social impact, particularly on the west coast...") appears on this AfD and not in the article. If that statement is indeed WP:V and the article is updated to include contentions of notability, I would say keep.. but right now I just see a bus line and two hostels - that apparently provide lackluster service - with the greatest claim to notability being that they run a line to Burning Man. Abstaining to see if the article matures.--Isotope23 16:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
We are having serious issues adding anything to the article at all, as the POV discussion is rather heated. I will admit that finding verifiable information has been difficult, at best, but I think this is a problem with a word of mouth and pre-internet history. Their greatest claim to notabilty is the fame their bus line attained pre-burning man and pre-hostels. In particular, they ran a hop-on hop-off line up and down the west coast, which has since been discontinued. I'll see if I can find some verifiable sources reflecting my 30 years of impact statement today. ∴ here…♠ 18:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • That would be helpful and would probably go a long way towards making sure this doesn't get AfD'd again if indeed the information is verifiable. If the information is word of mouth, then yes you will have a problem sourcing it, but if there is pre-internet media about it (books, newspapers, magazines, etc.) a biliographic mention would establish verifibility... see Vampire Watermelon for example. Seems completely ridiculous, but it is supported by text in an anthropological book (incidentally, someone scanned the pages and posted them on the web as proof because this article went through a couple of AfDs). Just a suggestion because even if this survives AfD my guess is it will get nominated again at some point if no greater claim of notibility is made, or if the notability claims are not sourced.--Isotope23 20:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Extremely well known domestic hippy travel/adventure agency running trips along the west coast and across the country. Google gets 68,000 hits for the phrase, the first few pages of which all refer to this use of the term, including at least one site for dissatisfied customers. Bikeable 17:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, the existing article has some POV problems, but since when is that grounds for deletion? We are working to achieve a consensus with all editors currently working on this article in the hopes of improving it to NPOV nature. The Tortoise is legendary in a number of circles, even if they aren't your circles. Kit 20:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A perfectly reasonable article that is not advertising.--Nicodemus75 00:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Added 7 additional sources. Will incorporate full text citations with additional time. Includes washington post, two new york times, a front page wall street journal western, travel weekly, etc. I assume this is enough for WP:V. ∴ here…♠ 00:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as edited (good job!). Very well-known, widely-discussed; culturallyu and historically significant, and if I can find a picture of the bus that I've taken, I'll release it and upload it. MCB 01:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As clear from being written up in New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc, etc, it's notable. -R. S. Shaw 03:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful topic, relevant, even if body text still needs work. MarkWahl 05:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Ah yes, brings back vagabond memories of 1980s and my college years... Decumanus 03:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 06:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Habibullah Hayatoolah

Tagged as nonsense, but isn't patent nonsense since it is intelligible. However, the speedy tag says "Googling this name AND the correction to the name suggested by google leads NO results... article is nonsense", which sounds like AfD should investigate. -Splashtalk 11:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. That was me that added the Speedy Tag... sorry, I am still getting to grips with policy on this. Though I stand by what I said... googling the name and the spelling suggestion leads absolutely no results. Also checking the contributions of the IP that wrote this shows vandalism, and other edits related to "Habibullah Hayatoolah".... Deskana 12:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no context, unverifiable (WP:V). Chick Bowen 21:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: I have speedily deleted this. It is not a new direction, the sole content of the article is virtually identical to the opening two sentences of the previously deleted article. --Stormie 05:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hard core gamer

  • Delete previously deleted, don't see how it's ever going to be more than a dicdef. I'm not an admin so I can't tell if it's a pure recreation. --Trovatore 04:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if it's a pure recreation, but it definitely is fun. Perhaps merge with "computer game"? Just a thought. _GUEST_
You probably want to put this up for speedy, as it has already been deleted. Look at that page for more info. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] [[additions | e-mail]] 04:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Mstrange, who initiated the new incarnation, said in the edit summary that it's a "startup with a new direction", so it may not be a recreation of deleted content, in which case it's not speedy. I still think it's a delete, though; seems pretty pointless beyond its value as a dicdef. --Trovatore 04:25, 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(?!?) 04:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hearts on Fire Youth Ministries

Advertisement for local church group. tregoweth 23:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:NOT an advertising board or directory of church outreach groups. Pilatus 00:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agreed. NN local group. Devotchka 00:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, and nearly pure advert. Author has not demonstrated how this group is of particular interest or uniqueness in the realm of teen outreach. Dxco 00:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. No attempt to establish notability. - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:25, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HP ProLiant DL740

Purely an advert. Can't see that, even rewritten, this particular model needs an article. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nomination. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Looks like a copy & paste job to me - Just zis Guy, you know? 16:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio from HP and so tagged, possibly an attempt to link to the author's blog. Pilatus 20:44, 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 Speedy Delete per CSD A6 Karmafist 16:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hyrulian

no context and slanderous. Perhaps is really famous player for a famous game, or soemthing.. but, this implementation of the article has no real useful data. Denki 16:30, 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 Keep by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I Am The Avalanche

Non-notable band vanity (preceding unsigned comment by Just zis Guy, you know? (talk · contribs) )

  • Keep. Notable and acclaimed band, signed to an important label. Passes WP:MUSIC. More Google hits than you can shake a stick at, including major music media (selected as one of Alternative Press Magazine’s "100 Bands You Need To Know In 2005" and featured in the magazine’s September "Fall Preview" issue). Toured extensively with Bayside and The Forecast, as evidenced at pluginmusic.com. Listed on the All Music Guide and Amazon.com. Debut album produced by Barrett Jones (Nirvana, Foo Fighters, Melvins). I've never heard of them. TheMadBaron 19:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:V with 58,000 Google results see [11] with first page at least relevant to the band including Punk News article and and Amazon page. Has an Allmusic.com page. Meets WP:music as having completed a tour and with an album on a significant record company. Eleven Google news results indicates current media interest see [12]. Capitalistroadster 00:04, 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. — JIP | Talk 10:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Imaginary antecedent

This appears to be a clear-cut case of Wikipedia:No original research, which is unfortunate, because it really is an interesting article. Delete, and maybe if it becomes standard terminology, we can dig this out again. —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment Does the policy on original research strictly exclude terminology that isn't "standard"? oneismany 10:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No obvious examples of this being a current usage, and I have to say the first paragraph made my head spin. I can see where the author is going, the study of imaginary objects which assume a life outside the fiction in which they appear is sometimes quite interesting (especially the Hith-Hiker's Guide, which Adams did get going as h2g2.com) but I'm not sure this is the right place for it, and as currently written it certainly counts as original research. - Just zis Guy, you know? 20:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment No research is involved, it is only a combination of existing topics. The use of 'undecidability' to relate the topics is verifiable from published sources oneismany 10:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This doesn't seem to be original research. Google returns 8 hits for the search term "imaginary antecedent." Eight hits isn't a lot, but enough to support that this isn't the author's original research. —Brim 20:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Commment I believe you are misinterpreting what Wikipedia means by original research. If an expert writes a book which becomes a well regarded publication on its topic, then that author comes here and contributes on the same subject, that does not count as original research even though it is the original article. Conversely, if Joe Schmo writes a crack-pot theory that generates no stir beyond just a few Google hits with it, then Jeff Blow comes here and adds it to Wikipedia, it is still original research even though it is not added by the original author. Johntex\talk 21:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment Existing topics such as 'false document' are insufficient assesments of the subjects referred to as 'imaginary antecedents.' There may be some crossover in the subject matter, but this topic is more of a disambiguation than a form of research. oneismany 10:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Have you looked at the actual Google results, though? They have little to do with the topic of the article. I don't question that the phrase is valid English, but the very precise definition in the article has (I believe) been invented by the creator of the article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 18:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment Huh. I had no idea that first-order logic was considered 'research.' All this time I thought I've just been doing math, I could have been publishing it! Let me ask, would hand-drawing a new sketch of a familiar concept be considered 'original research' too? oneismany 10:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I have misused the WP:NOR policy. In my limited time here, it has become fairly clear that this encompasses topics beyond research: neologisms and attempts to coin phrases, for example. What you have done is taken two words that could be combined to mean any number of things and given them a very specific literary definition. This is simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Here's a thought experiment. Little Johnny Schoolboy writes a book report on one of these books you cite, like LotR. In this, he refers to the Red Book as an "imaginary antecedent" without further explanation, assuming that his very knowledgeable teacher will understand the term. The teacher grabs her red marker and circles the term, putting a few big question marks next to it, because—while she certainly knows both words—she has never seen them used this way. Johnny gets his paper back and complains, saying he read it in an encyclopedia, and all the teacher can say is, "I'm glad you put so much effort into your paper, but nobody uses this term. Nobody will understand it when you use it unless you explain it further, so why use it?"
It seems to me that you're trying to invent a new phrase, like dangling participle, and this is not the place to coin a term. —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment Okay, I see your point about that and I don't think this specific phrase needs to be the title of this entry. There is no 'imaginary x' topic however, and the subject matter discussed in this entry is not specific to that phrase. The entry is in the process of being broadened to incorporate more perspectives and cross-references. Sorry for the neologism; this entry is under construction, so please be patient and don't delete it while it is in progress. Of course any assistance in grounding the subject in existing terminology would be appreciated.
  • Delete original research. Johntex\talk 21:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. per above mikka (t) 00:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly OR. And really, it just seems like pseudo-postmodern doubletalk, frankly. MCB 01:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment Perhaps the wording can be improved, more examples included, or further distinctions noted, but if the article is insufficient somehow that doesn't also make it meaningless. oneismany 10:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Neither 'imaginary' nor 'antecedent' is invented for the article, nor is 'imaginary antecedent' an original term. The topic is not invented for the subject matter, the subject matter necessitates the topic. oneismany 10:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
If frogs, for example, were listed separately as fish and as reptiles, would it be 'original research' to list them as amphibians? If the characteristics of frogs are well known, i.e. that they are born in water but live in water and on land, is it research to point out a class of similar animals that are already well known? oneismany 12:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
If 'imaginary' antecedents (or referents) are original research, then why not 'nonexistent' antecedents (or referents)? Where is the third-party verification that disqualifies 'nonexistence' as original research? Both the usage of 'imaginary' and 'nonexistent' are standard usage. If one is excluded from the encyclopedia, is it not POV to include the other? oneismany 12:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Interesting for head-spinning, but not a real topic. I am not even sure the author understands this uninteresting application of incompleteness theory. As for the google hits, those are not addressing this idea of 'false document' which is already addressed on Wikipedia. Obvious delete. Cyferx

  • Keep - Not OR (rather, perhaps, "original perspective"). The term might be neologistic, but the idea obviously isn't. (It is clearly a superset which encompasses false documents, not a synonym.) If there is no equivalent terminology to describe this important phenomemon, deleting it simply diminishes the encyclopaedic nature of wikipedia. — JEREMY 08:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research + pseudointellectual rant Bwithh 03:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - 'Imaginary antecedent' may be original, but 'false antecedent' is a better-known concept. Perhaps it should be renamed.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 06:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ITC Solutions

Tagged for speedy as "advertising". That may be true, but "advertising" is not a speedy criterion (unless it's so outright blatant spam that it is pure vandalism). Is this company worthy of a rewrite? Not sure here, so no vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • D - there seems to be a bunch of companies with similar names. This one seems to be non-notable. The article is pretty much just advertising. Fawcett5 13:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Not notable. - mdd4696 22:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:22, 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 as CSD:A6, attack page. Johntex\talk 08:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Biller

Non-notable, actually looks like vandalism but I didn't quitre like to speedy tag it. Some Google hits re. Priestcult arguments, but no evidence of notability. - Just zis Guy, you know? 19:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Almost vandalism, yeah. NN, pointless. Devotchka 19:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. useless. mikka (t) 00:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, CSD:A6, attack page. MCB 01:43, 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. Kirill Lokshin 06:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jarrod

Not sure if meanings of names are sufficiently encyclopedic. Expand or delete. Pilatus 20:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete - adding the etymology of surnames to the various lists of Smiths, Joneses etc. has some merit, but are there any notable Jarrods? Or related names, as these etymologies tend to have multiple variations? - Just zis Guy, you know? 20:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Etymologies of words, names or otherwise, are what one finds in a dictionary. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a dictionary. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames. The given names and surnames appendices at Wiktionary are where this and articles like it belong. Delete. Uncle G 07:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep given names are inherently notable, being shared by thousands of people.  Grue  13:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 06:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jéjé La Ronduche

As far as my limited French goes, this is non-notable. It's also non-English. - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Do not add articles to VFD if you don't understand what they mean.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I understand more or less what it means, I didn't wnat to put someone through the trouble of translating what appears to be non-notable content. I'm quite content to see it marked for translation if you think that would be better. - Just zis Guy, you know? 16:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's just been reverted from UEFA Champions League - if it's not notable enough in that context he certainly doen't merit an article of his own. Dlyons493 Talk 18:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. My second-language French skills detect nothing particularly notable here; plus, it's in French. 70.27.59.200 22:06, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 10:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeph Jacques

  • Delete non notable (google gives ~15,000 hits), non-encyclopedic facts (tattoos, purchase of pet rabbit), might be self-advertising (but can't tell for sure), mention of nn personal life (girlfriend). At the very least, merge a few lines into Questionable Content Tony Bruguier 14:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. I still think it's non notable and that most web comics authors are not that well known. Per est, I think that the category might be need deletion too, as there's clearly a difference between Charles_M._Schulz and them... not that their work is of low quality, it isn't. It's not just that notable. Anyway, the cleanup makes it look like a serious article and not a personal page, thus the change to weak delete.
  • Comment. By that logic, we should delete most of the articles about the American Presidents from the 19th Century, since the majority of them aren't notable, compared to Bush, Clinton, Reagan and JFK. Then we should just go and delete all the articles about British PMs, since only a few of them are notable. Of course these Webcomic authors aren't as famous as Schulz, but name three non-webcomic authors who are? These guys may not be known far and wide in the real world, but they are on the internet, and thats a culture in itself.--Kross | Talk 19:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Questionable Content. The comic is notable; the creator is not notable on his own (no other works). --keepsleeping say what 16:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, as per Keepsleeping. -- Plutor 18:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If we delete him for being non-notable, then hell, lets just wipe out the entire Category:Webcomic authors.--Kross | Talk 04:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or send to Cleanup. My thoughts match those of Kross. I am not sure why Jacques' entry would be singled out of the Category:Webcomic authors category. Jacques draws both Questionable Content and Indietits, as well as contributing guest strips to other notable webcomics. If the cause of the deletion request is the non-encyclopedic facts the entry could always be sent to Cleanup.--est 06:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep given recent cleanup.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 07:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for further cleanup TastemyHouse 07:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. — Kjammer ⌂ 08:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Kross. Decklin 23:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup/add to. I agree with Kross. Quentin mcalmott 06:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Kross. Tedzsee 04:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Clean up for sure but removing it purely for the reasons shown isnt reason enough Arcon 14:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Kross. Frenzberrie 02:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[[Image:Bunny 303.png|right|thumb|400px|Bunny № 303, lampooning the falsely reported death of Jeph Jacques on his Wikipedia page.]]

  • Keep = Important piece of Wikipedia history --Irishpunktom\talk 13:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Doesn't keeping for that reason hinge on self-reference, though?  — Saxifrage | ☎ 01:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. — JIP | Talk 11:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jhazingha-Khaliph, Ce-Line, Pidget, Yolanda Bullock, Muffy

Article for non-notable musical group (Jhazingha-Khaliph). A google search for Jhazingha-Khaliph returns only the bands website, wikipedia mirrors/articles and one other music site (blackradio.de). Thanks/wangi 09:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: Combining virtually identical AfD's for four non-notable band members of non-notable band for efficiency. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 19:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. wangi 11:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, although I fear a mad sockpuppet outrage will follow soon a la Mason Stahl. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 19:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks for merging these together - I wasn't sure on if they should or shouldn't. I think it's fairly clear in this case that the group and members do not meet anything in WP:MUSIC. Thanks/wangi 11:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As the creator of this page on a group that I have acquainted myself with, I seriously doubt Jhazingha-Khaliph would care. As far as some sock puppet rage, it isn't even worried about. But before closing, J-K is a group that continues to grow, and I've heard nothing on this earth that sounds like their music. Not only that but they work regular jobs just like everybody else and the members aren't looking for acceptance in such a warped industry. That's why I categorized them outsider artists. But Jhazingha-Khaliph will tell you they don't care one way or the other because they never worried about impressing anybody. So I guess even Jhazingha-Khaliph says "DELETE." Marvin Glass
  • Comment: Category:Jhazingha-Khaliph members and Image:JHAZINGHA-KHALIPHCD.jpg would need to go too... wangi 21:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Starblind as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johnathon Dean

Vanity page from a 12 year old Australian schoolboy, who does not appear to be notable in any way. Grinner 13:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Grinner 13:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I stuck a speedy delete notice on this boy's vanity page under WP:CSD A7, no claim to notability. (Being a prominent member of his school association's swimming and athletics club and a college prefect doesn't do it for me.) Sliggy 13:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied under A7, no notability present in article, unless we count things like having "shining red hair" or being a prefect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:09, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 19:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Bithrey

broadcaster at local station; not notable Brandon39 03:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


don't delete this, for 3 reasons:

1) bithrey is a well known celebrity in jersey. this is not merely a 'local' station - jersey has its own government, bank notes and therefore is entitled to consider itself a little more than just a locality

2) bithrey has connections with internationally well known celebrities such as chris moyles

3) surely all this discussion about jon bithrey suggests that he IS notable enough for inclusion.

in addition, as far as i know this entry is not the work of bithrey, therefore it is not 'vanity'

I wrote this article and realise it needed rewriting so I did so. Am now slightly surprised that there is still such a push to delete it from some quarters. I read the guidelines on "speedy deletion" and it is clear to me it should never have been marked for speedy deletion in the first place. Is this supposed to be a font of knowledge or the province of a few people who enjoy aggressively deleting things? - --213.121.207.34 14:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)BB

  • Weak keep. Just about scrapes in as having some value. Awful line "Bithrey was very popular at ..." smacks of vanity and needs removal. [[[User:Colin99|Colin99]]]
  • Strong Keep. There is a category devoted to British radio personalities. --TantalumTelluride 22:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Seems a nice guy, but he should arrive back here when he has made it nationally. The existence of a category does not mean that non-notable members of that gategory deserve a page. AndyJones 23:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In hindsight, my comment does seem to be a logical fallacy. The fact that there is a category for something doesn't necessarily mean that it should have an article. Otherwise, everything on AfD could be assigned to a category and kept. Please, allow me to explain my vote now logically: I think we should keep the article because British radio hosts are apparently considered notable people since more than 175 of them already have Wikipedia articles. --TantalumTelluride 19:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. There is a page on, for example, Johnny Vaughan, who is also a 'local' radio DJ (Capital Radio = London). Thus this should be kept. --193.129.87.253 10:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Although, to be fair, Johnny Vaughan is a famous guy who has had cultural impact. AndyJones 12:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't rise over the bar of notability for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Johntex\talk 23:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I live on Jersey and listen The Jon Bithrey Show every day. I can confirm that he is very very notable.--80.44.189.125 16:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep I do not live in Jersey but do live in the United Kingdom. I personally don't listen to Jon Bithrey as I do not receive BBC Radio Jersey. However, having read the entry about him I think that he is clearly notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Surely anyone who lived on Jersey or wanted to know more about the island would find their visit to this site enriched by being able to look at local radio stations on the island and then be able to be linked directly to one of the key personalities who reports news on the most important local radio station? Is this kind of things not exactly what Wikipedia is about, or am I missing the point? I just don't understand the requests that this be removed. --82.35.78.232 11:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep. I don't live on Jersey, but do remember him from his Stormlive days. I actually disliked his show, but I would say that he is notable enough for inclusion.--193.30.111.226 16:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Should've been a speedy redirect. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Julio Mario Santodomingo

Incorrect Name, information out of date Another Wikipedian 23:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

There are contradictory sources, but the actual name of this person seems to be Julio Mario Santo Domingo. References: Several main Colombian journals use "Julio Mario Santo Domingo" [13], [14] and there's a Mario Santo Domingo foundation [15] (clearly in his honor).

Besides, the "Julio Mario Santodomingo" article contains information out of date, doubtful or irrelevant.

Doubtful: Santo Domingo was born in Barranquilla. (This serious reference [16] says, according to my translation, that Santo Domingo "was born in Panamá, but originated in Barranquilla", info which I included in Julio Mario Santo Domingo).

Out of date: Santo Domingo owns Bavaria. (Bavaria was fusioned with (absorbed by) SABMiller). See [17].

Out of date: Santo Domingo owns Avianca (Germán Efromovich is the new main stock holder of Avianca [18].)

Possibly out of date: Santo Domingo lives in Paris, (apparently he spends most of his time in New York now, but I would have to double check this. See for instance: [19] (2004) or [20] (2004)).

Irrelevant: Carrefour bought his house. (While Carrefour bought Santo Domingo's family's house in Barranquilla, [21], the anecdote is irrelevant, and I couldn't verify it).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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(?!?) 04:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaleo Church

This is a stub on an evangelical church in San Diego which hasn't been touched for over a year and tells nothing beyond the fact that it exists.

Expand on the significance of this particular congregation or delete. Pilatus 23:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Nothing wrong with the stub about this church. --Nicodemus75 00:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete The entire planet does not need to be catalogued. Unless there is some broader significance to this church, outside of the fact that it is one, it should be deleted. Dxco 00:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • weak delete although I would go "keep" is notability could be shown. But in all likelyhood, it won't. Youngamerican 02:46, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not on adherents.com which is My Personal Standard. Ashibaka (tock) 03:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-encyclopaedic and no attempt to establish notabiity - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dxco. Johntex\talk 09:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Dxco. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dxco. Xoloz 18:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Dxco --redstucco 09:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP (with no decision either way with regards to merging). Nom doesn't want it deleted, nobody else seems to want it deleted, so there's no reason for this to be on AFD. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Karai

I'm not sure what this is. It appears to be some sort of fan-fiction or something. Delete Andrew pmk | Talk 01:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    • Keep, withdraw nomination. When I nominated the article, it was badly formatted and it was not at all obvious what it was. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. According to the article, character in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.—Gaff ταλκ 03:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. May I suggest, that if you don't know what it is, you should restrain the knee-jerk to delete until you do? Trollderella 03:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Please stop attacking the nominator. This nomination has done no harm whatsoever. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • "Not knowing what it is" is usually grounds for speedy deletion, on the basis of a lack of context. --Carnildo 23:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. I had created it, and as you can see if you had read, it was a character from the TMNT. I plan on doin more also that haven't already been done. DaGreatSaiyajin 03:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Why is this even a question? SAMAS
  • Keep Canonical TMNT character, also in TMNT: Tournament Fighters as a secret character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge PJM 12:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. --Jacqui ★ 14:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong merge. Do we have a list of TMNT minor characters somewhere? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but it's probably not the plaice for such a detailed plot summary, which should be deleted or merged as appropriate. TheMadBaron 18:47, 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 Speedy Delete by Starblind as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 14:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kieran.A.Hodge

Non-notable. Google's sparse results simply indicate some guy at Mazenod college who took part in some minor tennis tournaments. I suspect the block is associated with Mazenod, as vandalism from related IPs mentioned it. At any rate, non-notable, delete... Fourohfour 11:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no claim for achievement, note, influence, fame etc made. Average Earthman 12:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Makes no claim to notability. Tagged as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted Two-sentence wonder with no info at all besides name, place of birth, and parents' names. That's all, folks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, 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(?!?) 04:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kingspade

One of a number of very messy articles written about members of The Kottonmouth Kings and other artists on Suburban Noize Records. I'm cleaning up some of them where possible. Others, like Kingspade, are hopelessly non-encyclopedic, assert little verifiable notability for their subject other than as members of the collective, and include little or no basis on which to write a good article. These should probably be deleted. See also Pakelika. TheMadBaron 00:27, 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(?!?) 04:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] K'man

Almost a speedy; nonsense, non-notable. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 13:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 13:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. I would've said it's a speedy. - mdd4696 22:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shawn 10:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] La Tuya y los 1500

Band, originally submitted in Spanish, appears to be non-notable. Physchim62 09:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete — They do get some google hits and have a CD out, but I could find no evidence of notability. There's no equivalent on the Spanish wikipedia site. — RJH 15:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 18:25, 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 merge. Done. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leatherneck.com

Seems to be one of several million websites out there. I dont see anything noteworthy. -R. fiend 02:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge as link on Marine Corps article? —Gaff ταλκ 03:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. utcursch | talk 04:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above--Dakota 04:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Just a question: do you want to merge the info, or just include a link to this site on the marines page? Because the latter isn't really a merge; it's just creating an external link, which can be done with or without deletion of this article. -R. fiend 04:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • LinkAgree with R.fiend (cancel above vote)--Dakota 05:01, 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, appalled at users recognizing ads word-by-word... :P. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liberty Medical

Delete. Spamvertising. Wikibofh 19:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is actually a commercial, word-for-word (as far as I can tell). Embarrassed to admit it, but I recognize it. The point is that it probably isn't advertising so much as it is somebody screwing around. Maybe worth even a speedy delete because of this. Devotchka 19:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant advertising. Can it be speedied? There is no substantive content, after all. - Just zis Guy, you know? 19:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or BJODN. Oh man....I didn't read this article, I recited it out loud. It is a commercial with Wilford Brimley riding a horse which came on a couple times each hour during my court shows (back when I was a student and at home during the day). It is funny because the author probably wrote this from memory, just as I recite it from memory. --maclean25 03:49, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of books never adapted to film

Delete - This article isn't very useful, and could expand almost indefinitely. If it was meant to list books that almost became movies, i.e., the film rights were sold in anticipation of it becoming a film, or something like that, that might be of interest and use. But as is, delete. MakeRocketGoNow 23:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree with nom. List that could go on forever and without much point. Devotchka 23:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (I am holding out for "list of pointless lists which have not yet been created") - Just zis Guy, you know? 23:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Logically inverted topics are not usefull (up to the point where a significant minority of books have *not* been made into films - a case I don't believe will happen.)Dxco 00:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The potential number of items on this list verges on the infinite. Furthermore, the list as it stands is not particularly useful; while Brave New World and A Wrinkle in Time were not adapted as theatrical films, they were adapted as TV movies. --Metropolitan90 00:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unmaintainable, unenumerable, pointless listcruft. MCB 01:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dxco. I wonder if the opposite would be maintainable, though? We don't currently have it, though we have quite a few other lists at Lists of movie source material, including the Good Book. --Jacqui ★ 04:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unmaintainable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unmaintainable listcruft. Punkmorten 15:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Far too broad. Flowerparty■ 02:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. (4d, 8k) - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of high value detainees

In anticipation of the User:Geo Swan's usual and customary attacks on me, let me point out my good faith my edit tonight of his other new article, Joshua Colangelo-Bryan. Please compare the before and after before you misjudge me. Joaquin Murietta 00:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No overlap -- Civilian intelligence officials have retained the couple of dozen detainees who have the most intelligence value. They are not held at Guantanamo Bay. So there is no overlap between the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees, and a list of those with an intelligence value so great they are not held by the military, are not held in Guantanamo Bay.
  • Dick Cheney made the distinction. On October 20, 2005, VPOTUS Dick Cheney tried to get John McCain to change his proposal to restrict American interrogators to only those interrogation techniques authorized the official Army interrogation manual. Cheney wanted McCain's proposal to only apply to those detainees in military custody, and not to the smaller group of detainees with real intelligence value, who were in the custody of civilian intelligence agencies. I contend that circumstances of arrest, detention, interrogations of the detainees in civilian custody, and the allegations against them, merits inclusion in the wikipedia. And I contend that an article devoted to those held in Guantanamo Bay is an innapropriate place for that inclusion. None of these guys is held in Guantanamo Bay. I wasn't completely happy with the name I picked when I started this article. And the confusion expressed suggests the article should have a different name. But it certainly merits inclusion. -- Geo Swan 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Undecided for now my main problem with this article is the question "what makes a detainee high value?" I agree that List of Guantanamo Bay detainees better covers the topic I think most people would be looking for. -- Malo 06:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As above. The List of Guantanamo Bay detainees -- all of whom are in military custody -- does not cover detainees who are not held in Guantanamo Bay, and who are held by civilian intelligence agencies.
  • As above, the wikipedia needs this article, but it needs a different title.
  • Rumsfeld, and other senior officials, have claimed that the interrogations at Guantanamo Bay have produced "invaluable intelligence". There is a long tradition in war-fighting to use disinformation. I think it was Winston Churchill who said that, in wartime, "the truth must be guarded by a bodyguard of lies". I think accepting the "invaluable intelligence", and "worst of the worst" claims, at face value, is POV. I think balanced, neutral coverage of the detainee issues requires having articles also present verifiable information that allows readers to test the Bush administrations claims. If the Guantanamo Bay facility really included the worst of the worst it would contain Abu Zubaydah, al-Libi, and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed.
  • The USA has, in custody, some guys who are believed to be senior members of al Qaeda, guys who had foreknowledge of, or helped plan, the attacks of 9-11. And the USA has, in custody, some guys who are believed to have been the directors of terrorist training camps. These are the guys who are really "the worst of the worst", the ones with real "intelligence value". US civilian intelligence agencies have held on to them. They are not held in Guantanamo Bay. And the Bush administration is fighting very strongly to continue to hold them in secret interrogatin centres and to continue to interrogate them using more extreme interrogation techniques. -- Geo Swan 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - In response to the comments you left on my talk page, Geo Swan: My other problem with this article is how inherently American the POV is. Even if you removed the subjective term high value, a List of detainees, does not mean only those detainees held by the US, as this article implies. And honestly, I don't think that is the kind of article you are trying to create here. All articles should try very hard to attain a neutral point of view (NPOV). Not only does the title of this article fail to do so, it fails to do so on two accounts. The rest of this article follows the suit of the title and maintains a very non neutral point of view. -- Malo 19:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It was a poor choice of title. My mistake. How would you feel about Terror suspects held by US inteligence agencies or detainees held by US intelligence agencies in the "global war on terror". It would be more convenient to use something like Terror suspects held by the CIA. But we don't know that they are held by the CIA. Afghanistan is one of the world's most prolific opium growing areas. So the DEA may be working there. There is a slim possibility that the CIA delegated the detention of some suspects to the DEA or other more junior agencies.
  • I can't tell if you think that the article, as it stands, is too sympathetic to the detainees, or too sympathetic to the stands taken by the Bush administration. Would you care to clarify that for me?
  • Do you have any concrete suggestions, beyond a change of title, as to what the article needs to seem NPOV to you? I made some changes to take your comments into account. In particular I changed many of the uses of the term "high value detainees" to "suspects held by US Civilian Intelligence agencies".
  • You made a guess at the "kind of article am I trying to create here". Well, you don't have to guess. I will tell you. I believe that a NPOV requires more than merely echoing the positions of the Bush administration. I believe that the presentation of pertinent, verifiable information, that does not use inflammatory language, is not POV. Did I use noninflammatory language? I thought so. But if you disagree, I'd appreciate you pointing me to specific passages where my efforts fell short.
  • A limited number of wikipedia contributors seem to have the view that merely trying to write about certain topics is biased, and POV. I disagree. Some topics may be harder to address in an NPOV way. But I am willing to make the effort. And I am going to count on others who can assume good will, to help me out with that.
  • Thanks for your reply. -- Geo Swan 21:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I can provide a better title for this article, I've been racking my brain about it. And I think that you are correct about NPOV and how other users deem them to be POV based upon the topic. (myself potentially included). So I applaude you for attempting to do something that I wouldn't personally feel comfortable with. One problem I have with this is in the first line United States intelligence agencies are widely believed to maintain covert interrogation centres Widely believed is not really verified. It's mighty close, and in all likelihood it's true, however proving it becomes difficult when a government that likes to keep its secrets is involved. Hence the rest of this article is built upon a widely believed statement (or not so much for conspiracy theorists). And I suppose there are other articles that do this, even more from further back in history, however this is a developing topic and real information isn't exactly plentiful and verifible just yet. I suggest you mention somewhere in here the term Unlawful combatant and how it relates to the Geneva Convention, and the status of these detainees. Perhaps this article could be shortened and added as section upon another article such as War on Terrorism. Or perhaps it needs to be expanded. I think the problem you face still is that most people see this as a work created by someone who has strong or bias views one way or the other. And that consequently this article is being used to push someone's agenda of either absolute truth or half-truths. Which comes back to why I don't feel comfortable on these sort of things. However I am willing to change my vote, I just haven't decided fully what is best for this article. -- Malo 22:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As above, the detainees who are not in military custody, are not detained in Cuba, who were retained by civilian intelligence agencies, because they were senior al Qaeda who had real knowledge of participation in the planning of the attacks on 9-11 merit separate coverage from the detainees who are in military custody. The possibility exists that the interrogation techniques used on those in the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees will be scaled back to just those authorized in the Army's field manual on interrogation, while those in civilian custody remain interrogated by more extreme techniques, like "waterboarding" and mock executions. That alone, IMO, merits a separate article. -- Geo Swan 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as inherently POV - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in current form, the article is unrecognisable from the original and now has a genuine purpose. I note the author(s) have included the comment "needs a name change" - I quite agree. As it stands this is a completely different article with an apparently different subject. - Just zis Guy, you know? 17:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you care to explain why this article is "inherently POV"? -- Geo Swan 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If you check the criteria for deletion in Wikipedia:Deletion policies you will see that a perceived POV problem is not grounds for deletion. -- Geo Swan 14:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless some appropriate source can be cited for the origin of the term "high value detainees". TheMadBaron 16:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As above, the wikipedia needs this article, but undera a better name. A google search on the term "high value detainee" turns up over 600 links. -- Geo Swan 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, but rename. Disclaimer, I started this article.
  • As above, in addition to the detainees with little intelligence value held in Afghanistan and Guantanamo US Civilian intelligence officials maintain small, covert, interrogation centres where they have been holding and interrogating the most senior al Qaeda captives, those who may have helped plan the 9-11 attacks.
  • The article needs to be renamed. The original name is confusing. I am not sure what name might be better. How about List of al Qaeda captives in CIA custody?
  • Both US officials, and media correspondents have used the term "high value detainee". But, since I started the article, with that name, I realized that US officials did not restrict that term to the most senior al Qaeda, they also used it for the most senior members of Saddam's regime. All of the other 51 people on those famous playing cards are "high value detainees". My mistake. The article definitely needs a better name. -- Geo Swan 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep since government officials and the media have made a distinction between these prisoners and apparently "low-value" or "worthless" prisoners. This article is no more inherently POV than is the Axis of Evil article, which designates Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as more evil than other countries. The article could be moved to a more NPOV name, though, leaving List of high value detainees as a redirect. In either case, I think high-value should be hyphenated. --TantalumTelluride 21:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable/inherently POV. --Carnildo 22:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If you check the criteria for deletion in Wikipedia:Deletion policies you will see that a perceived POV problem is not grounds for deletion. -- Geo Swan 14:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If you check, "article cannot be made NPOV" (ie. inherently POV) is grounds for deletion. --Carnildo 18:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Wholly inappropriate pages in the project (Wikipedia:), Help:, MediaWiki:, Portal:, and various talk namespaces, where discussion, renaming, merging, or simple editing cannot resolve the problem."
Surely, before applying the extreme measure of deletion, you, or someone who agrees with you, should have made a sincere, good faith effort to try discussion, renaming, merging or simple editing. I have been doing my share, good faith edits to address those who have concerns. Yes, we are discussing the article, now. But no one tried discussion before filing an {afd}. That does not conform the to deletion procedures. I contend that what the passage I quoted from the policy means is that an {afd} is the last resort to be tried, once good faith attempts at discussion, etc., failed. -- Geo Swan 21:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiable and not POV. Ashibaka (tock) 03:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Redirect per ashibaka, relavent and pertinent to the gitmo situation. possible redirect. Newyorktimescrossword 04:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment re Definitions of High Value Detainee The argument is that the U.S. govt particularly mistreats those detainees that it defines as high value. The problem with the list is that the U.S govt has never disclosed the names. A U Mich site defines the phrase -- High Value Detainee A detainee who, due to his or her senior position in the military, security, scientific/technical, or government structures of Saddam Husayn's [sic] Regime, may have knowledge or insights of relevance to ISG's mission. [www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/pdf/duelfer3_e.pdf 1]. If this is the correct definition, then many of the names on the list are incorrect. However, we have no way of confirming this until the US Govt releases the names. Eventually that will happen, but at this stage, any list we put up would be based on speculation. An OpEd piece could properly speculate on the identities, but is it encyclopedic? Joaquin Murietta 07:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I made a poor choice of names when I started the article. I already said this, several times. The article needs to be renamed. My current favourite alternative name is Terror suspects in CIA custody.
  • The US government has admitted using extended interrogation techniques on the detainees in CIA custody, including "waterboarding" -- an interrogation technique where you immerse a detainee in water, to the point they think they are about to drown -- and mock executions. Most people would regard this as mistreatment.
  • In answer to your question: As I understand wiki policy, the authors of wikipedia articles are not supposed to include their own speculation in the contributions they make. But quoting articles, and op-eds, that speculate, is completely legit, as long as they are properly cited, so the reader can tell the cited material is a speculation.
  • As to whether the US government has acknowledged the detention of any of the senior al Qaeda that are in the custody of Intelligence angencies, not the military. You asserted that the US government has not. You are simply mistaken there.
  • Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi is said to have been the first senior al Qaeda operative to have been captured. He is said to have been the first senior al Qaeda to have been the subject of more extreme interrogation techniques. Under interrogation he made admissions that were regarded as extremely important. The news from his interrogation were regarded as so important that a cabinet level decision was made to sacrifice the keeping his information under wraps. Al-Libi was mentioned, by name, in the famous speech Powell gave to the UN, where he cited evidence that bolstered the case that there was a tie between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, and that Saddam did have a dangerous arsenal of WMD.
After the invasion, and after the American failure to find any WMD al-Libi was re-interviewed about the WMD. He acknowledged that the admissions he made were untrue.
That was a clear failure on someone's part. Whether al-Libi was clever enough, and determined enough, to outsmart his interrogators, and knowingly feed them poisoned information, or whether incompetent interrogators unconsciously lead al-Libi to confirm their preconceptions is not at issue here.
What is at issue is whether US government officials have openly acknowledged holding some of the detainees who were initially held in covert detention centres. The answer is a clear and unequivocal "yes" in al-Libi's case, and in the case of several others on the list, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh.
  • You seem to be implying here, and elsewhere, that the wikipedia cannot report any speculation on facts or arguments that could be interpreted as reflecting poorly on US policies. You have consistently called that kind of material POV, or "obviously POV". That is far to high a standard. The standard you suggest here, that the wikipedia cannot report on the status of these detainees until you recognize that an official US government source has acknowledged the the nature and location of their detention and interrogation is too high. There are secrets, from World War 2, that remain classified over sixty years later. But no one would argue that the wikipedia shouldn't report speculation about those secrets. I am old enough to remember a time before the British wartime decryption efforts had lead to the worlds first digital computers. If the wikipedia had been around then, surely you would agree that reporting the knowledgeable speculation of experts, and former insiders, was completely legitimate?
  • I am old enough to remember the unfolding of the US Watergate scandal, during the Nixon Presidency. By the standard you seem to be suggesting, the wikipedia would not have been able to report on Woodward and Bernstein stories -- because they were reporting material that relected poorly on a sitting President that had not been confirmed by an official US government official. By this standard you would have restricted the wikipedia from reporting on expert's speculation as to the identity of the source Woodward and Bernstein identified as "deep throat". No, the wikipedia is not the place for crusading investigative journalists. But reporting on the speculation of investigative journalists, in a balanced way, is completely within what the wikipedia is.
  • I know you know, as other people have pointed it out to you, in some of the previous {afd}s you recently initiated on articles I started, that the wikipolicy on deleting articles clearly says a perceived POV problem is not grounds for deletion.
  • Do you remember the course of the US invasion of Iraq. Progress was relatively quick. It took about a month from when the first elements crossed the border, to the final occupation of the government complex in downtown Baghdad. During that month the Iraqi Minister of Information kept giving these ridiculous press conferences, where he reported that the Iraqi forces were winning, were on the brink of chewing up the invaders, and expelling them. He was a laughing stock. Saddam restricted him from reporting or confirming anything that reflected poorly on Saddam's regime. If you succeeded, and were able to suppress reports all facts or expert's speculation, that could be interpreted as reflecting poorly on the USA, from inclusion in the wikipedia, you would turn it into the same kind of laughing stock as Saddam's Ministry of Information.
  • The proper role of the wikipedia is not to serve as a US hagiography. The wikipedia is not a US project. It is an international project. Even if I were an American I would argue against the suppression of verifiable information just because it could be seen as reflecting poorly on US policies. -- Geo Swan 14:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment - The article is no longer orphaned. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - There is absolutely no duplication of the names at List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. This documents an important ongoing political event, regardless of how keenly the Bush administration wishes to suppress information regarding the whole detainee / "unlawful combatant" issue. The article seems to be well sourced and verifiable, but I agree that it needs to be renamed - something for the article discussion page. --Cactus.man ✍ 09:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep per Cactus.man.--Kewp (t) 10:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, arbitrary fork. Radiant_>|< 12:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Inquiring minds want to know. What is an "arbitrary fork"? -- Geo Swan 02:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is encyclopedic and does not duplicate the Gitmo list. --Meiers Twins 11:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 List of World War II ships. --Celestianpower háblame 19:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Naval Vessels of World War II

Minimal list, all items covered in list of World War II ships Joshbaumgartner 02:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to list of World War II ships. Capitalistroadster 02:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. utcursch | talk 04:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect as above. -- Malo 05:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as a useflul search term (although I don't know why "Naval Vessels" is capitalized.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to preserve search hits... Usrnme h8er 07:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Does this even need to go through AfD? --TantalumTelluride 22:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
No, ordinarily it would not, but since it has been listed for afd, it needs to go through the process. Usrnme h8er 08:14, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 00:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Living Like a Disaster

Resident Evil fancruft. Delete. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 00:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete delete, nn online fanfic. MCB 00:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fanfic belongs on fanfic websites, not in an encyclopedia. --Stormie 01:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree w/ MCB & Stormie.—Gaff ταλκ 03:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete fanfiction isn't encyclopedic. It looks like a Mary Sue as well. The number of reviews cannot be a measure for popularity. As those are too easily faked. - Mgm|(talk) 08:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Retain It would be hypocritical to delete this page when other major members of other online communities such as Leeroy Jenkins of World of Warcraft have entries to their names. I dislike the notion of commericiality as a tiebreaker for encyclopaedic worthiness(if a printed novel had less readers than this, how would that fare?), especially on a donation-based site such as this. Disagree with comment about reviews; It does not attempt to link reviews with popularity, but the reviews have elevated it within a very large online community. The article is not written by the authors of the fiction. Moreover, it is a humorous novel based on the authors above all else, and is no more a Mary Sue(i.e. Hollow characters) than a Marx Brothers film. Finally, criticising the literature as a Mary Sue does not affect the legitimacy of the article ~Inkstersco 10:37 Oct 27
  • Comment But where does one draw the line? Obscurity? Look at the scope of the articles on various Resident Evil characters, for example. It's not a vanity page, for the author of the story is not that of the page. Accuracy? I'm sure it bears some investigation. Otherwise, do we set the ball of deletion rolling on, say, late night 1950s Belgian TV adverts? ~Inkstersco
  • Delete I agree that it's NN fanfiction. PJM 11:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN fancruft. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. --Holderca1 18:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN fancruft. ridiculous. Newyorktimescrossword 04:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:03, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LPHS Marching Rails

A high school marching band. Tagged for speedy, and I was tempted, but brought it here instead. The school has no article, and it would be a pisspoor merge if it did. -R. fiend 03:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete non-notable. The author has not demonstrate any significance this school marching band may have outside of the fact that it is one. Dxco 03:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC) (I feel like a bad person saying "delete" here for some reason :P "But what about the kids?!")
  • Merge into article on the school. Barring that, delete.—Gaff ταλκ 03:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • As I said, there is no article on the high school, and if there were, this would probably be twice as long as that article. A merge would just damage the school's article. If it existed. -R. fiend 03:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable. If we had an article on the High School, we could put in a couple of sentences in about it there. Capitalistroadster 03:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 10:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:15, 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. Kirill Lokshin 06:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LucidCMS

Non-notable CMS. You can call me Al 20:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete yet more non-notable vapourware - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I come up with 35,000 Google hits[22], and it's not obvious to me that it is vaporware. Is there a source for it being vaporware? Johntex\talk 21:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Left in it's current state, it should be deleted (advert, non-encyclopedic, very poorly written, seems to contain the developers to-do list, so to speak). Ideally, it would be rewritten to WP standards.Dxco 01:10, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Ramsden

  • Apparently not WP:V: [23], [24]. I would expect at least one news story to appear if the event in question were notable. Only Israeli Marc Ramsden I find any reference to is a blogger who's blog apparently no longer exists. The incident this article is primarly about does not seem overly notable as well (evidenced by the fact that no hits were returned). Delete.--Isotope23 16:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I guess my searches could be identically flawed to Iso23's, but I couldn't establish verifiability either. - Just zis Guy, you know? 18:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as well. I did various due diligence searches (different forms of name, unit, etc.) and came up with nothing as well. MCB 01:38, 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 SPEEDY KEEP. The nom didn't actually want this deleted anyway. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marianne (1996 song)

This article is never going to get larger than this. I myself am a Tori Amos fan, and have worked on some articles of singles of Amos's. (Incidentally, while this page exists, there are plenty of notable singles of Amos's which might better deserve an article.) This song is not a single, it's not especially notable or notorious, and the information can be merged into the album page, Boys for Pele, a process which I already started. Thoughts? --Jacqui ★ 22:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Devotchka 22:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If you don't want it deleted, don't list it on AFD. By all means, be bold and merge this into the album article (and I would have closed this AFD, if there hadn't been a good-faith delete vote). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Go ahead and merge it, can't this AfD still be closed? Devotchka 22:39, 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. Robert T | @ | C 00:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martin kenunu

None of the things in this article exist according to Google - Martin Kenunu would seem to be a figment of some AOL user's fragile little mind. sjorford #£@%&$?! 08:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unverifiable. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 20:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, probable hoax. No city by the name of Latterdam exists. Punkmorten 15:16, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matteo industries

Vanity article about non-notable company. "Matteo industries" gets only 6 Google hits [25]. The article was created by a new user named Mattoj, whose username bears a striking semblance to the name of the company. No claim or evidence of notability is cited in the article. No other user has contributed to the article. Mattoj's only contributions have been to this article, and to uploading the associated company logo [[Image:Matteoindustries.jpg]]. Can probably be speedied but I'd like someone else to make that call. Johntex\talk 21:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete (also restored AfD tag removed by Mattoj) - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Geez, you'd expect that if he sells "internet avatars" he'd at least have a website. Maybe he sells 'em door-to-door? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • PS: It seems that the 6 google hits quoted above aren't even of this same Matteo Industries. The one in the article was founded in 2001 and has no website. The one on Google was founded in 1992 and has a website at matteovision.com. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Hah! Door-to-Door sales of internet avitars. That made me laugh out loud. Thank you! Johntex\talk 22:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete nn, advert. Dxco 01:07, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meta non grata

Does not meet notability for music/vanity J E Bailey 03:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. J E Bailey 03:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:music. Album by band without article. Allmusic.com has no record of the band or the album. Very few Google hits see [26]. However, this could be explained by the fact that they are Turkish see [27]. However, a follow up record has not been released so they do not meet WP:music on the evidence we have. However, I would change my vote if there was verifiable evidence that they were notable in Turkey so if anyone has any evidence please drop me a note. Capitalistroadster 03:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability not demonstrated, and contains so little info as to question it's usefullness. I agree that ideally we could both get some word on whether this band is significant in Turkey, and as well get some fleshing out of the topic. Dxco 03:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with nom & edits above.—Gaff ταλκ 03:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 10:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:14, 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 speedily deleted as a re-creation of previously deleted material.--Scïmïłar parley 17:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Middlesbrough Soccability Football Club

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

  • Comment Apologies for including the previous thing but I'm new at this deletion game. Anyway, at the risk of repeating myself delete Keresaspa 16:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

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

[edit] Middlesbrough Soccability Football Club

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

  • Suggest redirecting to Middlesbrough F.C. as they share the same badge and are presumably connected (never heard of them or soccability for that matter). If there is no connection then delete. Keresaspa 15:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Decision is to redirect to War memorial Nomination withdrawn by nominator. Johntex\talk 22:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Military War Memorials

Nothing to do with military war memorials whatsoever. Article reads like a book jacket blurb for the book described therein. Probably a copyvio but I can't find a web source for it (note however that the article for its author Kenneth Fowler was indeed a copyvio). Book info is at http://www.aaebooks.co.uk/. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 21:49, 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(?!?) 04:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minus iq

Non-notable band. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails to establish notability according to the generally accepted standards of WP:MUSIC. --Stormie 01:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per stormie --anetode¹ ² ³ 01:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No effort has been made to establish notability. TheMadBaron 14:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per TMB. Come back when you've made (a) some records, (b) some impact and (c) your minds up as to what you are called. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails to establish notability. --Optichan 19:42, 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 speedy delete, recreation of previously VFD-deleted article - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/M&M's (song). --Stormie 01:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] M&M's (song)

Notable group, but completely nn song, so delete. Note that this has been deleted before: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/M&M's (song). Let's kill it good this time. StarryEyes 00:30, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Myma Seldon

  • Delete nn-bio -Doc (?) 10:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Change to neutral after further info/reflection --Doc (?) 14:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator Brandon39 10:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, perhaps not really well know but she is known. wangi 10:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't get it, why do you want to delet it Doc? - Gary Kirk 10:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I really shouldn't use abbreviations - it is just that this person does not seem important enough to merit an encyclopedia article. --Doc (?) 10:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - OK a little more research and this is borderline. She is a local radio presenter (big deal). No other cv entries to boast. 700 googles - but most gong absolutely nowhere. She has a IMDB entry [28] - but the one entry is Jerry Love (2002) (TV) (voice) (uncredited) .... Anna (ho hum). But she seems to have a penchant for self-publicity - flaunting her stuff in FHM - is that encyclopedic? --Doc (?) 11:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not establish nor even assert notability to the standards set by WP:BIO. --Stormie 11:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • removing my vote, since I don't know what "she has presented for.." means: was she just one of many journalists on these programs? Or a host? Or what? I'll let the English Wikipedians consider this. --Stormie 22:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Doc. -- Kjkolb 11:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Weak keep as it is now. -- Kjkolb 04:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Doc, flauting yourself in FHM is encyclopedic if you do it more than once - WP:BIO: Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers ;) wangi 11:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Check her CV. Gary Kirk 12:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Seems mildly notable after reviewing additional info. PJM 12:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. CV states she has been presenting a motor sports programme on Sky Sports (satellite, subscription) for a couple of years now, and was a presenter on a Children's BBC programme (freeview, free-to-air channel) for a year. Average Earthman 12:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I read an interview with her, from the Google search reults and in fact a friend sent her photo off to FHM without her knowledge, before they contacted her for the shoot so she's hardly flaunting herself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.112.229.47 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Obviously not a hoax, not exceptionally notable, but hey, we have a CV to add info with now. --Jacqui ★ 14:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Barely notable. Logophile 14:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. She is notable. Carioca 14:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Seven keeps, four deletes. Does that settle it - the article shall be kept? Gary Kirk 15:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: See WP:AFD and WP:GD, in short - no, it sticks around for 5 days of discussion. wangi 15:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Don't think being a local radiostation dj is enough to warrant an article, not even if you've been in FHM!
    :Comment also, it's no point in rushing the closure of this vfd, as the policy requires 5 days review before it can be closed. (WP:DP#Procedure_for_deletion) Bjelleklang - talk 16:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Still say delete She is essentially a local radio host, who's had her picture in FHM! Still not notable enough in my opinion. Bjelleklang - talk 19:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • But then again guys! [29] [30]--Doc (?) 16:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Didn't know about the 5-day t ing. And Doug, exactly, she's gorgeous! Isn't that notable people? There aren't many radio presenters like that, certainly not at local radio - Ashford, be proud! Gary Kirk 18:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Presenting a radio show and a TV show just doesn't cut it. Pilatus 20:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: she's done many radio shows and several different tv shows actually --Gary Kirk 20:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Presented Xchange (a popular CBBC program), and programs on ITV, Eurosport and Challenge TV. Together with radio presenting that makes her quite notable. http://www.myma.co.uk/biog.htm - Mgm|(talk) 20:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Definitely notable for the tv shows, radio and voiceovers 82.34.106.179 21:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 26-year-old mid-morning presenter on a local radio station? Not notable. - Just zis Guy, you know? 23:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, passes WP:BIO. Kappa 05:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per MacGyverMagic--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 07:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please she is definitely notable too Yuckfoo 19:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've informed early delete voters about the new evidence (her CV) that show she's more than just the presenter of a radio show. - Mgm|(talk) 19:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is now 5 days since AfD, please close. Gary Kirk 10:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Patience lad, patience - It's only four days... It'll probably get deleted before the five days, but remember that folks are doing this voluntarily so there's little point in rushing things along. Thanks/wangi 10:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NedFest

This is a local festival of limited scope. As such, I see problems with verifiability and question if the page is advertising. Also, there is the issue of notability, for those who vote on that basis. Nothing personal against the festival, of course. Delete Xoloz 04:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This festival appears to have been held a number of times between 1996 and today, featuring numerous artists who themselves are sufficiently notable to have Wikipedia articles. I certainly can't see any problem with verifiability - I tried Googling for Nedfest "Victor Wooten" (the first artist mentioned in the article) and found multiple references to him performing there in 2003, including photographic evidence. [31] :-) --Stormie 05:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Does not seem like an ad. Devotchka 05:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable festival that's been running for awhile. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Honbicot 22:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep although I can't help thinking of this "Ned" here! --MacRusgail 16:42, 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. Johntex\talk 22:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nyar

Totally worthless rambling. Devotchka 18:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • An accurate nomination. Delete. Neologism at best; the article doesn't even tell us what "nyar" is supposed to mean. I'm itching to speedy it under WP:CSD A1 too, but there is some context. Sliggy 19:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Eh, I speedied it. I'm pretty sure it qualifies. Devotchka 21:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and I think speedy is also warranted. - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedying under CSD A1. Johntex\talk 22:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 13:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] O'Connell's

Isn't verifiable or notable if it was. Kertrats | Talk 04:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and quite possibly a hoax. Marskell 17:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable. Denni☯ 00:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:16, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:47, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Papa delicious

"Papa Delicious is a comic strip written and produced by a freshman in high school as of 2005." Non-notable, nonencyclopedic. tregoweth 01:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Sounds like a lovely comic, but unverifiable as not apparently actually published.—Gaff ταλκ 03:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually one of the strips is located here. The links on the left are links to the individual episodes.--John Lynch 03:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not-notable, vanity. Avalon 04:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see any indication this is a vanity article. Instead it looks like someone whose a fan of the strip created it.--John Lynch 03:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably even speediable. -R. fiend 04:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Definitely NN; a speedy in my view. PJM 12:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The author appears to be trying to establish his subjects non-notability. "I have found that unless you go to the same school as the "mystery writer" it is very difficult to relate to the topics discussed. In addition this "mystery writer" seems to update quite infrequently". I'm sold. Delete per nom. TheMadBaron 16:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable vanity. A Google search returns only one hit, which is unrelated to the subject of the article. --TantalumTelluride 21:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete I'm the author (of the comic), and while I did not create this article, I think it would be sad to see it go. I did edit it to include the site so that you may feast your eyes upon it. I created a wikipedia account so that it wouldn't be like... deleted. At least don't speedy it.That oh so awesome link again Papa D 01:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Neither of those pages are Wikipedia guidelines, they're merely proposals.
  • Keep - the article can definitely use a clean-up, but once done so, it can become a good article. Non-notability isn't part of Wikipedia's guidelines, so IMO a comic shouldn't be deleted merely for these reasons. The fact the strip exists is verifiable, while some of the assertions in the article may not be verifiable, the strip does exist.--John Lynch 03:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable according to WP:COMIC and WP:WEB. Also appears to be advertising abuse of Wikipedia. Bwithh 03:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per A7 (vanity article, no assertion of notability). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Mages

NN vanity. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 06:43, 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 keep rewritten article. - Mailer Diablo 13:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pencil Box

dicdef Flapdragon 01:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • obvious definition; not in wiktionary; don't suggest move. Delete ERcheck 01:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment when admin deletes this, please delete other nonsense articles by contributor.—Gaff ταλκ 02:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like a valid speedy to me. Tagging as speedy for admin attention. Chris talk back 02:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    Keep as rewritten Chris talk back 16:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Speedy delete tag has been removed, with the explanation that it is already on AfD (not by me). -- Kjkolb 08:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Wiktionary. WordNet has it [32] - it's a commonly used term, at least in Indian English. utcursch | talk 04:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless rewritten to be about the 1976 CBC series. An actual article about pencil boxes would belong at Pencil box. I vaguely recall that these are (were?) very popular in Japan, though there's no article at ja:筆箱 to translate, so I may be mistaken. —Cryptic (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Good TV-stub. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. --Daveb 12:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep people should read the article first as it stands now before voting :) ; this isn't about pencil boxes, the stationary item, but a children's TV show. I don't see why this should be considered a definition. Definitely a stub but it should be kept and expanded. Sorry, made my comment before I realized that the entry has been substantially changed today. We're now essentially voting on a different article; future voters (and admins), please take note of this. Janet13 14:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, on this brand-new article, completely unrelated to the one I suggested for deletion, I vote keep. But it should surely be re-titled Pencil Box (TV show) or some such. Flapdragon 14:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No need for extra qualifiers. We already have capitalization to deal with that. Both pencil box and Pencil Box are interlinked so people who can't use properly capitalization can still find what they're looking for. Titles should be as easy as possible. - Mgm|(talk) 20:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree titles should be as easy as possible, but think you're being a bit subtle here. In an encyclopaedia where "Innosense" is accepted as a misspelling so frequent that needs to be a redirect to Innocence, as it was the other day, it's a bit unrealistic to expect people to be so scrupulous about their capitalisation. Most of the time such searches are not case-sensitive, and Wikipedia's fussiness in that department still catches me out sometimes. After all why should the first initial letter of a term like Pencil box be capitalised, and if so why not the second too? Flapdragon 23:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rewrite. TheMadBaron 17:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as re-written (children's show) ERcheck 22:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Something has gone adrift here. We now seem to be discussing whether to delete an article (about a TV programme) that was never suggested for deletion, while the one that was suggested for deletion (about the thing you keep pencils in) has in effect been quietly speedy-kept as a redirect to Pencil case, itself just as much a classic dicdef as Pencil box was before it was rewritten on a different subject. Incidentally "pencil box" is not the same as "pencil case", since the latter is often (usually?) made of a soft material, which the former cannot be. Let's call the whole thing off! Flapdragon 23:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • There has been no speedy keeping. Neither pencil case nor pencil box were nominated for deletion here in the first place (although the former was nominated and kept back in May). All that has happened is that Pencil Box has been rewritten to actually be about what the incoming hyperlinks implied that it was intended to be about, thanks to Cryptic pointing it out above. Uncle G 23:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewritten article on the Canadian children's TV show with a disambiguation link directing people looking for information on pencil boxes to pencil case. Capitalistroadster 23:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep article as it now stands; propose discontinuing this discussion due to the changes. Bearcat 06:32, 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 speedied. -R. fiend 03:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pickle box

dicdef Flapdragon 01:46, 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.
  • Speedy delete like Pencil Box (see below).—Gaff ταλκ 03:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 06:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Playntrade

Advertising - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Instead of just listing a page for deletion, maybe you should try and improve the article, which is very possible, as far as this article goes.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as I can tell no amount of expansion will make this notable or encyclopaedic. The article is a vanity advert for a company trolling for franchisees. - Just zis Guy, you know? 16:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no claim to notability. -- Kjkolb 16:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, blatant ad, NN. Devotchka 17:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I posted the article and I'm new to editing Wikipedia so I apologize if it was not put in the correct format, I intended for it to be edited by someone else later. I thought that since it is an international company and one of if not the only "Gamestore" that does franchises its inclusion on this website would not be inappropriate. I am biased since I own one of the stores but I'd love to hear a neutral opinion on this.--Lbrad2001 22:44, 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(?!?) 04:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poffenberger

clearly wrong WAvegetarian 16:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'm not sure where to begin. This is a nn-bio, since the given establishment of notabiliity is completely fabricated. Or he might not exist at all. Would speedy, but didn't think it quite fit a category.WAvegetarian 16:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, apparent hoax and pretty close to nonsense.--Isotope23 17:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Devotchka 17:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax/NN/original research/complete bollocks, take your pick. - Just zis Guy, you know? 18:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Can we make a template {{db-bollocks}}. It would be really useful for things like this that are clearly nonsense but can't be labeled as such.WAvegetarian 20:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. Extra templates are good, but apparently question marks are not.WAvegetarian 20:16, 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 keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pop-a-Lock

advert Flapdragon 01:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Nothing but an advertisement. Devotchka 05:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and then go back in time and keep the ad from ever being placed. Destroy all ads. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Research turns up two articles in the Wall Street Journal for starters. The WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 11:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Even if that were true, the company could only be said to have met one of those criteria - "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple published works". If it were the subject of those two minor Wall Street Journal articles, I would say that Pop-a-Lock had met the letter, but not the spirit, of the WP:CORP criteria - which are only intended as "rough guidelines". However, Pop-A-Lock isn't really the subject of those articles at all. The articles are both about franchises generally; Pop-a-Lock just happens to be prominently mentioned. This article has in no way established sufficient notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Delete. TheMadBaron 16:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article does not appear to be an advertisement. For example, it states that a background check of the company's franchisees revealed that one was guilty of "grand theft auto." I am uncertain on the notability of the company, though. Neutral --TantalumTelluride 22:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. What criteria for deletion does this satisfy? It's verifiable. Independent and reputable references are cited. It's not an advert - in fact, it's a textbook example of NPOV, reporting facts without making value judgements, sourcing all claims, and identifying the one case where the source has a conflict of interest. It's bitty and needs cleaning up, but that is not a criterion for deletion. The company is not of world-shattering notability, but does satisfy the guidelines, and WP:NOT paper. So how does this article meet the deletion criteria? — Haeleth Talk 12:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Which WP:CORP guidelines does it meet exactly? Flapdragon 01:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep -- as per Haeleth -- Geo Swan 23:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rabid Inuyasha Fan

This is something that seems exclusive to the Adult Swim message boards. Unnecessary and NN topic that ends with a plea to join the boards, registration required. Devotchka 19:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Probably not even worth a footnote on Inuyasha. - Just zis Guy, you know? 19:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nonnotable phrase. mikka (t) 00:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn fancruft. MCB 01:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV rant against the fan-atics of a particular anime, as experienced on a particular messageboard. While I personally know more than one person who matches this description, it does not deserve an article of its own, or a footnote in the Inuyasha article. Maybe... maybe... maybe... a mention in Fangirl, but that article's enough of a disaster as is. Saberwyn
  • Delete. It's all true, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. — Haeleth Talk 13:39, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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(?!?) 04:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ragget

Fails WP:MUSIC. Google search of "Ragget Patrick Oliver Ryan Kevin" brings up 35 hits, none of which have to do with this subject. -Nameneko 00:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC) i think that this article should not be deleted

  • Delete This article is a possible candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD as there is little or no meaningful content. It fails to show any evidence that they meet WP:music. Given that they don't have an Allmusic.com page and that a search for Ragget band comes up with little of relevance, they fail to meet WP:V. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails to establish notability according to the generally accepted standards of WP:MUSIC. --Stormie 01:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. per Capital.—Gaff ταλκ 03:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. utcursch | talk 05:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly NN. PJM 12:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete content-free and NN - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No attempt has beem made to establish notability. TheMadBaron 16:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Completely ridiculous. not notable. vanity. Newyorktimescrossword 04:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:08, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raising the bar

  • Delete, surely this can't be considered encyclopedic. --Trovatore 04:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unencyclopedic advertising spam (preceding unsigned comment by DakotaKahn (talk · contribs) 04:21, 27 October 2005)
  • Delete. This simply lowers the bar. - Lucky 6.9 04:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN ad campaign, totally unnecessary article. Devotchka 05:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:14, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 19:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Club Red. — JIP | Talk 11:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RED, a nightclub

This is an article about a former nightclub in Washington, D.C. There are, however, already two other articles about the same club, one at Club Red and one at Red, a nightclub. I think three articles on one club is a bit exsessive. This article does not seem to have any information that the others do not, so I don't think any merge is neccessary. Red, a nightclub is basically just a DJ list though, and should probably be merged into Club Red, which currently reads like POV-laden clubcruft. orioneight (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect, this does not need an AFD nomination. I have added merge tags to the other two articles and will merge them when I get a chance, if someone else doesn't do it first. --Stormie 01:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect seems fair. PJM 12:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Stormie. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Since the venue is called Red, is there a way that people can go to the same page whether they type Red or club red or Red, a nightclub?. - Tallhoyalwya 11:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. When people type "red," they will most likely be looking for an article on the color red, but there is a link to Club Red on the Red disambiguation page. --TantalumTelluride 21:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, Welcome to Wikipedia. TT is correct of course about people looking for the color Red, but in a larger sense it is absolutley possible for multiple names to go to one place. That is what a Redirect does. See United States and United States of America.
  • Delete outright. There is no need for a redirect because no one is going to type "Red, a nightclub" into the search bar or link to "Red, a nightclub." --TantalumTelluride 21:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Newyorktimescrossword 04:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per TantalumTelluride Tedernst 20:41, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ross Nicoll

Non-notable vanity - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Appears to have been blanked anyway. Devotchka 19:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Not sure why it was blanked, but I restored the initial content. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Not a speedy candidate, however. Chick Bowen 22:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: King Tut's is known for giving first gigs to unknown, unsigned bands - the fact that some famous bands have had their first gig there does not mean that every band which plays there is notable or will go on to become famous. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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(?!?) 04:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rossetti Associates

Non-notable content mdd4696 22:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - mdd4696 22:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, advertisement. Dxco 00:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn advert. - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:30, 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 Redirect to Saint Paul Academy and Summit School. --Titoxd(?!?) 04:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] S paul academy (redirected)

Tagged as speedy for being a hoax. I haven't really looked into it, but it's not a speedy candidate unless it's a really obvious hoax (ie utter nonsense). No vote for now. -R. fiend 04:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is not a hoax but a good schools article. The grounds for deletion is that Ann Bancroft is listed as an alumni who went to Antartica. Our article on Ann Bancroft states that she did as does this page [33]. The actress was Anne Bancroft. This is not a WP:CSD candidate as I have stated on the article talk page and should be delisted from this page. There is a school by that name see [34] in Minneapolis and our article should be renamed when this article is kept. Redirect to correct article as per Rob. Capitalistroadster 09:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Capitalistroadster 05:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. An AfD nomination for F. Scott Fitzgerald's school. You have to be kidding me.--Nicodemus75 07:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Saint Paul Academy and Summit School, then possibly list on Redirects for deletion. Kappa 07:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Redirect to Saint Paul Academy and Summit School. Keep the re-direct, only to discourage a repeat. --rob 08:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The only difference in the two articles (I see) is an attack/nonsense paragraph labelled "Security" which I removed. If nobody does it first, and nobody objects, I'll just put in a re-direct. Perhaps an admin could protect a redirect, to stop a repeat. --rob 08:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Question: I'm curious, does wikipedia have any tool for comparing differences between two articles, which shows results similiar to what we do for different versions of the same article? That would have been really handy here. --rob 10:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, Speedy or otherwise. Alf melmac 10:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Attack clone. --Vsion 10:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I went ahead and did the re-direct. This AFD is effectively over in my opinion. Since the copy had attack/nonsense in it, it constituted vandalism, and I feel anybody is free and welcome to deal with vandalism. I suggest the closing admin put page protection in place. --rob 11:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the redirect and close this AfD down. --Jacqui ★ 14:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, original was a hoax.Gateman1997 17:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep and please protect the redirect so it is not vandalized any more Yuckfoo 21:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect as per rob. Silensor 19:34, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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(?!?) 04:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Samuel Arnett and Sam arnett

Likely a hoax. Googling "Samuel Arnett"+Broadway=1 unrelated hit. Delete if not speedy. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Critically acclaimed playwrights will turn up something at Google, but this person does not. I cannot find the musical "To Tell The Truth" there either, so this whole article smells of being completely made up. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If a 21-year-old playwright had a show on Broadway, that would be newsworthy enough that he would have received significant news coverage. This person hasn't. --Metropolitan90 13:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. --rob 14:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: in my experience actors in musicals and plays have a poor web presence. I wouldn't be surprised if the same was the case for certain playwrights. If anyone can do so, please consult a Broadway source directly.- Mgm|(talk) 20:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:18, 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. The current way just won't do, though, because the article Scott Peterson needs to be something other than a redirect. So I propose one of two solutions:

  1. Move Scott Peterson (convicted murderer) to Scott Peterson, or
  2. Move Scott Peterson (disambiguation) to Scott Peterson. — JIP | Talk 11:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Peterson (disambiguation)

After editing the page and realizing one of the Scott Petersons listed did not have the last name Peterson, I've come to the conclusion that this page isn't necessary. At this point, the only Scott Peterson listed other than the convict is a staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor, who does not have a Wiki page. This man isn't exactly a well-known journalist...I did a quick search for random staff writers for the New York Times (which has many more readers than the Monitor) and came up empty handed.

I'm sure very few people look up Scott Peterson in hopes of reading about the journalist; and even if they do, he doesn't have a page. I believe this page was created just so people could add the "(convicted murderer)" tag on the Scott Peterson page. Either way, I don't think this is needed. --Marco Passarani 22:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Fixed listing at this time. Abstain Xoloz 05:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
See below for important new developments. Xoloz 18:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Scott Peterson (convicted murderer). No need for a disambiguation page until another Scott Peterson comes along. Bjelleklang - talk 10:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this disambiguation page and move the Scott Peterson (convicted murderer) article to Scott Peterson. -- Kjkolb 11:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom (and please move Scott Peterson (convicted murderer) to Scott Peterson. The "convicted murderer" part is not necessary, because there is only one Scott Peterson on Wikipedia. It's clear enough from the article that he's a convicted murderer, there's no need to mention that in the title as well.). Aecis 11:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, move Scott Peterson (convicted murderer) to Scott Peterson, and then redirect the disambig to that. --Jacqui ★ 14:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and move as per above. MCB 01:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a perfectly normal disambiguation between two encyclopaedia articles with the same title. Whether the disambiguation is a primary-topic disambiguation or an equal-weight disambiguation is a simple matter of whether Scott Peterson redirects to this article, to Scott Peterson (convicted murderer), or to Scott Peterson (writer). There is no need to delete anything or to rename anything in order to settle that, and the place for discussing any disagreement over the type of disambiguation is Talk:Scott Peterson. Keep. Uncle G 14:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: until you created the article, there was no need for disambiguation as only one article existed. -- Kjkolb 03:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Well, now that Uncle G has made an article for the writer (and the writer seems notable), the page needs to be kept. Suggest to closer that other deletion votes be voided after significant change. I agree with Kjkolb that Uncle G's tone was odd, since only his actions redeemed the page, and voters before that change deserved no reprimand. Xoloz 18:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: since most people are probably looking for the murderer, I would put the disambiguation at the top of his page, though. -- Kjkolb 19:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep -- two guys with the same name -- obvious need for a disambiguation page. -- Geo Swan 23:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 05:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shy (comic)

New comic, all of 4 comics in the archive, only 2 of which could even remotely be considered comics (the other two are just art). Not notable. Kertrats | Talk 04:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Certainly not notable at this time. Does not pass any part of the current WP:COMIC proposal, or any previous proposals. -- SCZenz 06:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It doesn't need to pass that proposal, it's not a guideline, only a proposal.--John Lynch 03:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - as above - Hahnchen 19:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notableTedzsee 04:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see much point in deleting perfectly good articles about Web Comics. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a stub that can be expanded. Instead of nominating for it to be deleted, you can help fix it up. Non-notability isn't in the guidelines, so therefore people should be able to create articles that aren't required to be on notable subjects. The assertions in the strip are verifiable.--John Lynch 03:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 06:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SiteX

Non-notable CMS currently in beta. You can call me Al 19:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no attempt to establish notability. - Just zis Guy, you know? 19:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Save, comparable with other beta CMS systems which all have entries in Wikipedia such as LucidCMS (see the List of content management systems)--152.11.95.254 19:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment:To be fair, 152.11.95.254 is author of the article. Devotchka 20:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is not an AfD for LucidCMS. You can call me Al 20:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Wasn't saying this is an AfD for LucidCMS, saying be fair to all similar articles like the many CMS betas if that is the issue.--152.11.95.254 21:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: LucidCMS is actually also up for deletion. I don't think it can be used as an excuse to keep this article. - mdd4696 22:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Devotchka 01:38, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 05:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skwagi.com

Advertisement for a non-notable website - no encyclopedic content. Bobstay 11:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment Skwagi has been added as a redirect to this page Bobstay 11:53, 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(?!?) 05:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skydiving podcast

Is the first podcast devoted to skydiving notable? With only 29 Google hits, I think not. Plus, the article title makes it seem like the author was keyword spamming. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: agreed, NN. Devotchka 19:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not established and clearly unencyclopaedic. - Just zis Guy, you know? 19:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete I would vote weak delete if this was about the website, but unless these guys become the Jack Benny's of this new medium of podcasting this article should be thrown out of a wikiplane with no parachute. Youngamerican 02:40, 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 Keep by unambiguous and unanimous community decision and withdrawal of nomination. -- Psy guy (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slobbery Jim

Hoax. Slobbery Jim was a gang member in Brooklyn in the 1850s. No one named Jason Avery was killed in the St. Valentine's Day massacre. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 18:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. The article as it stands is a hoax. However, Slobbery Jim is a notable figure in the New York underworld of the 1850's see [35] and an interesting article could be written about him. Capitalistroadster 00:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have rewritten the article so that it is about the real Slobbery Jim. He seems to have been a notable figure in the New York underworld. Capitalistroadster 10:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite. Punkmorten 15:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep after the rewrite. Nomination withdrawn. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 18:05, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SNAP Productions

Vanity article for non-notable group of filmmakers. tregoweth 23:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete Non-notable, vanity page for teen hobbyists. Best of luck to them, tho. Dxco 00:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:25, 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 relisting. Vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speedball (sport). Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Speedball (sport)

NN sport invented by teachers at a high school in Arizona. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom - and I dispute the game's originality too. - Just zis Guy, you know? 22:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep We had to play this 'sport' in my high school, and I grew up in Upstate New York. I suspect that many high schools in between had to as well. --Bletch 13:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In which case it probably wasn't invented by the people claimed in the article. Verification, anyone? - Just zis Guy, you know? 13:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Just to add more information; I graduated high school in 1994, so this has been around for at least 14+ years. Maybe this is original research, but we've always suspected that this was a sport featured in some hypothetical magazine for gym teachers. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the author of this article went to the school where this sport originated. But then again, we suspected that it was our gym teachers that came up with the thing. --Bletch 18:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: speedily deleted as racist vandalism. --Stormie 01:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stereotype of Greeks

Offensive, stereotypical, doesn't belong --Bitmappity 00:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Possible candidate for WP:CSD under category G1 for having no meaningful content or history. Fails to show any evidence that these are common stereotypes of Greeks so problems with WP:V as well. Capitalistroadster 01:25, 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(?!?) 05:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Sam

As associated with Gimmickry. vanity page. SYSS Mouse 01:42, 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. Kirill Lokshin 06:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tabworld

Doesn't seem notable. Can't figure out if they're referring to TheTabWorld.com or TabWorld.net, but neither is important enough to warrant an entry as far as I can tell. Devotchka 17:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, but open to persuasion if it can be expanded. It's certainly useless as-is, since it doesn't specify whether it's endorsing www.thetabworld.com, www.tabworldonline.com, www.tabworld.net, www.tabworld.de.vu or... well, you get the picture. - Just zis Guy, you know? 19:20, 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(?!?) 05:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taine Ruaridh Mhor

Apparently an advert for someone's book. The spelling is wrong, the history is weird (seems to talk about medieval Scots going to NEW ZEALAND!), and it's most of the way to nonsense. MacRusgail 19:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Even if it made sense, it wouldn't belong here. A book that is going to be published (and even the author or the article seems unsure about that) is NN. Devotchka 20:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An unpublished book and a personal theory that hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal (contravening Wikipedia:No original research). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete puff for NN unpublished (possibly unpublishable) book. - Just zis Guy, you know? 20:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. An utterly bizarre and unpublished book by an unknown author, looks NN to me. And the external link doesn't work. Leithp 23:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The correct link is [36] (what appears to be a self-publishing dealie), which appears to be a tamer version of [37] (the same site as the original link). Looking at other stuff on these websites ([38] [39]) and we see the author's agenda. It's not just a piece of fanciful pseudo history, but part of white-supremacist propaganda effort; some NZ nazi group spent some effort a few months ago trying to get their drivel into wikipedia, and turned nasty when they failed. I expect this is a piece of their material that slipped under our radar. -- Middenface 03:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Nice research. Curiouser, and curiouser! Shows that not just "Scottish Americans" have the monopoly on pseudo-Celtic bigotry! --MacRusgail 18:35, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 05:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tentative

Vanity page for a band failing to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Kineticpast 11:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Kineticpast 11:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless some sort of notability can be established Robdurbar 11:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not meet WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 15:22, 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. Kirill Lokshin 06:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The emergency guns

Non-notable band; does not meet the WP:Music guidelines. Allmusic doesn't know them, and googling for "the emergency guns" ska returns 57 hits. -- Captain Disdain 14:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 14:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I came across this article on RC patrol and was cleaning it up when I noticed this AFD notice. I did some research and I think its very close to being CSD'd as {{nn-bio}}.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • That's fine with me. I wasn't aware that nn-bio applied to bands, though? Well, if it does, so much the better... -- Captain Disdain 18:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • It does not apply to bands. Meelar (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I wonder why. nn-bio applies to people and a nn-band is essentially a collection of such people. - Mgm|(talk) 21:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
          • I'd guess that this is the case simply because it hasn't been agreed to apply to bands, just people; it was specifically designed to make it easier to get rid of the numerous vanity bios that pop up every day -- there are much more of those than articles for non-notable bands. The definition has (wisely, I think) been kept fairly narrow. -- Captain Disdain 22:38, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 19:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Ganzfeld (band)

NN vanity - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:23, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 19:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Goldfish Network

An article about an individual server that "services as many as thirty-five paying and non paying customers." NN. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 00:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A whole 35 people, huh? Goodness, Wikipedia had better watch its back. Especially when it gets so much traffic as to have no Alexa rank at all. One computer just isn't encyclopedic and WP:ISNOT an indiscrimate collection of information. - Splashtalk 00:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep A site with no Alexa ranking means absolutely nothing. While there's question as to the value of the content here, I'd hate to think you would delete this article because of lack of Alexa rank. Alexa gathers information from people who have the Alexa toolbar installed. This toolbar only does two things: Provide data to Alexa, and perform second-rate searches. It's an information gathering software, which gets similar programs to be labelled as spyware. I would take it as a credit if no one who visited a site I owned was foolish enough to have that thing installed. Just my two cents. - 70.31.155.217 02:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Whether or not the Alexa toolbar is spyware is irrelevant. What does matter is that is a random sample of users and thus can be used as a basis for statistical analysis. It is also not the only criterion used when we consider articles about web sites (see WP:WEB). Unfortunately your server is not notable outside of the people who use it. Not only that, it's not third-party verifiable, which is Wikipedia policy. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Its not a random sample of users its a sample of users stupid or ignorant enough to consider downloading a toolbar that is widely considered spyware in the first place. Plugwash 21:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Splash. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --anetode¹ ² ³ 01:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I see no violation of Wikipedia standards. Also, the Alexa rank is a biased ranking system and should have no weight in the decision of an article's inclusion.
    • Well, I highly doubt the information in the article is verifiable, which would be violating a Wikipedia policy. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 06:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.—Gaff ταλκ 03:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 04:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see any reason why this article should be deleted, or why anyone should have such strong objections to having it as a part of Wikipedia? What harm does having it do? I don't see much explanation as to why other readers feel it should be deleted, and see no reason for that to happen.24.226.55.169 05:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • That's a fair call, really. Sometime we do tend to be so brief as to bite. If you'll either get an account or tell me your regular account, I'm happy to discuss it on your talk page. Conversly you can click the "t" after my name. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • To me it looks like an attempt at self-promotion, which is not what Wikipedia is about. Friday (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe it's not harmful, but having it should give Wikipedia an advantage rather than no disadvantages. The page claims to be popular, yet not only the Alexa rank fails; Google also shows a grand total of 4 hits to this page. Unverifiable/advertising. - Mgm|(talk) 07:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. PJM 11:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Undecided You know that they’re probably right and it shouldn’t be there, violation or not. Wikipedia is not a repository of all human knowledge, just of things that concern a large number of people. However, articles like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_comics are allowed to exist, which seems to me very similar to the Goldfish article (if only more extensive). Is it just because this site has a larger readership that they should be allowed inclusion? If I made a wiki page for MY comics, would that be allowed to stay? How many readers/users is the right amount? Or what about this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podtacular ? They claim a mere 1500 listeners. Wikipedia better watch out. (By the way, their "Alexa ranking" can not be determined, because their main website is a sub-domain of blogspot). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.25.30.246 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Dinosaur Comics meets guidelines set in WP:COMIC. Podtacular gets 151 unique Google results from a wide range of sites, indicating its widespread acceptance. The same cannot be said for the Goldish Network. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 16:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I don't believe the "Goldish Network" would turn up many hits at all. Try doing a Google search on the Goldfish Network's podcast "The Tank." Many, many results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.109.165 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
        • 16 results (excluding the domain "thegoldish.net") is not "many many" in my mind. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 17:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Oh, I don't know that 16 isn't 'many many'. 16 is, for example, many many times to be stabbed in the throat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.109.165 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see any reason why this article should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.20.226 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Always good when an article includes specific evidence of the non-notability of its subject, it makes life so much easier :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepI used this page to determine the validity of the server in question. Also, you guys are pretty mean and pathetic to spend your time trying to get a tiny little article kicked off some boring website. I also used the article to check out the history of the server. So...yeah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.178.87 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • One tiny little NN article is okay. Millions of tiny little NN articles are not. Delete. Devotchka 21:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Godspeed, anonymous army, but I have to disagree with you on this one. The other delete voters summed this up about as nicely as I could hope to, so I shall not try. Lord Bob 19:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a Web directory. Unless someone can show that the site meets the requirements at WP:WEB or is otherwise an appropriate addition to an encyclopedia, delete. --TantalumTelluride 20:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Anybody can set up a server. - mdd4696 23:02, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I am the author,and I say delete it,because I do not care, and it wasonly a lark, and I clearly didn't carefully review the requirements.
  • Delete. As the owner of The GoldFish Network, I can tell you all that this page was clearly created as a joke by someone who uses my server. It's gotten way out of hand. As per guidelines, there's no reason for this to be on Wikipedia. You're right, it's not a web directory, and the network isn't that much different from other hosting services. However, I agree with those that are against Alexa being a guideline. If most major anti-spyware vendors will remove Alexa upon detection, I would tend to think this makes the results produced by Alexa a little biased. Biased towards those who aren't tech-savvy enough to know what it is to start with, and not even smart enough to run some kind of anti-spyware check. Regardless, delete this. If y'all feel so strongly that it's not "encyclopedic enough", then get rid of it. - Arobar 03:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Why not, there is tons of things on this site that have little relevance to anyone but stay on ... this server is relavnt to its hostees and the hundreds of people who browse their sites. That has to be more people then an article about say "The Burial Topography and effect on social memory in bronze age wales" would recieve. I.
  • Delete per arobar. Newyorktimescrossword 04:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable subject. Since anon thinks our website is boring, I'm sure the non-notable article would be happy elsewhere. Also, to those that think the non-notable articles we have here are a justification for including another non-notable article, I suggest the opposite is true. Let's delete the other offending articles instead of further watering down wikipedia. Johntex\talk 08:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NE. (Not encyclopedic). Marcus22 13:21, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 19:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Joo

not notable Gator1 12:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Gator1 12:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as slang. If it was first used in a TV show then how is the author sure of the spelling? Eddie.willers 02:40, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 05:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The New Rags

NN band. One album on a minor indie label. Not enough for WP:MUSIC. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 21:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Johntex\talk 21:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? 21:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete nyn (not yet notable :P ). Best of luck to them, tho, and I look forward to them hitting the point where they warrant an entry. Dxco 01:06, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 05:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Poetic Art Literary Foundation

Non-notable local group. Article is written from the founder's point of view, most likely a vanity article. Thatdog 22:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - mdd4696 22:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete non-notable, possible vanity.Dxco 00:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Google doesn't seem to have heard of them either, or of the founder. - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:34, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 05:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Teacher

Religious propaganda, part of the Message of the Morning Star stuff. -- Kjkolb 15:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

    • I just found another one: Four Pillars of the Morning Star. -- Kjkolb 18:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Agree with nom. — RJH 15:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable sub-article to deleted Message of the Morning Star.--Isotope23 16:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Devotchka 17:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, as inherently POV, bad references (two unpublished books and one "restricted access document" certainly don't count). Is this a notable movement http://www.wemsa.net/? If so, could be redacted to sound less like preaching, and more like a summary of their religious beliefs. 70.27.59.200 22:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV religioncruft. MCB 01:34, 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. I may be missing something here, but how can you "redirect and delete"? Wouldn't that mean creating a redirect page and then deleting it? How would that be different from deleting the page straight away? — JIP | Talk 11:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The The's

Non notable, doesn't pass Google test, probably vanity Aecis 23:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Not to be confused with The The. Seems to be a vanity page but it's hard to figure it out what with so many "The The's Greatest Hits" results. Not "The The's" but "The The", possessive. Phew!! Don't these guys know it's already been done?? I'm going with delete unless someone can prove they're notable. Devotchka 23:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The The and delete. Denni☯ 00:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete vanity page. I googled a few of the band members + kamloops/vancouver, and all I could get a sense of is that these guys appear to be joe-garage band types, making the rounds through some bars and clubs. Dxco 00:43, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:V and WP:music. A Google search for "The The's" Kamloop didn't get any Google results showing verifiability problems see [40]. There is no allmusic.com page. No evidence of albums released, tours performed or any other indicators showing notability as per WP:music. Capitalistroadster 01:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The The and delete. per denni. Youngamerican 02:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The funniest part is that I googled "The The's Kamloops" and still got only a reference to The The (which merely happened to coincide on the same Pitchfork page as a list of Unicorns tour dates that included a stop in the 'Loop.) So I'd call this an unqualified delete. Bearcat 08:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete content & Redirect page to The The --maclean25 11:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 19:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The&Great&Red&Scare

Highly POV revisiting of a topic already well covered elsewhere - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. - Squibix 17:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Devotchka 17:26, 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(?!?) 05:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Barnes marathon runner,state chapion

Tagged for nn-bio speedy, but I reckon asserting (plausibly) to be state champion is asserting notability, so it comes to AfD instead. -Splashtalk 11:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Which state? Also the article suggest he's 14, so seems too young to be running a full marathon. This will be an age category champion anyway, which I'd suggest is therefore not sufficiently notable, even if true. Average Earthman 12:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, unencyclopedic, very poorly written. Logophile 14:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A totally unverifiable, lacking in detail, poorly written piece concerning a non-notable teenager. Eddie.willers 02:44, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 05:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Top Dolla

Hasn't released any music. -- Kjkolb 15:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vainest of the vanity pages. Personal quotes? Come on. Did find this [41] which has a "Top Dolla" singing on it, but I can't tell if it's the same guy. If it were, I'd think he'd mention the recording in his article. No Google returns for "'Dan Lockern' 'Top Dolla'" Devotchka 17:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. - mdd4696 22:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I've heard of him. He performs all the time in various areas of New Jersey. He's pretty undergroumd...

  • Delete Some verifiability problems under WP:V see Devotchka above although a Google search for "Top Dolla" comes up with 1,700 hits see [42] although none of them appear to establish notability. He is yet to release an album, perform a tour or meet any of the criteria outlined in WP:music.Capitalistroadster 00:48, 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 19:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Truth in Labeling

This article was put up for speedy by User:Rd232 since it was created by banned user User:Andrew Lin. I felt that it would be better to get consensus to delete this since it's not clearly anything (maybe advertising). And, as the CSD page says, "This is slightly controversial!" gren グレン 09:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually it was User:Kiand who tagged it speedy delete (without an edit summary - naughty) and I fixed the external link and wondered in the edit summary whether it was worth keeping. Thanks for AfDing, Grenavitar - I was going to do this myself if it had stayed unspeedied a bit longer. Rd232 talk 09:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Just to note Andrew Lin did create many pages claiming that, well, things would kill you if you ate them... which puts the legitimacy and notability of this magazine into question which is the reason for the AfD itself, besides just a banned creator. gren グレン 09:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Delete. It seems to have some notability; "Truth in Labeling Campaign" gets 17 hits in LexisNexis; the most recent being San Francisco Chronicle, 14 April 1999. They also had a court case on MSG labelling (Truth in Labeling Campaign, et al. v. Donna Shalala, et al. 1995; lost in summary judgement) which was mentioned by the Irish Times 1999. Rd232 talk 09:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    If kept it should possibly be moved to Truth in Labeling Campaign. Rd232 talk 09:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if he's allowed to contribute, he's not really banned. Otherwise, it would be, "You're banned, unless you do something good." Someone can recreate the article later, if they want. -- Kjkolb 09:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I can see grounds for that policy to avoid this situation, but that doesn't seem to be current policy, does it? I don't know, there just seems something fundamentally unwiki about judging content purely by who created it. If the creator can/should be blocked for whatever transgressions that for me feels like a separate issue. Rd232 talk 13:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
      • If I understand correctly, this was created after he was banned. I don't know what the policy is, but what is the purpose of banning if he is still allowed to edit after he is banned? Everyone's articles are cleaned up or deleted on their merits, so it wouldn't be any different than if he were unbanned. -- Kjkolb 15:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete due to its creator. It should have been speedied, he is -not allowed edit-. --Kiand 13:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable and promotional. Google shows only 96 links to this site. It is a non-notable site and I believe the reason for creating it was to promote a point of view. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, fair enough. Changing vote to delete. Rd232 talk 15:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. - Just zis Guy, you know? 18:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn, but if this is kept it should be moved to Truth in Labeling Campaign, since there are enough other things (i.e. legislation) to ceate a "Truth in Labeling" disambig page. MCB 01:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, the topic of truth in labeling in general should have an article - issues around organic/GM for example. Perhaps it exists under another term that doesn't occur to me now? Rd232 talk 01:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:21, 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. --Titoxd(?!?) 05:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tyek

Fiction? Something from a video game? Absolutely no context or background and none of the names or dates gets even a single relevant Google hit. Delete as unencyclopedic nonsense. MCB 01:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless someone can figure out what this is. Maybe a profile for an RPG character or something?? Devotchka 05:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete; this appears to be something to do with World of Warcraft, which is some MMORPG. Google "tyek eristeth" gets nothing, "tyek atma" gets nothing meaningful, only "tyek paladin" gave anything of any note. Seems to be non-verifiable, and hard to determine if notable. I vote delete unless someone can convince me otherwise. Fourohfour 12:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the article makes no mention of any RPG, video game, or other fiction, I'm bound to take it at face value. It's apparently a biography of a notable historical figure. Delete as hoax. TheMadBaron 17:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:13, 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 redirected into Sentinel of the Luminoth, which will be merged withMetroid Prime 2: Echoes as per current talkpage's suggestion. - Mailer Diablo 13:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] U-Mos

This articles' information will continue to be a stub since there is not a lot more infomation on it and this will continue to be the case. Furthermore, due to this lack, U-Mos can just stay under Sentinel of the Luminoth. Lord Falcon 01:02, 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. Kirill Lokshin 06:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UNITED KINGDOM TALK

Small web radio. No assertion of notability. The official web page is down. No hit on Internet Archive [43]. Edcolins 14:48, 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 19:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] University Engineers' Club

A social club for engineering students at UWA. Delete as Society vanity. Pilatus 00:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Either delete as a totally unnecessary article or merge into The University of Western Australia.—Gaff ταλκ 03:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, though a smerge wouldn't be too bad. -R. fiend 04:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as not notable given concensus about clubs or merge as a sentence in a Clubs and Societies on the University of Western Australia article. Capitalistroadster 06:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/Merge, does not deserve own page, but depending on its prominence at the university, may be noted there. Janet13 14:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. I considered AfDing this myself. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 06:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Carina22 19:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and let editors of the university article decide if it stays there Tedernst 20:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. pfctdayelise 00:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into UWA article -- Ian ≡ talk 00:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Merging is a bad idea, as there's bound to be other clubs at other universities by this name. Ambi 00:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. NPOV, verifiable. Snottygobble | Talk 01:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 06:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] USCGC Sweetbrier (WLB-405)

This is a press release, so a likely copyvio, but no such press release exists on the publisher's web site. Didn't see a speedy criterion for it, though. --howcheng [ talk • contribs • web ] 22:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete Good lord, this is literally a copy-paste from a webpage, on which the book's author wrote his own review!Dxco 00:45, 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 redirect to Finnish profanity. I see that this "word" is already described there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vittu

  • Del foreign dicdef: a finnish word for cunt. An article, say, Finnish sexual slang, makes sence, but a single word does not. mikka (t) 23:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually there already is Finnish profanity page, with all content. mikka (t) 23:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This should go into Wiktionary. Devotchka 23:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is already in Wiktionary, and has been for more than a year. —Cryptic (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete Duplicates existing content (as per page mentioned above). Dxco 00:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
    • That's not a reason for deletion. Kappa 04:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Finnish profanity or keep. Kappa 04:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef or possibly merge & redirect to cunt, which makes a similar point re being (arguably) the strongest swearword available, or to Finish profanity - Just zis Guy, you know? 08:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or redirect to Finnish profanity. — JIP | Talk 10:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Finnish profanity or keep. --82.203.155.143 16:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Finnish profanity or delete. -Sean Curtin 04:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wangsta

Blatant advertising for a 3 person boutique web operation. BGyss 19:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Blatant ad, not notable and no real attempt to establish notability. - Just zis Guy, you know? 19:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. - mdd4696 22:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE... Can't find a better definition. The domain name was registered to this company before 50 Cent's song "Wanksta" ever came out. And Wangsta(TM) is also filed as a Trademark of the company.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.150.10 (talk • contribs) 30 October 2005

    • This company registered the domain names wangsta.com, .net, .org, before the term was ever commonly used. They also filed and a trademark for the term "Wangsta". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.150.10 (talk • contribs) 30 October 2005, moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Wangsta. Rd232 talk 12:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to Wanksta or adopt the generic def noted there. Non-notable company is attempting to displace existing term (which preceded 50 Cent's song), we have no reason to assist them. Rd232 talk 12:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 06:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wavehill

  • Delete. Vanity/autobiographical. Non-notable company whose website scores very low on Alexa and Google pagerank. Interiot 12:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. - mdd4696 22:55, 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. Radiant_>|< 00:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weather weenie

Delete. At best, nn forumcruft, at worst, complete nonsense. MCB 01:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Flapdragon 01:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. utcursch | talk 04:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN - is much funnier than some entries moved there - KillerChihuahua 11:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. PJM 12:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neogolism concerning non-notable subject, with a good deal of nonsense to boot. TheMadBaron 16:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Fix Obviously needs cleanup, but notable, though small based subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.9 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A Google search returns 764 hits. This is a somewhat popular neologism that is accepted among more than just a few forums. However, the article seems to pertain to a specific internet forum, so its content should be overwritten. The emergence of this term is probably related to the increased interest in weather among the general American population due to the severity of the 2004 and 2005 Atlantic hurricane seasons. --TantalumTelluride 21:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Even as a mildly popular neologism, the article could not reasonably be more than a short dicdef, which belongs in Wiktionary rather than here. If that were the article's content, I'd vote transwiki, but since it isn't, there's no point in editing it to that level and then transwiki-ing it. MCB 01:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs major cleanup but why not keep it? It is a topic of conversation and part of the new 21st Century vernacular among those in the Scientific Community.
  • Delete neologism, and someone keeps trying to use this as a message board (and removing the AFD tag, to boot). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If someone wants to re-write this, then okay. But, as is, this article is nonsense. ---Aude 00:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism and forumcruft. Andrew Levine 01:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN or transwiki to uncyclopedia ;) TastemyHouse 14:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as a neologism it's no more than the sum of its parts. Wikipedia ain't a repository for netlore lists. Smerdis of Tlön 15:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Nonsense. Not even funny. Bjelleklang - talk 19:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Please consider rewriting this article and keeping it. I have been a member of the forum Eastern US Weather for over a year. This group of netizens is a unique phenomenon that I believe should be included as a neologistic people-group phenomenon. I believe the article in question can be re-written and retained in Wikipedia or at least retained in one of your other wikipedian branches, such as the Wiktionary or in one of the other Wikis. Please consider my proposal. Jeb
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wicf

Gets 7 google hits. Seems to be an organization entirely internal to a single university. Looks non-notable to me. Delete unless greater evidence of notability provided. DES (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Could be smerged with the university, but needs a new name anyway. -R. fiend 04:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If verifiable, smerge. If not, 'delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 16:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment If kept, move to Wellington International Christian Fellowship. DES (talk) 19:26, 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 19:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woobie

A woobie is a blanket. The term is most frequently used to refer to a child's blanket as a transference object. (See Help for Infants and Toddlers with Attachment Disorder for more details.) The term woobie was possibly first coined in the 1983 film "Mr. Mom" starring Michael Keaton and Teri Garr. It is often used by Generation X, post-baby boomers, as a playful term for a comfortable blanket.

References:

 * Google
 * DTWW
 * A "Comercially" Accepted Term

[Trying to get Kenny to give up his security blanket]

Jack Butler: "I understand that you little guys start out with your woobies and you think they're great... and they are, they are terrific. But pretty soon, a woobie isn't enough. You're out on the street trying to score an electric blanket, or maybe a quilt. And the next thing you know, you're strung out on bedspreads Ken. That's serious." - Memorable Quote from Mr. Mom

--Jduprey 06:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Neologism or non-notable slang. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Agree with nom. Can this be moved to wiktionary or merged someplace? If not...delete.—Gaff ταλκ 01:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • delete many google results mostly seem to infer a different meaning. I don't believe this constitues as being wiktionary material. Also WP:NOT a dictionary, much less a non notable slang dictionary. -- Malo 05:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. I don't think we want seperate articles for individual terms of endearment, least of all obscure ones, on Wikipedia. Anyone looking for Woobie, Pootie pie, Snoogie woogie, Pitsy pookums, Snookums, Honey pie, Chewie wewie, Chunky cheeks, Cheeky chunks or Sweetie poops should try a dating agency. TheMadBaron 19:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment article is an orphan.Geni 13:13, 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 Redirect. Sceptre 11:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your mom

No real meaning or content (preceding unsigned comment by Sceptre (talk · contribs) )

  • Delete. This has got to be in here under a page of insults or something; either way it does not deserve its own article. Devotchka 17:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The dozens, like it has been redirected before. Consider protecting the redirect if vandalism continues. jni 18:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy revert. This is just simple vandalism. -- Plutor 18:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per jni, protect if it happens again since there will probably never be an article there. -- Kjkolb 18:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redir like it was per jni. alerante ✆ 19:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I hope this is not too hasty of me, but I have reverted to the redirect; this has redirect has been restored several times now. If Wikipedia really is lacking sufficient information on yo momma, it can be added to the dozens, and discussion can take place there instead. —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Please protect the redirect. Thanks. --Jacqui ★ 22:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: As I understand the policy, we cannot make the article a redirect while it is listed for AfD, unless we have the consent of the nominator. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I will leave a message for the nominator to see if s/he will agree to a protected redirect. Johntex\talk 23:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says not to redirect during the discussion. However, in practice, some people redirect right away to reduce the load on AfD and others think that it should wait until the nomination has run its full course. -- Kjkolb 03:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect: I'm voting to redirect it (instead of deleting it). How do you close it early (on consensus)?Sceptre 08:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't know how much this counts for, but unfortunately the Wikipedia guidelines state very clearly that "Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they have been involved", among other things. I don't think it'd be a big problem if you closed it out, but there are probably some admins around who are sticklers for the Rules. —HorsePunchKid→龜 18:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
It appears to say that they can close near-unaminous AfD discussions apart from "delete" as well, and I can count 5 redirects + 2 votes for reverting to the redirect, and one asking for a redirect (8) against 1 for delete, so it appears to be a supermajority for redirection. I'll close the discussion, but I'll accept admin intervention (It's the first time for me with AfD) Sceptre 11:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.