Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Neutrality^talk 13:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sea of Insanity

A webcomic, hosted on keenspace, found here. Article makes no assertion of notability, it is not mentioned on the alexa report for keenspace suggesting it is not one of the well read webcomics. A google search shows up nothing which would lift this from every other website out there. Hahnchen 00:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Huh. I thought LKM quit Sea of Insanity a long time ago. Anyway, transwiki to Comixpedia, as non-influential webcomic. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcomic. --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom CLW 11:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcomic. Dottore So 20:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom Dragonfiend 21:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete here and transwiki as per Man in Black. Qaz ^(talk) 23:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 13:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vevega

no-brainer vanity protologism. — brighterorange (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. nn. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete as above, va-voom. Pete.Hurd 04:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Quale 04:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 06:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as above. --Ashenai 09:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as per nom CLW 11:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Qaz ^(talk) 23:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 13:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ektron CMS400.NET

copyvioesque advertisement. — brighterorange (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Looks pretty non-notable to me. — ceejayoz ^★ 01:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete as above Pete.Hurd 04:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Quale 04:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 06:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems notable (lot of Google hits), but NPOV advert to the point of unusability. --Ashenai 09:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 11:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 was speedy delete CSD G4 (done by User:Bogdangiusca) — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ektron CMS400.NET

Advertorial article on a content management system which is written by a user whose name is all over the manufacturer's website. Just zis Guy you know? 17:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as deleted and reposted content. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 19:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speddy Close the article has been deleted alredy. --Edgelord 20:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Neutrality^talk 13:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled!

A non-notable webcomic hosted on a keenspace domain here. The alexa rank for the comicgen.com domain is around 150,000. But if we look at the traffic report, Untitled! doesn't even feature on the list, suggesting a tiny readership. Entry already exists at comixPedia, where it should belong for the time being. - Hahnchen 00:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as per nom. --Ashenai 09:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 11:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcomic. Dottore So 20:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom. Dragonfiend 21:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 13:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Syzygy of Idiocy

A long-dead webcomic, which I can not find online, anywhere. Bar a cafepress shop, which I'm guessing hasn't been used for a long time. WP is not a memorial, especially not a memorial for a website which shut down because its hosting was terminated (surely, if its notable, it would have carried on regardless due to popularity and demand?). - Hahnchen 00:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• delete doesn't pass my notability threshold. — brighterorange (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Dizzlete with extreme prejudice. FCYTravis 03:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Where do all these webcomic articles come from! Cnwb 06:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 11:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn webcomic. Dottore So 20:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. — JIP | Talk 07:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Igor Miskovic

self-referential vanity, almost A7. — brighterorange (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete It most definately is A7. The guy admits in the article that he is not worthy of the page yet, he just hopes to be someday. CastAStone 01:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speey delete. Definitely A7, and so marked. Quale 04:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 13:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome Consumer

Another non notable webcomic with an alexa rank of almost 4 million which can be found here. The article was written by a user named Urabob, which just happens to the author's alias on their sub 50 member forum, here. The articles for the authors are listed below. - Hahnchen 00:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn comic cruff/advert CastAStone 01:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN vanity advert. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 11:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. Dottore So 20:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wow, this is a really lacklustre webcomic. It deserves the popularity (or lack thereof) it has... Philip Taron 10:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 13:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Colin

Non-notable webcomic author for the comic listed above. - Hahnchen 00:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN ad vanity --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 11:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio.--Isotope23 16:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. Dottore So 20:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity page... Philip Taron 10:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 13:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toni Patrick

Non-notable webcomic author for the comic listed 2 places above. - Hahnchen 00:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - NN (and vanity) per Hahnchen. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 11:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio.--Isotope23 16:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. Dottore So 20:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 13:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vermont Group

This is a non-notable group of Diplomacy (game) players. It has only 107 unique Google results in English. The founder's article is listed below. -- Kjkolb 00:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 05:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although we don't have a guideline to help us decide on including groups of Diplomacy players. Someone should go write one right away. Jkelly 06:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete online board-gaming group. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 11:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. Dottore So 20:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. This group is worldwide and is one of the most significant groups in the Diplomacy (game) hobby, but by WP's standards it's just another online game-related group, and doesn't have Google or Alexa evidence of notability. If I used the arguments of some AfD voters, the WP:Importance criterion "is of interest to a community" would garner this article my "Keep" vote. Barno 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point, and that raises the question of whether the community is itself of note then, and deserving of an independent, encyclopedic article (which in this case I don't think is the case). Dottore So 23:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• The Diplomacy community definitely is notable and article-worthy. First play-by-mail historical game, first game hobby to spawn hundreds of fanzines published nationally and internationally, championships in nearly twenty nations, a long-established world championship convention (not just an online tourney calling itself "world championship"), organizations that provide real functions and not just chat forums, coverage in mainstream media, and so forth. Favorite game of Walter Cronkite, John F. Kennedy, and Henry Kissinger, although that might not be so notable a point. It's far more notable than most of the MMORPGs whose adherents think they should have their clans and forums and hacker-groups listed in WP. Barno 17:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting. I think I would include all that in the Diplomacy (game) article, though, instead of a separate Diplomacy Community article. That's just my preference though. I certainly am in total agreement concerning your sentiments about the plethora of insignficant MMORPGs. Dottore So 12:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• • • Comment. I'd suggest that the Diplomacy (game) article wouldn't be hurt by adding some information to it. I notice that it is completely unreferenced at the moment and contains inline external links. Jkelly 03:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Agree with Jkelly. -- Kjkolb 04:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 13:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doug Massey

Founder of the non-notable Vermont Group of Diplomacy (game) players, which is listed above. -- Kjkolb 00:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 05:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nn-bio. Jkelly 07:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Speedy what's next, an article for every D&D Dungeon Master? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - utterly nn CLW 11:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - indeed. Dottore So 20:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. JDPR and the Vermont Group are notable within the Diplomacy (game) community, but not to the general public, and their influence within that hobby aren't so crucial that their founder is the Henry Ford of Diplomacy. Barno 17:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 14:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MOJD

Vanity article. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 19:35, 2 October 2005 (CDT)}

• Delete From the article: "most significant [work] is the network maintenance of a rural high school between 2004 - 2005" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Starblind. — ceejayoz ^★ 02:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete as above Pete.Hurd 04:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 05:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn, advert CLW 11:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 14:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Www.animateclay.com

Non-notable, Alexa rank of 583,606 and appears to be a vanity page. — ceejayoz ^★ 00:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ^★ 00:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, lol. ericg ✈ 00:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Alynna 04:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 11:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Flowerparty■ 19:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Victoria Star 2

It is a non-notable 96-foot ferry. -- Kjkolb 00:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ferries and ships are fairly large objects which have individual variation. I think people interested in ships might be interested in such articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Sjakkalle CLW 11:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If the ship were larger, perhaps it would be notable, but we're not even talking about a large oil tanker or cruise ship. It's only 96 feet long and has a total crew of 4 people, smaller and fewer than some fishing boats. The number of ships that of that size or larger over the last few centuries is enormous. Also, "Victoria Star 2" gets only about 30 unique, non-porn search results, many of which are spam sites. -- Kjkolb 12:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • My "keep" votes aren't always to be interpreted as "keep as it is forever and don't ever try to merge it". If we had an article about the cruise company which owns the Victoria Star 2, I would be all for merging this ship and any other ship belonging to it in with that article since it provides more context. Information about a shipping companiy's ships is in my view relevant information which should be included in some form, preferably in the company article (which I don't think we have now). For now, I think the best thing is to let the article stay until we do get an article about the ship company. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Kjkolb. It's too small a ship to be significant without being further involved in some other affair. Marcus22 13:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Karol 18:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Per Kjkolb, Marcus; in this case the vessel in question is too insignificant to warrant an entry. Dottore So 20:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are literally dozens of ferries in the Georgia Straight, and this is about one of the most minor. -- Corvus 22:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Sjakkalle Carioca 22:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Dottore So --JAranda | yeah 01:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Sjakkalle. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge someplace - I read it over and agree with the other delete arguments here Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is like having individual articles on busses. Gamaliel 11:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is like having individual articles on transit routes. Like Green Line "C" Branch or Lake Shore Limited. The ferry makes one round trip a day, so they are the same thing in this case. --SPUI (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  Comment. Read the article, this is quite clearly an individual ship and not a route. I just called Washington State Ferries and there are many ships that go between Victoria and the Washington mainland. There are two other, larger, companies that provide regular ferry service there as well, plus any number of charter services. Should I write an article about my car because I regularly drive to Seattle? -- Corvus 17:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  • • In this case, the route is equivalent to the ship. If your car operated on a regular public schedule as a common carrier, it too would be "ntoable". --SPUI (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Some of the information could be included in a List of ferries in the Georgia Strait, or a similarly-titled article. Mindmatrix 19:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zombie High

A none notable webcomic with found here with no alexa rank. It's hardly ever updated and the archives are a bit bare. No mention of notability anywhere. Stillborn webcomic. - Hahnchen 00:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep all schools Delete. Grutness...wha? 05:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 11:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, Usrnme h8er 14:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 21:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Qaz ^(talk) 23:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn Dragonfiend 05:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Montrose Academy

This is NOT a school. This is a brother/sister "web studio". The top google hit for this, is a porn site. Other google hits also show nothing to do with what the article is actually about. - Hahnchen 00:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Looks like an attempt to sneak in via the schoole keyhole. Dlyons493 Talk 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. It can jolly well sneak out again. CLW 11:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn --rob 16:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.Gateman1997 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 21:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Jar

None notable webcomic made by Montrose Academy, above. Shows no assertion of notability and I can't find it or its archives on Google. - Hahnchen 00:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. So it had a "ravid" following, did it? Duh... CLW 11:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dragonfiend 13:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Sidecar Brotherhood

Zero relevent Google hits for this nn three month old cult. No mention of the number of members or any notability. Not enough to even be a hoax. Delete. Owen× ☎ 00:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN cult. Formed only a few months ago. Cnwb 06:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 11:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dottore So 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 17:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Spiders

A none notable webcomic, found here. The site hasn't been updated it like 2 years, with the next installment of the comic due to arrive Autumn 2004. The site it is hosted on, has been defunct for a long while and the alexa rank shows this, with a 600k+ figure. None notable part of a none notable website. - Hahnchen 01:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Jkelly 07:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 11:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This comic has been favorably reviewed in the Webcomics Examiner, the Comics Journal, Comixpedia (not the wiki), artbomb.net, and Sequential Tart. Scott McCloud and Warren Ellis have publicly and repeatedly praised it. Given that it has received extensive coverage online and in print publications, it is clearly notable, even before considering its artistic and technological merits. Why was this nominated? Factitious 14:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio. Authoring a web comic of dubious notability does not make a person notable in my book.voted for wrong AfD. No opinion on this.--Isotope23 16:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; these insignificant webcomics are forming a pandemic. If Factitious can show post some justification of his remarks, I might change my vote, although it is hard to see how a moribund webcomic can attain notability worthy of encyclopedic treatment. Dottore So 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Justification. More justification. Even more justification. So much justification it's all over your screen. Why did you assume that this was an insignificant webcomic? All my remarks can easily be checked with Google. Factitious 22:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I still think it's insignificant per the nominator, but I appreciate your response. Dottore So 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean you think we shouldn't mention it just because it's over two years old, or is there something I'm not getting? Factitious 00:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe if the author himself thought it was significant, he would have finished the thing. He's abanadoned it along with Electric Sheep Comix, just because it's been reviewed by webcomic enquirer or what webcomic? or webcomics r us, doesn't make it notable. Technical merits? I thought infinte canvas would be a massive flowing page, but it's just a horizontal slideshow. - Hahnchen 13:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

As I've already shown, it has been reviewed in publications which are not focused on webcomics. If you're interested in learning more about what makes it technically interesting, I suggest that you read some of the critical reactions, as you should have done before trying to delete this article. Factitious 05:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps a merge with Electric Sheep Comix? Gamaliel 11:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • At best, it would be merged with Patrick Farley, the artist's article. Not his art site, which is up for deletion. - Hahnchen 13:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Factitious -Abe Dashiell 13:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have no problem with this article. Alf ^melmac 12:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Factitious. Seriously, one read through this thing will convince you it will be marked in the history of webcomics, as an example of the innovative art that happens when political speech is unlinked from monetary neccessity and the constraints of the page. Philip Taron 10:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 17:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Sheep Comix

None notable website with an alexa ranking of 600k+ as discussed in the nomination above. I have not nominated the author for deletion Patrick Farley, as there is one small claim of notability there, but I don't think his personal website warrants an article. He has a livejournal blog too. Does that deserve an entry? - Hahnchen 01:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Professional webcomic. Certainly notable. Cnwb 06:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a pretty bare stub, but Farley's work has received a fair amount of critical attention, both online and in print. I don't see how someone who's researched the topic could think it isn't notable. Factitious 14:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - I think you could have nom'd the author as well. Authoring a few web comics and a blog just doesn't quite make it to notability in my book.--Isotope23 16:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Hahnchen. I also agree with Isotope. Dottore So 21:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He is noted in print and in Web reviews for his experimentation in Web comics. ELectric sheep is his dedicated Art site and not his "personal" Web site. He has another site for that. --AlainV 08:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Question - This is an art site that has not been updated for a few years. It is a website. An article for Patrick Farley already exists. Would an article on David Hockney's website be deleted? What about The Chapman Brothers official site? Yes, because, like this one they are none notable sites and would fair better as part of the artist's article. What about Goldfrapp, their website has been through several iterations and has been given an MTV award. I've read articles in music magazines talking about their website. But if I listed www.goldfrapp.co.uk on wikipedia, it would be deleted, stating that Goldfrapp already exists. This is the same, but because it has been classed as a webcomic, the guidelines on websites becomes putty. - Hahnchen 12:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The website itself got an MTV award, and was the subject of magazine articles? By all means, make an entry for it. I'd support you. Factitious 16:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Answer. The electric sheep site is an Art site completely dedicated to the Art of web comics and it was last updated January 20th 2005. The fact that the last time a comic on it was updated was in 2003 does not make it less relevant. It is the repository of all of Farley's Web comics that were praised by Web and print sources, which you can check by googling Patrick Farley and electric sheep and by reading Scott McCloud's book and other publications. --AlainV 04:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As per Factitious and AlainV -Abe Dashiell 13:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep See Factious, plus Rush Limbaugh Eats Everything. This is a seminal early webcomic, and a damn good illustration of what you can do with the web's infinite canvas. Philip Taron 10:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aberdeen Street

A road that has only 2 blocks and made 'international headlines' for a car burning WOW! but Still a non notable road Delete --JAranda | yeah 01:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Note the Sneaky use of international headlines: "Canada and New York State" is hardly international, as Toronto, ON/CA and Buffalo, NY/US essentially share a media market (with each recieving the others local TV, Radio and the like). A street mentioned in a local news story that just happens to be near an international border is hardly noteworthy and therefor this should be DeletedCastAStone 01:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Except that Kingston isn't part of that market... Bearcat 05:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No, but it does border new york. I should have noted that i was merely giving an example. - CastAStone
• Keep --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Why?  Grue  17:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• The annual homecoming party that went over the top this year should be mentioned in the entry on Queen's University. There is a section "Traditions". The street itself is unremarkable, so delete it. Pilatus 02:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this article is about an event, not a road. The road is only 2 blocks that goes through a neighbourhood not notable enough to have an article itself. --maclean25 02:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.--Nicodemus75 03:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Why?  Grue  17:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Maclean25. There are verifiability problems with many of the statements in the article and no sources, another sore point with me. Quale 04:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per CastAStone and JAranda. --Kewp (t) 06:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect anything salvageable into Queen's University. (If this title isn't a proper one to serve as a redirect, then move it first). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Pilatus. -- Kjkolb 12:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no statement indicated the road is genuinely notable. Local news story only - students getting drunk and being stupid isn't truly international news. Average Earthman 12:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a street party/riot involving 'thousands of students' might be notable, but there's no reason to believe this is true. --Last Malthusian 13:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete echoing above. Dottore So 21:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Information about the event contained in the article belongs elsewhere, probably Queen's University if references can be sourced. The street itself is not encyclopedia-worthy. Mindmatrix 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn road. Sorry, voted twice - server glitch. Dottore So 22:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Burn this like the car. Gamaliel 11:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• I'll agree that this article is delete-worthy, but can I maybe flag this instead as merge request into some kind of article on the Kingston Student Ghetto/Queen's Student Ghetto—the concept of undergrads densely living in low-grade rental housing in a halo around a university is a relatively unique Canadian phenomenon (US universities accomodating far more people on campus or having a frat system) and Kingston has the prototypical student ghetto in the country. Interesting topic from an urban planning end of things. -The Tom 03:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - An event "on or about" a street doesn't qualify as making the street notable. The story isn't really about the street. I'm not voting merge, since the info is unsourced. If it's to be covered elsewhere, entirely new content should be written, citing reliable sources. --rob 09:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete completely non-notable. When we get to the point when we would keep every street in the world that really would mean the end of Wikipedia.  Grue  17:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Queen's University as per Mgm - notable info about the university.
• Delete. I used to live at 10 Aberdeen Street. The street is two blocks long and is not worthy of inclusion despite being party central. Homey 01:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marvin "Knife" Sotelo

Probable vanity page; Minimal community benefit Cpaliga 01:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• It is important to note that he does have a self-published book seems to be a leader in a religous organization. I do not however think that every person who leads a church deserves a Wikipedia Page.Cpaliga
• Also, Please go to the Cultural Reference articles, many of them have been marked for deletion.Cpaliga 14:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- unsalvageable POV, and seemingly non-notable subject --Mysidia (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable MONGO 05:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Cultural references are crap and the articles written on them mainly created by the article writer, HTSMVKNIFE, except, obviously, for Anton LaVey. --Last Malthusian 13:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and nn-bio.--Isotope23 18:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Leave it up... DO NOT DELETE!!!

• Why does this article want to be deleted?, its actually pretty good. Leave it up why not!

• If you'd like to know "why not," look at all of the previous comments explaining the reasons. Cpaliga

awesome article

it passes in my book

WHOA O.O VERY INTERESTING READ

• nice just needs a little more info

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete on Wikipedia, Transwiki to Comixpedia Karmafist 16:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shit Happens Webcomic

Effort has been put into this article, that is true. But this webcomic, found here is just none notable, with an alexa rank of over 2 million. Alexa can be a red herring, but for a rank so low, it can be safe to say that this webcomic is not popular. A google search did not bring up anything which would make this website more notable than the others. Another note, is that the main contributor to the article is User:Joellevand, author of the comic. Also, check the newpost on the front page of their site, asking viewers to click on webcomic toplists. If this were notable, they wouldn't need it. This article does not belong on wikipedia, but on comixPedia where it does not yet exist. Sigh. - Hahnchen 01:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Jkelly 07:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as NN and vanity, per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to ComixPedia if there's no license concerns. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn webcomic. Dottore So 22:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dragonfiend 15:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to ComixPedia as per Mgm. Bobstay 08:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to ComixPedia -- may not belong here, but isn't vanity either. --Raincannon 16:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd put this down as vanity. The guy who wrote the article seems to be the webcomic artist. - Hahnchen 15:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Neh, I'm the artist, and the article was written by my girlfriend before she became co-writer -- but I take your point on it not belonging here. I'll put it on ComixPedia when I get a moment, then feel free to let it go. --Raincannon 06:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If someone wishes to himself copy this to another GFDL wiki before the afd ends, that's all well and good, but please don't close afd nominations as transwikis to non-Wikimedia wikis. —Cryptic (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 05:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bindows

This article was undeleted after a supported request at VfU. It was previously deleted in accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bindows, but the VfU debate was happy to restore the article given the lack of participation and the promise from the original editor that he would de-advertify the article. As part of that request, the article was reverted to its original state. This is a procedural relisting. No comment from me. -Splash^talk 02:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This software is not free and likely an advertisement. Furthermore, when this article was created, the latest version was 1.31 beta when it is 1.51 stable. It's not a notable piece of software either. --AllyUnion (talk)04:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps because this is an old (e.g. restored) version of this article? Besides, that's more {{sofixit}} than a reason to delete, isn't it? - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per AllyUnion. Xoloz 06:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I didn't intend to create the article as as advertisement. I've created and edited a few other computer related articles also. I'm not related to the company that creates the software. I do use this particular software though, and am aware that many others use it too. Google returns 136,000 hits. I'm ready to remove any part that looks like advertising. Jay 11:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC) (original author)
• Keep Notable ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 19:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The article does not read particularly as ad copy, but the fact that it is fairly unnotable, limited use commercial software suggests that this entry is designed to provide the appearance of independent support for the product, making it effectively de facto advertising. Could the relevant content and links be moved to the Ajax (programming) article? It would probably recieve more critical attention and relevant review there. Dottore So 22:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, again.Gateman1997 22:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. Carioca 22:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have no problem with this article. Alf ^melmac 13:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the concept is covered comprehensively by the Ajax (programming) article, and Bindows is just one implementation of that concept. It merits an external link in the Libraries section of the Ajax article.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 01:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wisconsin land

How-to guide about buying land in Wisconsin -- Kjkolb 02:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Per Nom --JAranda | yeah 03:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP is not a how-to. Quale 04:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikihowto - oh wait that dosn't exist, though it should. Unfortunately, I therefore agree grudgingly, Delete.CastAStone 05:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Wikihowto" does exist, it's called Wikibooks; therefore transwiki.--Pharos 07:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• transwiki per Pharos. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 10:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knunder

This article was speedily deleted several times (see Special:Undelete/Knunder, relevant parts available to all editors), but undeleted as not-a-speedy by VfU. So it comes here instead for a full investigation. No comment from me. (PS: I have arbitrarily reverted to what I think is a version the authors would want you to see: the later versions are recreations of protestations.) -Splash^talk 02:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the random neologism. Pilatus 02:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-verifiable, since the page linked in the article [1] indicates someone made up the word as part of a bet to get it in the dictionary. And WP:NOT/ a dictionary or usage guide --Mysidia (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, not a disctionary, no notable phenom. associated with it, basicly non notable. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• This is a dictionary article about a protologism. (It does not satisfy Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion because it is not attested independently of its source, by the way.) Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:WINAD) and is not a promotional vehicle (WP:NOT) for publicizing newly invented words (WP:NOR) so that as a consequence they enter widespread use, they get into dictionaries, and one can win a bet with one's teacher. In any case: Any encyclopaedia article content about the concept that this protologism is purported to describe would have a natural home in table (furniture); and any encyclopaedia article content about the process of getting words into the Oxford English Dictionary belongs in Oxford English Dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 03:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this protologism, and protect the space if necessary to prevent re-creation. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it good! Dicdef and I can't see it changing. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 05:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it's not encyclopedic, but do list it on the bad jokes page, the "safety in knunders" pun deserves to live on. - Stillnotelf 06:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and protect from re-creation Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I already did and it got unprotected. -- RHaworth 09:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • That was me. I unprotected it because VfU mandated it be undeleted, so I didn't have much choice. The irksome IP in question has removed the AfD tag, predictably, and received a warning from me, with no mincing of words. -Splash^talk 12:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to neologism and make a brief note about it there as an intentional attempt to force a neologism into the world. The fact that this boy and/or his teacher have managed to get the Beeb to notice is a bit notable. It has also been noted by such august organs as the Lincolnshire Echo, the Grantham Journal and the Sleaford Standard. It does not actually matter if Wikipedia records it, that is not what puts a word into the language. This one will surely frizzle out (pun on the creator's name) anyway. -- RHaworth 09:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. android79 12:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Hello. I'm Stephen Frizzle, the creator of the word. I googled knunder earlier to see how it was doing, and 'lo and behold, it's been added on Wikipedia! I was also a bit shocked to see I had "new messages" telling me I'd be blocked from Wikipedia if I was to edit any more pages. What's that all about?! It mentioned something about sharing the same IP address as another user. The only suggestion I can say is the fact I'm using a college computer. It sickens me to think that somebody from the college is deliberately associating the word with acts of anarchy such as this.
  

Anyway, this bet I'm having is going pretty well, and I like to thank people for going on the site and (possibly) using the word occasionally. Perhaps one day, this article will exist, and it will tell the story about how I managed to force a word into the language. It'll be quite a story to tell in years to come. I'm going to ask politely if you would like to keep this "nonsense neologism" on Wikipedia. I know it won't help me in any way, shape or form, but it'll be proof that the word is being recognised. Proof that it is being used.
I shall leave now, and await what the future of knunder looks like on this wiki. Thank you. -- Friz

• Delete. All the uses of the word "knunder" in print seem to be about the creation of the word "knunder" as a neologism; I don't see evidence that it is being used on its own as a regular word. --Metropolitan90 19:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Actually, I'm putting a report together with all the emails I'm getting from people using the word across the country. From Primary Schools in Scotland to a workhouse in Australia. At my least count, over 5,000 people were using knunder (and that's just a guess from the facts I've collected through emails). -- Friz
• Hello, Pro-Knunderers and Anti-Knunderers! Wordsmith Friz here; just a short note to say that primary school teachers all over Britain are telling their young pupils to "put their chairs in the knunder". I'm warping a generation of 4-year-olds! Also, the word is going to be used- in context- by a few D C Thompson publications (such as The Weekly News and The Beano). At my lastest count, there are now 30 ways to use the word knunder, either as a noun, verb, preposition or adverb, and there are over 6,000 people who know of the word, or are using the word. Watch this space! -- Friz

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as hoax. Hall Monitor 18:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antipope Sixtus XVI

del nonverifiable. nonnotable. mikka (t) 02:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Pope Sixtus has also further alienated some Catholics by declaring that Leonard Cohen was a prophet and by canonizing Jimi Hendrix and Marylin Monroe. DELETE and PURGE and BAN the Drastic SILLINESS and likely HOAX from WIKIPEDIA and its MIRRORS and FORKS. Sorry folks, got carried away. Pilatus 02:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No such institution in Calgary, Canada that can be verified.--Nicodemus75 03:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sillieness --rob 05:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Re-thinking, I believe this is a candidate for Speedy Delete--Nicodemus75 05:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain If we're voting on hoaxes and pranks... --Wetman 06:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with current Pope in the hopes we will get an interesting middle ground. Delete as hoax. Jkelly 07:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn, silly and so forth —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 10:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as hoax vandalism. android79 12:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as a hoax.--Isotope23 16:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boss Ross

Probable vanity/self-promotion page, Minimal community value Cpaliga 02:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN band vanity. Cnwb 06:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unsigned band, fails WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 12:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Mallocks. Qaz ^(talk) 23:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. — JIP | Talk 07:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jackson Young

NN/ Vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 03:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete, vanity. -- ReyBrujo 04:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. This is an A7, now so marked. Quale 04:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as a patently invalid nomination. FCYTravis 03:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Three's Company

No educational value. Not everyone in the whole wide world are familiar to that show, and it is limited to the G8 nations. My parents are from Mexico which also indicates that they are not familiar with Three's Company. Furthermore, it does not belong in an encyclopedia because it is not something thought in school. It belongs to tvguide.com not wikipedia.152.163.101.13 03:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Group_Data_Scheme_Society

The organization disbanded and no longer exists; nothing links to this page and the organization's fate is not notable enough to be encyclopaedic. Note that the link to the website goes nowhere. Evertype 03:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'm Irish and I never heard of them. Very little on Google but see [2] Dlyons493 Talk 05:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom--nixie 06:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep Marskell 11:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Tripper

No educational value. It does not belong in an encyclopedia. It is also fancruft.152.163.100.202 03:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Bad Faith Nomination --JAranda | yeah 03:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Possibly worst nomination ever. --Nicodemus75 03:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Gentgeen 04:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per above --rob 05:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep Sigh. I take it this is the same person who wanted to delete Three's Company? A clear case of Ritterophobia. Grutness...wha? 05:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedt Keep. bad faith nom, or user unaware of criteria for deletion. Nateji77 06:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Sigh. Jkelly 07:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, as performed by Andrew Lenahan. Hall Monitor 22:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judy McCauley

A Google search brings up nothing noteworthy about this person. The list of her film contributions, which makes up almost all of the article, is factually inaccurate. Melesse 03:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Seems to have co-starred with enough A-list people to turn up a few more Googles than that! Dlyons493 Talk 05:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• I have Speedied this as vandalism since 100% of the article (with the possible exception of the D.O.B.) is verifiably factually wrong. For example, Judy McCauley did not play Erin Brockovich in Erin Brockovich, Julia Roberts did. Entire article follows along similar lines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 00:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WKIT

The content is this: 'WKIT, a rock radio station licensed to Brewer, Maine with studios and offices in Bangor, Maine, is owned by authors Tabitha and Stephen King.' Ingoolemo ^talk 03:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. Pretty much all radio stations have their own articles, although this one certainly bites at the moment. See [3] —Wahoofive (talk) 03:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability shouldn't be disputed. Monicasdude 14:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and slap with a cleanup tag... terrible article.--Isotope23 16:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Improve per Wahoofive. Yikes. Karmafist 17:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 19:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Socceresque

Obscure nelogism, dicdef NeilN 03:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Could never be more than a dicdef. Quale 04:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The concept of being "almost as beautiful as soccer" is close enough to succeeding in acheiving the meaningless ness of "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" without having any of the significance of Chomsky's sentence. This is a neologism, but worse: the -def part of this dicdef is hardly something encyclopedic. Not to mention it's the sort of neologism some people (myself included) make up twenty-dozen times a day because we like tacking derivational morphemes onto words to create our own words instead of using everybody else's. And not one such word (socceresque, ironage, stenchify, etceterize, etc.) is deserving of a Wikipedia article. The Literate Engineer 05:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Don't know about that. Iron age has an article. AndyJones 23:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism/linkspam. Qwghlm 11:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep Marskell 11:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chrissy Snow

No educational value. Not everyone in the world is familiar with her.152.163.100.203 03:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Possibly second-worst nomination ever.--Nicodemus75 03:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. That's a stupid reason for deletion. Nelson Ricardo 04:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep encyclopediae arent textbooks. valid article on notable subject. Nateji77 04:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Change vote to speedy keep. Nateji77 05:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep I'm sure the nominator isn't even trying to be serious with the absurd reasoning. --rob 05:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the user contributions and ip addresses for this nom found here look similar to those for this nom, who also nominated the speedily-kept Three's Company article. if it's a single user rather than several users sharing ip addresses then heshe has also contributed to a number of articles on professional wrestling, which i personally feel to be of even less educational value than famous 70s sitcoms. not sure why you'd have an agenda against 3s company, tho. Nateji77 05:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep as per Jack Tripper and Three's Company. And while we're at it, a pre-emptive keep on any articles on Janet Wood, the Ropers, Man about the House, Robin Tripp, Chrissy Plummer, et al. Grutness...wha? 05:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Sigh. Jkelly 07:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The next time I write an article about a fictional character, I'll make it a point to travel all around the world, making sure even the old people and small children in small, remote African villages who have never used a computer have heard of them, just so it satisfies the Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. Not. — JIP | Talk 07:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Vold

This article was originally tagged for speedy deletion by Kpjas, but I believe that it should be brought before AfD for discussion instead. No vote. Hall Monitor 18:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Relisting this as it failed to draw any discussion at all. Rx StrangeLove 15:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Relisting again! Redwolf24 (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment We are too busy voting on schools.--Nicodemus75 15:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete in its present form - at least needs a rewrite to make it less promotional. Maybe even then it'll be nn. Suggest adding a list of all schools he attended - Oh God No, somebody will do that now! Dlyons493 16:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Dlyons493. -- Kjkolb 03:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable bio. Quale 04:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn bio. Xoloz 06:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, can anyone explain to me what a "Rodeo Stock Contractor" is? If he's a rider, I'm inclined to say keep, but if he is just providing livestock, that doesn't seem to quite meet notability in my book; yes we should list every school he ever attended, because they are all notable you know...--Isotope23 16:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This was twice relisted for discussion, that is unusual. What is the record for an article discussion being relisted for failing to draw commentary? Hall Monitor 19:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 22:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Star Trek

Also nominating two other associated pages: Star Trek: Star's End and Star Trek: Renaissance. They are about a fan site; there are no links to them from outside the set and they seem like ads. At least merge the articles. Jason McHuff 03:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Alexa rank is 1,306,006 --Jason McHuff 03:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all three. Virtual Star Trek is a non-notable website, the other two are fanfics. Quale 04:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all of the above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, echoing above. Dottore So 22:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 05:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chum Bucket

Contextless jibberjabber without geographical information that is also apparently advertising non-notable eateries.Need I say anything other than Delete? Eddie.willers 03:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Although utterly unclear from the article, it actually describes fictional restaurants from the cartoon SpongeBob SquarePants. Quale 04:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I cleaned up the article so it would look less like an ad for a non-notable eatery. — Kjammer ⌂ 06:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Sheldon J. Plankton where the restaurant is already partly covered. The two are so closely interlinked that there's no point in having separate articles. — RJH 20:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Sheldon J. Plankton.Gateman1997 22:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -radiojon 19:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Think tanks the game

non notable fan game --SoothingR 16:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Relisting. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete - not notable, poorly written, Stu 17:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete Unverifiable. Xoloz 06:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Xoloz. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Relisting didn't exactly draw a crowd, but enough is enough. Rx StrangeLove 05:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silentfriend

Not notable blog/concept. feydey 17:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. promotion for a charity. Nateji77 19:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Relisting. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising, nn. Xoloz 06:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE and tell the 11-year-old to wash his mouth with soap. Why, back in my time... — JIP | Talk 05:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cushtie

Is it advertising? Is it a dicdef? Is it slang? Is it even notable? No, no, no and again, no. Delete Eddie.willers 04:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Quale 04:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Take out the non-neutral first-person content, and one is left with practically zero content, except for a vague indication that this is some form of cushion. A Google Web search told me what this was. The article certainly didn't. But then that's because it was copied from the advertising blurb in a product catalogue, where the catalogue itself had accompanying pictures to explain what the item was. Copyvio. Uncle G 05:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

My 11-year-old son added this page because he had just been given a Cushtie. He did not, repeat not, copy anything from any advertising blurb, he wrote it entirely himself. I accept that it may not be appropriate for Wikipedia (I am a fan) but please don't judge so harshly. He was attempting to reproduce the type of article he has seen in Wikepedia, he was unaware that Cushtie is not a "real" thing. If you choose to delete so be it! -- unsigned comment by 82.35.131.115

• Delete as a non-notable item. Not to nitpick, but while it is not a direct cut & paste job, it's fairly obvious that the text of the first sentence was taken from the link Uncle G posted in the copyvio message. Still, not a bad first effort for an 11 year old.--Isotope23 18:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey- FUCK OFF. I dont know about wikipedia yet- im only 11. I thought since ive seen so much info anout saying how classy other items were i thought id share with the world what i thought. YOU PRICKS WONT GIVE ME THE CHANCE. DO WHAT YOU WISH.-- unsigned comment by 82.35.131.115

• • Oh well, at least he can go home and hug his Cushtie. I'm restoring the deleted votes.--Isotope23 19:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Sounds like a very mature "11-year-old." Delete. FCYTravis 21:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and offer the "11-year-old" a bar of soap for use in washing one's mouth out. android79 00:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and give the kid some Lifebuoy a la A Christmas Story. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey im sorry the way i acted- it wasnt your fault. I shouldnt of swore at you. Please forgive me and ill try to make a better article :)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 12:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew & Shawn Brooks

To start, the title is wrong for an encyclopedia article. The entire text is two sentences: "Andrew & Shawn Brooks' first published novel was the sci-fi thriller The Peoples Yard written in 1988. While not critically acclaimed, it did gather a strong fan base that lead them to write The Octagon fantasy saga." Can't find them or their novels on amazon. Vanity. Quale 04:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, at best vanity... at worst, just nn-bio.--Isotope23 17:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 22:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] D (2010 film)

crystal ballism. similar previous afds include Robots 2 (2010 film) and 2010 in film. Nateji77 04:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. — Kjammer ⌂ 06:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Xoloz 06:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete an so on. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. 23skidoo 21:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 01:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. tregoweth 20:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Bobo192 20:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, along with 2010 in film. Pburka 01:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, several of the votes offered rewrite as an options which was done, so along with the 2 keep votes makes this stuck in the middle. I'd suggest keeping an eye on this though. Rx StrangeLove 05:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Early

Created by Maryearly75 (talk · contribs). I userfied it, but it was re-created in article namespace. This reads like a CV and not an encyclopedic article. -- Curps 04:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite or Userfy. Google [4] turns up 440 hits including the Washington Post. Dlyons493 Talk 05:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup, as per User:Dlyons493. Jkelly 07:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, by all means. The Google link above includes hits on "talking to Mary early this morning" or even "Jacques Stella, Ascension of the Virgin Mary, early 17th century", completely unrelated to that person. The WP mention is one list of art exhibits in Washington, DC, and a fleeting mention in an article on someone else (one Riccardo Maranzana). Falls below by threshold of what is encyclopedic; I class this as vanity/advertisement. Lupo 12:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Vanity. Marcus22 13:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Sufficiently notable to be regularly mentioned in news articles about gallery exhibitions, which seems to me to be analogous enough to imdb standard to justify inclusion. Monicasdude 14:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Rewrite If someone else wants to write it, then that's fine, she's got a good shot at notability. Right now though, it just looks like Mary cut and pasted her resume and decided that Wikipedia would be a good promotional device, which is the prototypical vanity article. Karmafist 17:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Dottore So 22:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I am happy to rewrite the entry per suggestions; I created the entry because it came to my attention that my name was included in the text of the Bennington College entry, and studied the other artist, literature links and it seemed appropriate.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 05:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calpoly Demographics

• Not an article and possibly a copyright violation too. Rmhermen 04:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Looks like its been copied off an intranet. Dlyons493 Talk 05:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• The information was taken from a source and made into to graphs. The creating of the site is for a class project so if it could be left up for a few days that would be greatly appriciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.112.123 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 4 October 2005

Well, as the standard deletion procedure, it will stay for 5 days while a consensus is built on if it should be deleted. If you need to make pages like this, it's best not to do it in the main article space but to make your own user account then create it as a subpage from there. If you want any help, let me know. --Apyule 06:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not an article. --Apyule 06:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jah Acid Dub

Doesn't seem particularly notable, 1020 google hits.

• Delete per nomination. - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless something more notable is added to the article. Qaz ^(talk) 23:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, I'm moving it to Annie L. Gaetz School, Red Deer, Alberta though. Rx StrangeLove 06:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Annie_L._Gatez_School

No context, vanity Stillnotelf 05:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Stillnotelf 05:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Given the rewrite, I keep my vote: not notable. - Stillnotelf 02:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Annie L. Gaetz School, Red Deer, Alberta and stubbify. FCYTravis 05:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 05:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is a real school. If kept, it needs to be renamed as it's spelled incorrectly, but my vote is above. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 05:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Move per FCYTravis. Xoloz 06:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• The content of the article is "Annie L. Gatez is the most wonderful school for it is in our hometown Red Deer Alberta. Annie L. Gatez was a very nice, humorous, edjucated girl. Annie L. Gatez is where children count!". That is not an article. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite acknowledged, neutral. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Content now changed. Xoloz 11:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Yellow Pages. Pilatus 12:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hey, at least the original version had some content and made me giggle. Now it's just non-notable. --Last Malthusian 13:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn school.--Isotope23 17:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Move to Annie L. Gaetz School, Red Deer, Alberta. Verifiable school in Red Deer.--Nicodemus75 18:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for the usual reasons and move as already suggested. That said, is anyone else experiencing difficulty accessing the main article? Both Firefox and Internet Explorer are freezing up when accessing it right now. Silensor 20:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn school --JAranda | yeah 21:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all public schools. 207.188.29.244 21:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or barring that move it to the correct name and vastly expand it.Gateman1997 22:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since the rewrite, real school, useful stub. Kappa 02:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it has been rewritten and it is neutral and verifiable and about a school so we should not erase this Yuckfoo 03:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Annie L. Gaetz School, Red Deer, Alberta. An article on the board should have come first, but the article is still valuable, and will hopefully grow. Regarding Silensor's comments, I couldn't access the school article earlier for quite a while. I couldn't figure it out, since I could access other articles in wikipedia. But now, it seems to work fine. It was really weird. --rob 03:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish notability. --Carnildo 05:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's that simple when not notable. Are there more schools with this name? If not, then why move it? Vegaswikian 05:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yellowpagifying? --Last Malthusian 08:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Will everyone calling for 'keep and expand' please say what interesting information they would like to see included in this article. (And not the bloody ethnic makeup of the students unless it's somehow important.) --Last Malthusian 08:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleting the odd random school article when 20+ a day are added is pointless. CalJW 08:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, failing that Move per above Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete deleting schoolcruft is good for the soul.Dunc|☺ 10:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Generic stub. Gamaliel 11:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Annie L. Gaetz School, Red Deer, Alberta.  ALKIVAR™ 21:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep usual reasons. --Vsion 22:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, another solid school article. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia can and should have an article about every verifiable enduring public institution in history, including this one. Keep. Gene_poole 04:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • We delete articles on private institutions every day under WP:NOT for advertising and WP:NOT indiscriminate collection of information. What's so special about public institutions? Do we want an article on every swimming pool, every landfill, every benefits office? They're all public institutions, just less 'romantic' than schools. --Last Malthusian 08:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Setting fictional material aside, we also keep articles about battle ships, bridges, train stations, and other notable institutions such as schools every day. The "coffee cup argument", or swimming pool in this instance, does not hold water. Silensor 18:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite per reasoning at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Unfocused 04:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete Denni☯ 23:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move as suggested. Good rewrite. If the next Prime Minister came from this school how many Deletes would change to Keeps? Musser 03:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yawn. We could have all these schools redirect to one article because they're all the same.  Grue  17:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete primary school which noone outside the vicinity will have heard of. --redstucco 08:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn school.Dottore So 12:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Moving would be okay but I don't see the necessity because the name is probably unique. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Dudtz 10/12/05 8:31 PM EST

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 06:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oxford Future of Humanity Institute

Looks like vanity or advertisement, and apparently incomplete and/or vandalized. Wapoo 05:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Copyvio from [5] Dlyons493 Talk 05:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• the history shows it was vandalized because it was an advertisement. The vandal, 70.25.196.197, appears to spend his wiki time deleting what he considers to be NPOV violations from pages about republicans. but regardless, he was right to try to do something about this page, just wrong in his method of doing so. Delete.CastAStone 05:45, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gacne

Neologism at best, no Wikitionary or Dictionary entry, and Google search shows sites in foreign languages. Article is nothing but a dic def anyway. — Kjammer ⌂ 05:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• I dont think I want to know what a gooch or a taint is. Delete as per Kjam and may god rest your soul. CastAStone 05:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The taint is known scientifically as the perineum. Xoloz 06:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Speedy even' for already stated reasons Qaz ^(talk) 00:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sequel trilogy (Star Wars)

This article is speculation about movies that are not going to be made, based largely on conjecture from expanded universe (licensed) Star Wars works. Only one source is cited, and that source, as far as I can tell, only confirms an incidental fact (in which year the movies would be set). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Based on further revelations, I'm changing my vote to Keep, with an eye to possibly merging it somewhere. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete a) this is a possible copyvio from the fool who made it up on supershadow[6] 10 years ago. b) its made up - he "devised it" from "conjectures" of things George Lucas once said. c) fancruft CastAStone 05:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn fancruft. MCB 06:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft, original research. — JIP | Talk 07:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Use namespace as redirect to one of the main star wars articles, delete all content. Nateji77 07:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Merge with the article Star Wars speculation. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 08:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• I support the idea of a sequel trilogy. Originally, Lucas decided to stop making Star Wars films after Return of the Jedi. Contrary to what the media says, there is still a chance for a sequel trilogy. The sequel trilogy would star Ben Skywalker as an adult. It would take place about a decade after the Dark Nest trilogy. There can be up to three sequel trilogies. If there are to be 15 episodes total, Episode XV would take place in 203 ABY. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 08:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Contrary to what the media says, there is still a chance for a sequel trilogy.
    Unless and until someone adds some sort of proof of this claim to the article, it's unverified speculation. (Plus, given Lucas's track record, I think it's exceedingly unlikely he'd make a trilogy of movies based on EU canon.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The sequel trilogy does not necessarily have to be based on Expanded Universe canon. The earlier facts state that it would take place after all Expanded Universe canon, ranging from 40 ABY to 203 ABY. The Dark Nest trilogy, the latest in the Expanded Universe canon, takes place in 35-36 ABY. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 06:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE. This is not a bloody crystal ball for Lucaszoids and basement Jedi. --80.222.69.104 09:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. This is not really speculation. It is based on early facts from George Lucas and on possibility. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 09:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. First off, I am the author of this article, I wrote this article based on actual facts. Actually, this is based on facts from Lucas himself in the 80's. I would never believe that damn Supershadow for a second. The information contained in that page is based on factual information in The Star Wars Timeline Gold by Nathan Butler, which can be found here. The Wookieepedian 10:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You say "facts" twice, but the only source you have cited is a dubious secondary source that doesn't cite primary sources for this speculation, as far as I can tell. If there are primary sources that can be cited, particularly ones I missed from that timeline, please add them to the article. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Check the new reference I added to the page. The other sources the timeline used I cannot locate.. It found its facts in an old issue of Time magazine, and other off-hand comments Lucas made to the media. The Wookieepedian 10:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Wow, that's insanely obscure, but it looks like it's there. (Page 141 of the appendices PDF from the linked timeline page, for anyone who wants to check the timeline page). Well, in that case, the speculation/conjecture needs to be trimmed, primary sources need to be tracked down and cited, and this probably needs to be merged (Star Wars speculation seems like a logical merge target). I've amended my vote in respect of this revelation. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah, the guy who wrote that knows obscurity very well, as his timeline shows. I believe this page needs to be here to let everyone know that Lucas has in fact, based on his own former statements, planned to do such a trilogy, or triloggies at one point. Since he now denies he even considered such a thing, I thought it might be interesting to create a page using his own words against him. I don't knoiw if this would be considered speculation, except for the part about the name of Luke's son. This is more of construcing a basic storyline, based on Lucas' words. The Wookieepedian 11:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
          • It seems like this needs to be merged into Star Wars speculation as the source of the "What would the sequels be?" speculation, and smerged into Star Wars as a few sentences describing Lucas's change of heart about having/not having sequels. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Conjectural. Not a crystal ball. I find the fact Lucas mentioned it irrelevant. It doesn't exist until it exists. Marskell 11:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The enitre purpose of the article is to give the reader a good idea of what he had in mind and let people know that he lies when he says he never even considered doing such a trilogy. The purpose of this article is not to say that he is going to make it, or speculate, just show what it would have basically been like, had he made one. It is notable. The Wookieepedian 11:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is that the only facts here (as opposed to conjecture) are that Lucas was planning to make some sequels (the number varying, depending on the source and the time he was interviewed), and that he broached the subject of having Mark Hamill play an "Obi-Wan-type character." Other than that, nothing is verifiable (and a chunk of it was borderline fanfic and copyvio, and has been removed), so there's no real verifiable claim about what such movies would have been like if they had existed. Don't make this article out to be more than it is. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Here's basically what I want to do with this article: I want it to tell only the confirmed, verifyable facts first, in a section of its own. Then, based on these facts, I want to, along with help from others, construct the logical story based on these facts, noting that it isn't the actual story, just an approximation of what it would have been. The only time I will bring in the EU is when mentioning Luke's son, which I will use the name, "Ben," which has been established in The New Jedi Order. I will have a section showing proof of other sequels he has had in mind, but don't need their own page to be mentioned. I will then have one mentioning what many fans have considered the sequel trilogy in their minds (The Thrawn Trilogy for example). Finally, I will need to move the page, in order for its name to be consistant with the original trilogy and prequel trilogy articles. I hope this explains to you and everyone that votes and is involved with this issue what exactly I plan to do. The way it is in its current form isn't nearly what I had in mind. It was just a quick thing I created last night, without expanding it. If it survives deletion, though, I will expand it, becuase I strongly feel the subject is notable.
        • I'm sorry if you have serious plans on this one. "What he had in mind" is absolutely not a criteria for inclusion even if verifiable. Think about it. Every script that makes it to the talking stage of studio consideration could be included. Every plan or future desire of a notable person, subsequently scrapped, could be included. Every agreed upon role for an actor, declined at the last minute, could be included.
        • "Construct(ing) the logical story based on these facts, noting that it isn't the actual story, just an approximation of what it would have been" is absolutely a no go. I—and I'm sure not just I—would delete it in a second. It would actually constitute OR for one thing and the criticism about speculation would only be stronger. Marskell 17:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't got time to disentangle all of this. I will say only this. I'm not much of a Star Wars fan. I saw the first movie, then entitled simply "Star Wars," in 1977 on its first run in Boston and walked out before the end because I was getting just too irritated with winged spacecraft developing lift forces in a vacuum. Anyway, I certainly read interviews at the time, and in fairly mainstream places, possibly Time Magazine?, explaining that it was actually the fourth in a projected series of nine films. I've recently wondered when the seventh, eighth, and ninth will be coming out. Apparently Lucas has now backpedalled on this. Information on what has been said when about this third trilogy is legitimate, and ought to be included somewhere. This is a legitimate topic. I can't speak to whether the information currently in the article is well-researched or not. The article cannot be a reconstruction by a Wikipedia editor of what the third trilogy might have been. However, if a series of well-sourced, verifiable quotations from Lucas and others can be put together in such a way that the reader can construct a plausible storyline for him- or herself, that would be IMHO perfectly legitimate. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • That's exactly what my goal is. And in response to another editors comments that every author's screenplay or failed production should be listed if this one is, well, that's not exactly so. The talk of a sequel trilogy to Star Wars has been around since the late 70's. The talk of such a thing happening really habven't ceased. That is what makes it notable, the fact that people have known and discussed it for so long. I suppose I couldn't construct the story, but maybe explain, based only on what he has said, what was going to happen in these movies. And, by the way, the man who created the star wars timeline I list as a source is certainly not dubiou, as one said. His timeline is over 1,000 pages, as seen in the PDF, and he has worked it constantly, since 1997. He is sort of a Star Wars historian. Things he has in the timeline, are likely to be true. Also, he happens to be a high school history teacher with a intense interest in chronology. So his project is a pretty trustworthy source. Now, I won't actually construct a story, as in a plot summary, like the movie articles do, just basically what were to happen. I hope to do it in a similar format to the articles for the prequel trilogy and the original trilogy articles. The Wookieepedian 19:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Excellent summary by Dpbsmith. Following that logic, my vote would be to keep, rename as Sequel trilogy (Star Wars), and ruthlessly edit out any "reconstruction" that can't be traced back to things Lucas actually said or wrote. It is therefore likely to remain a very small article or a stub, but that seems appropriate. Bikeable 19:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but retitle, maybe to Star Wars Third Trilogy or something a bit more useful. The fact Lucas planned a third trilogy is an historical fact dating back to around 1977-78 if not earlier, and considering the cultural significance of the Star Wars films, I think it's worthy of its own article. Any speculation regarding plot, etc. should be restricted to statements made by Lucas, though. 23skidoo 21:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "The fact that Lucas planned a third trilogy is an historical fact"—hey sure. But there is no third trilogy and likely never will be. How are people dropping the logic ball so completely on this one? If you want to rename it go for: Speculation on the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy. That's all it can ever be. Marskell 21:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Oh, by all means rename it if it needs renaming. And... just being argumentative here, not serious... incomplete works are frequently completed by others, when there is good evidence of the author's intention. Many unfinished symphonies have been finished or reconstructed; Jack London's half-completed novel The Assassination Bureau, Ltd. was completed by Robert L. Fish; Raymond Chandler's novel Poodle Springs was completed by Robert B. Parker; various stories referred to within the Sherlock Holmes stories but never written by Arthur Conan Doyle have been written by others, and it goes on and on and on. If Lucas never makes episodes 7, 8, and 9, I think it is a virtual certainly that someone else will, someday, e.g. after he dies if his heirs see money in it. Of course it would require a crystal ball to write an article on that basis now, but the article could conceivably be more than speculation... someday. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • And when somebody else does create them then add the page. My goodness. From Not A Crystall Ball: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Simple stuff.Marskell 09:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Star Wars speculation. With the merged material, remove the conjecture and keep it to just the evidence. Saberwyn 22:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't want to write this article in the form of a crystal ball. In its final form, I want it to basically be a place that tells only the story which is based off of facts from Lucas. At the beginning, I tell that these haven't been made, and I never try to speculate what they would be about. I don't want this to be redirected to the speculation page, I'm not speculating on what these films would be like if they were made, just telling what they could have been, according to Lucas. The Wookieepedian 01:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • "Telling what they could have been" IS BY DEFINITION SPECULATION. Marskell 19:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • As in could, I am referring to what they were going to be if he made them, not what I or others think they were going to be about. I was not using could to mean speculation, I was using it to mean what they were to be. The Wookieepedian 11:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
        • "I am referring to what they were going to be if he made them" You don't know what they would've been if he made them—it's as simple as that. "I'm not speculating on what these films would be like if they were made, just telling what they could have been" makes as much as sense as "It's not raining, there's just water falling from the sky." Marskell 14:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are actually more sources than listed above or in the article: the Annotated Screenplays, for one. --Maru (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep, per The Wookiepedian -LtNOWIS 19:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - it's an important part of the Star Wars history - deleting it smacks of a cover-up!
  • Of course it's a coverup! Didn't you see my username? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Any speculation in this article will be stated in a way where it is presented as the opinion of an outsider, and will be clearly labeled as their opinion or contribution. For this, I will, of course, use the remarks of notable sources (Steve Sansweet, Lucas emploiyees, The Star Wars Timeline Gold). Any information like this will be there for informative purposes only, stating only what those in the know speculate the story would have been, based on their inside jknowledge and actual facts. THIS WILL NOT BE AN ARTICLE TO SPECULATE, ANY SPECULATION WILL BE A RECORD OF WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID. The Wookieepedian 13:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional Keep - This can be an article of vifiable information on an encyclopedic topic. As long as sources are cited and there is no speculation nobody should have a problem. The assertion that "It doesn't exist until it exists." has absoultly nothing to do with the validity of the topic. There are many things that were planned but did not come to frutiton because of a vairety of reasons. Should we not inculde an article about Copland because there was no released product? As far as the public was concerned there was never a project so it does not exist. I'm sure that there are numerous articles about failed government or NASA projects that never got off the ground, should those be deleted too? Of course not. Assuming the information in this article is not merely speculation there is no reason to delete it. --Ctachme 16:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If someone else have nominated this and I had voted after this, my entry would have been "per Ctachme." These are my exact feelings. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Looking at your example I don't see it as analogous given that it was an up and running project for two years. Granted, "It doesn't exist until it exists" is a touch didactic but it does have something to do with the validity of the topic: Copland "exists" as a scrapped project that reached a significant level of development, which is not the case here. "The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy was a film trilogy originally to be made by George Lucas" is arguably inaccurate. "The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy was a twinkle in the eye of George Lucas that fans really want to be made and really want to speculate about here on Wiki" has more truth. I can think of very few cases where we've opened the door to things that were never or are not now extant, and I think the bar should be high (i.e., World War III makes sense). Marskell 17:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
      • A sequel trilogy was not sprung from fan fantasies, Lucas said on multiple occasions to several sources in the late 70's abd early 80's that he had plans for such a trilogy. No, it will never be made. On numerous occasions he has firmly stated he will never do another trilogy after this prequel trilogy he just finished. I'm arguing that since he did at once confirm such plans, and people like Gary Kurts have claimed that he even saw outlines for the stories, it is farely notable to eb put on here. We can't forget Lucas' statements in the 1994 release of Splinter of the Mind's Eye where he said "I reallized my story would take a total of nine films to tell." The Wookieepedian 18:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. per The Wookieepedian, Ctachme. This is a very well known part of Star Wars history/lore/whatever, the original plan was for Lucas to make 3 trilogies. This isn't knowledge just limited to Star Wars fans. --Kewp (t) 19:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. speculation. Basing speculation on "facts" doesn't mean it's not speculation. Ctachme's points are valid, but "removing speculation" would leave very little verifiable encyclopedic content, and what's left is best merged, along with Star Wars speculation into Star Wars#Conception, and whichever "expanded universe" topics might be appropriate, and mostly offloaded to the Star Wars Wiki. Dystopos 23:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect/or Expand As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with the facts of the article. Currently though, I feel that it either needs to be merged with the Star Wars speculation or expanded to cover more information.--FDIS 00:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I plan on adding all known facts about the sequel trilogy to the article, with the help of others, of course. Like the prequel and original trilogies, I feel this needs an article of its own, since you can't really list a group of related facts as speculation, can you? Expand is the option I prefer, merging with the speculation article doesn't do the topic justice. It iswell known, as another user said, beyond the star wars fans. As I have said, it is something that has been known for almost 30 years, by both the fans and the general public. The Wookieepedian 00:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Why do bees get in bonnets? I don't know but I can't seem to get rid of this bee. "It is something that has been known for almost 30 years." No: "It is something that has been speculated about for almost 30 years" Marskell 01:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Many facts are not encyclopedic. Reporting that someone speculated is not encyclopedic without some other context. Lucas' statements about the number of films are marginally notable (and already covered in Star Wars#Conception). Fan speculation (even second-hand) about the content of any such films is trivia unbecoming to WP. How many "known facts" do you propose that there might be about these non-existent productions? Dystopos 01:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Exactly. Speculation from Al Gore about what he might have done as President does not deserve an article (even if it deserves a mention on Al Gore). This is an article about a might-have-been, not an extant topic. Marskell 02:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, but a might-have-been that is notable and widely-known. The Wookieepedian 13:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP: I found this page useful in uncovering needed info...even if it was just speculation.
• KeepI think this is relevant because the sequel trilogy has been a constant thought of people whether or not they are Star Wars fans. I'm sure there are many people out there who would like to learn about the prospects of Episodes VII to IX, and would like to learn about that here. (Jamandell (d69) 22:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC))
• Keep. It is an interesting article, but it needs to be expanded and need more sources. Carioca 22:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep and expand if only to prevent SuperShadow nonsense from taking over SW articles. Add a paragraph explaining that SuperShadow's claims on a sequel trilogy are entirely false. - Sikon 10:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. I made a section linking to his article and explaining that his own words have shown him to be a fraud. I have a bad feeling, though, that I will have to constantly revert SuperShadow editors who come by here and were "inspired" by his "revelations." The Wookieepedian 17:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Super atallia

Non notable band (with 10 songs) failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Also lookup The Denizens and End of Days (Band)which curiously have the exact same members and content. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. -- As per nomination, formed earlier this year, no website, no Google hits. Ben D. 05:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC — Kjammer ⌂ 05:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

JUST TELL ME HOW TO MAKE IT ACCEPTABLE FOR YOU GUYS! END OF DAYS IS IN THE SAME SITUATION AS US AND THEY GET A WIKIPEDIA LISTING! WHAT DO I NEED TO DO? tvlkinghevds@hotmail.com KEN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.133.108 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 3 October 2005

EOD changed their name to the denizens like a week ago We have a website _KEN_ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superatallia (talk • contribs) 06:22, 3 October 2005

• • Ken, if you want an article, please go get famous first, then come back. Xoloz 06:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes. When you do become notable, you are more than welcome to having an article here. --FuriousFreddy 06:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Click on the WP:Music link at the top of the page. It is a roadmap for how to get included here as a band. Qaz ^(talk) 23:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. Xoloz 06:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete band vanity. --FuriousFreddy 06:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, band vanity. — JIP | Talk 09:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as with all these others failing WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 12:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

How do you all you fools have so much time as to look for sites on wikipedia to be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.37.14.33 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 October 2005 ouch... taste it wikipedia

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] End of Days (Band)

another non notbale band failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Let be noted that End of Days (Band) and The Denizensare both bands with the same members and both articles have the same content. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete band vanity. Xoloz 06:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, band vanity. — JIP | Talk 09:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete still on the demo CD stage, as noted fails WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 12:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Denizens

yet another garage band failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Let be noted that End of Days (Band) and The Denizensare both bands with the same members and both articles have the same content. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete band vanity. Xoloz 06:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, band vanity. — JIP | Talk 09:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above, given they're the same band. Mallocks 12:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Span (band)

Fails WP:MUSIC ? Abstain. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think they sort of slide right under the wire, if they had two major label recording contracts. Keep for now, send to cleanup, and if it doesn't get cleaned up, bring it back here and we'll delete it. --FuriousFreddy 06:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per FuriousFreddy's comments, appears at allmusic so can at least claim some notability. Mallocks 12:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep They have released 2 albums on a major label... just 2 different major labels. WP:MUSIC isn't really clear on whether or not the albums must be on the same label to satisfy #3. I'm inclined to say Keep for now. and per FuriousFreddy tag with a cleanup. If this article doesn't get some attention though it should be deleted.--Isotope23 17:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as per WP:music. Capitalistroadster 23:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Robert 23:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belvedere (band)

fails to assert notability Delete per WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Cautious Keep I think this one's close enough to deserve it, if they don't meet point 2 on WP:MUSIC, being signed on Household Name heads some way to meeting point 3. For reference their allmusic page.
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. I'll admit they are close, but since they apparently broke up they will never meet the criteria.--Isotope23 17:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Isotope23 --JAranda | yeah 01:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:MUSIC isn't policy. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete based on not meeting WP:MUSIC. The guideline seems to work. So if we want to bypass it, we should have a good reason. Vegaswikian 05:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Note that the afd notice was removed from the article on October 8, and not reverted by anyone until I noticed this just now (October 12 UTC). Would recommend that if possible, debate be extended for the equivalent amount of time. However, as far as I'm concerned, any band that has been on both the Warped Tour and the Groezrock bill (and therefore does meet criterion #2), has released at least one album on a relatively major punk label, and has have an allmusic.com listing is keepable by my estimation. Remember, the rule per WP:MUSIC is to meet just one criterion out of the list, not all of them simultaneously. Bearcat 00:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kurios

Non notable band failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete in agreement with nom. Mallocks 12:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Qaz ^(talk) 23:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Ordinary Summer

another band that does not assert notability and fails WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, band vanity, unsigned. Mallocks 12:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Apyule 07:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nineteen Ninety-Now

band that has only released 1 song, non notable -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, was evidently trying to make a case for point 5 of WP:MUSIC but with only a single track, I agree with nom. Mallocks 12:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, It seems that Nineteen Ninety-Now is no more as Rory has a new band called 'Amex'. Jb 007clone 21:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Nancys

another nn band. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. Mallocks 13:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --rob 17:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 17:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Symmetry Breaking

band which hasn't released anything yet, per WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable as shown in nom. Mallocks 13:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Isotope23 20:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Band will release an album soon. Plus, 3/4 of the members are from The Animit which has two official releases, and an entry on AMG (if somewhat sparse and incomplete). Both bands have played at notable venues such as CBGB in NYC. - Aleron235 21:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elevenses (band)

yet another non notable band failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. nn. --FuriousFreddy 06:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, self-distributing their music, nn. Mallocks 13:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Isotope23 20:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

How is this page hurting anyone or irrelevant? It isn't a joke entry or offensive, it's just an unobtrusive bit of information about an actual band.

Wikipedia has many pages about non-professional websites, so why should a band be disqualified? I've regularly tried to find information on unsigned bands, that I've seen play, and it would have been useful if there were on Wikipedia. Surely the more information available to people the better.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brennan's Grin

From the article: "The band has yet to release any material (and it has been suggested that little has even been recorded)", non notable. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• "Look at them, they done told on theyselves!" Delete. --FuriousFreddy 06:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for failing notability requirements. Mallocks 12:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Isotope23 20:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To Live A Lie Records

"a new and upcomming small thrash" which sadly fails WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for failing WP:MUSIC. --FuriousFreddy 06:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although it's a record label, so I don't think it fails WP:MUSIC as such, more it's nn on its own terms, having signed no notable groups. Mallocks 13:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. Rx StrangeLove 17:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hunter Revenge

another music project failing WP:MUSIC [7]. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge to Hunter Burgan per FuriousFreddy below -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Hunter Burgan. --FuriousFreddy 06:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (6 keep, 1 delete, 5 merge). Robert 23:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Billie Frank

See also Julian "Dice" Black, Timothy Walker, Rafael (Glitter character), and Sylk. All apparently characters from Mariah Carey's film Glitter. Since the film itself is of marginal notability (it is probably most notable for being a critical and commercial failure), its characters are certainly not notable enough for their own articles. I informed the author that he should do something about them (my suggestion, which I still recommend, condense to a paragraph each and add to the main article or one on Characters in the film Glitter or something similar). If that is not an option, I would vote for an outright deletion, lest someone think it's neccessary to write several articles on every character from The Five Heartbeats or something similar. FuriousFreddy 06:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Glitter. No need for a seperate article on this film's minor characters. Jkelly 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This character is about as major as can be, if I am to believe the description. -- Hoary 05:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect all related articles back to Glitter (film)
• Merge and redirect all related articles. --Jacquelyn Marie 02:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep too long to merge. Ultimate Star Wars Freak 18:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • An article's length has nothing to do with whether or not it should be kept. --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Anittas 21:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? --Anittas 00:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Because these characters are not notable or known enough to deserve articles of their own. See Wikipedia:Fancruft. --FuriousFreddy 07:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: As per WP:FICT, the articles should be merged, as none of the characters have had a major impact on society. --FuriousFreddy 00:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• Condense radically, and merge and redirect to the article on this awful-sounding movie. -- Hoary 05:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete. Either keep, merge to the movie article and redirect, or create a new article for all the characters together and merge them all there. For the other characters my personal preference is the last, but since Billie is the main character I might favor an outright keep here. I suppose there's a lot you could say about how Billie's story is semi-autobiographical, that kind of thing. Everyking 06:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You could indeed. In addition to an article on Citizen Kane, you can and (to my mild surprise) do have a whole article on Charles Foster Kane (a better title than the somewhat recursive Citizen Kane (character in Citizen Kane)). But there are reasons for this: people have said a lot about C F Kane, and it has often been claimed that Hearst's recognition of himself in Kane is what, via Louella Parsons, blighted Welles's career: no trivial matter if true. Anyway, Citizen Kane is in a different league from Glitter (which admittedly has a more comely star) and of much greater and more lasting interest. If people want to write at huge length about the real-world precursors (etc.) of the characters in humdrum Hollywood flops, they're entirely free to do so, on other websites. Nobody is begrudging Glitter an article, and WP is of course not paper -- but hard drive space isn't unlimited either. -- Hoary 06:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep OmegaWikipedia 06:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Because? -- Hoary 06:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Glitter (film). Wikipedia:Fiction states, "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice." The main Glitter article is only around 6kb long. Extraordinary Machine 11:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Doesn't really need to be merged or deleted. Don't ask me why, because I won't answer. I think it looks acceptable separate. Winnermario 20:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You should justify why this article should be kept, otherwise your vote might be discounted. "Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. --FuriousFreddy 22:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Second comment Can we get some more votes from neutral parties here? Every person who voted "keep" is associated in some way with all of those troubled Mariah Carey articles. --FuriousFreddy 22:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • That is surely less of an issue than the fact that the "keep" voters made little or no effort to explain why the articles should be kept. (Perhaps they're under the impression that WP is a democracy.) -- Hoary 02:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Musicpvm 20:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (6 keep, 1 delete, 4 merge). Robert 23:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Julian "Dice" Black

See discussion above. FuriousFreddy 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Glitter. No need for a seperate article on this film's minor characters. Jkelly 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Anittas 21:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Any particular reason? -- Hoary 05:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, following Jkelly -- though this is actually a major character in this ludicrously awful-sounding movie. -- Hoary 05:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC) PS I meant by thta: Condense radically, then merge and redirect. -- Hoary 02:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep OmegaWikipedia 06:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete. Either keep, merge to the movie article and redirect, or create a new article for all the characters together and merge them all there. The last would be my personal preference, but I think any of them would be acceptable. Everyking 06:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Glitter (film). Wikipedia:Fiction states, "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice." The main Glitter article is only around 6kb long. Extraordinary Machine 11:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep too long to merge Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Too long to merge. Winnermario 20:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: if it is too long to merge, that's because it's unacceptably prolix. So condense it. -- Hoary 02:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Musicpvm 20:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Any particular reason? -- Hoary 02:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (6 keep, 1 delete, 3 merge). Robert 23:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Walker

See discussion above. FuriousFreddy 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Glitter. No need for a seperate article on this film's minor characters. Jkelly 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Anittas 21:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? --FuriousFreddy 00:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? --Anittas 00:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Because Timothy Walker has no significance outside this single movie, whose own significance is a mere sad footnote to a history of Hollywood pap. However conscientiously written and well-intentioned, it's fancruft. -- Hoary 05:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Condense radically, and then merge and redirect to the article on the movie. -- Hoary 05:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete. Either keep, merge to the movie article and redirect, or create a new article for all the characters together and merge them all there. The last would be my personal preference, but I think any of them would be acceptable. Everyking 06:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep OmegaWikipedia 06:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Glitter (film). Wikipedia:Fiction states, "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice." The main Glitter article is only around 6kb long. Extraordinary Machine 11:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep too long to merge Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Too long to merge. Winnermario 20:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Musicpvm 20:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (6 keep, 1 delete, 3 merge). Robert 00:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rafael (Glitter character)

See discussion above. FuriousFreddy 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Glitter. No need for a seperate article on this film's minor characters. Jkelly 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Anittas 21:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I note that Anittas provides no reason whatever for this recommendation. -- Hoary 05:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: He does not need to. If he votes keep, that means he must like it. Winnermario 20:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes. But this is a discussion rather than a vote count. -- Hoary 02:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Condense radically, and merge and redirect to the article on this sorry film, as this is mere fancruft, however conscientiously written and well intended, and because the character has no significance other than via the film (and probably none via that either). -- Hoary 05:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete. Either keep, merge to the movie article and redirect, or create a new article for all the characters together and merge them all there. The last would be my personal preference, but I think any of them would be acceptable. Everyking 06:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep OmegaWikipedia 06:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Glitter (film). Wikipedia:Fiction states, "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice." The main Glitter article is only around 6kb long. Extraordinary Machine 11:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If some extra information can be added, and perhaps an image, it would make this article look better. Winnermario 20:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: That's a valid point of view. My own point of view is that any extra "information" added to this article would be likely just to make it more absurdly bloated. What kind of "information" do you have in mind? -- Hoary 02:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge --Musicpvm 00:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (6 keep, 1 delete, 3 merge). Robert 00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sylk

See discussion above. FuriousFreddy 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Glitter. No need for a seperate article on this film's minor characters. Jkelly 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Anittas 21:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Why? --FuriousFreddy 00:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not? --Anittas 00:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Because it's fancruft that's of no interest outside Glitter. -- Hoary 05:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Condense radically, and merge and redirect to the article on this Hollywood flick. -- Hoary 05:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't delete. Either keep, merge to the movie article and redirect, or create a new article for all the characters together and merge them all there. The last would be my personal preference, but I think any of them would be acceptable. Everyking 06:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep OmegaWikipedia 06:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Glitter (film). Wikipedia:Fiction states, "If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice." The main Glitter article is only around 6kb long. Extraordinary Machine 11:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep too long to merge Ultimate Star Wars Freak 19:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Add some information and an image, and the article should come together. Winnermario 21:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What kind of information might this be? -- Hoary 02:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge --Musicpvm 00:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eyeball Skeleton

This one I liked, but sadly, nonnotable failing WP:MUSIC. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete This one marks a bit of a milestone for me: Of the hundreds of bandity articles I've looked at here at WP, this was the first time that one of them has been interesting enough for me to check out their website in search of more info out of interest rather than just verifying facts. It does seem, alas, that they don't quite pass WP:MUSIC yet... they've been signed to a micro-indie label and released one album so far. As a side note, congratulations to this guy for doing something truly creative with his kids, and I wish him and the band the best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, sadly nn, if sweet. Mallocks 13:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:MUSIC... and I too wish them success. Cool idea.--Isotope23 20:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Okay, I surrender. After looking at all the facts, it seems Eyeball Skeleton are non notable and don't pass YET. *Sigh*. I guess after they release another album and it gets a second review from a a notable site such as All Music Guide, this article can come back, right? In the meantime, I guess the article will have to go for now. Fanficgurl 3:45 December 1 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Hong Kong

Most importantly, neither the earthquake nor the tsunami actually hit Hong Kong. Information about affected Hongkongers is already in Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, and all information about relief is already in Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Coffee 06:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. 23skidoo 21:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If we are justifying an article by whether the place was hit by the earthquake or the tsunami, the articles on some other countries have to be deleted too. The rationale mentioned above failed to justify deletion. — Instantnood 05:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Conversely, articles would have to be created for many other countries/territories which are similarly effected, if not more. This article is the only one existing for an entity not directly affected by the Tsunami, and its singular existance skews the overall perspective of wikipedia too much in one small direction. In addition, some of its statements, such as "The catastrophe had a large psychological impact" appears exaggerated and overly emotive for an encyclopedia article.--Huaiwei 06:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Is " [t]his article is the only one existing for an entity not directly affected by the Tsunami " justified? — Instantnood 06:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Yes, if it clearly has no room for further growth, and no similar articles are likely to be writtern for other entities since the full articles as mentioned by the nominator has served their purposes well and there is no current pressure to expand and split them.--Huaiwei 07:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Alright. May I know if Norway was hit by the tremor or tsunami? And if yes, in what way it was hit? Thanks. (Here's a locator map of Norway.) — Instantnood 07:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh hell yes. The wave slamed into the Indian subcontinent, was uplifted into the air by the Himalayas, and smashed squaringly onto poor Norway. No one could explain why only this particular Scandinavian country was hit, and was indeed a freak chain of events certainly worthy of its own article. Did anything similar happen to HK?--Huaiwei 07:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks for telling what'd happened. (So Hong Kong is the only country not directly hit to have such an article, since Norway was directly hit. Am I right?) — Instantnood 08:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Not exactly correct. There is no country called "Hong Kong".--Huaiwei 09:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
          • From your declaring that Norway was directly hit by the tremors and/or the tsunami, and therefore it deserves its own article, it's pretty obvious that you're twisting some facts to fulfill your targeting on Hong Kong-related topics on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 10:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
            • If you wish to use sarcasm/humour in otherwise serious discussions in wikipedia, then others are probably excused for expecting you to be able to accept it too. Once again, your paranoia with regards to others' targeting on certain topics has played a bigger part then it should in your editorial judgement, hence again raising questions on your claimed "fairness" and "maturity" in wikipedia [8]. When I voted in this article, I did so on the simple reason that the earthquakes effect on HK is marginal at best compared to many other countries/territories without seeing a need to create a similar article. What is written for this article can easily be had in others. I did not notice the existance of an article for Norway until you pointed it out, which I found was an unfotunate occurance as I am afraid individuals (like yourself) would then take it as an excuse to create similar articles on every territory on earth no matter how small the effect actually is.--Huaiwei 10:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
          • You were the only person to have mentioned fairness and maturity over there. — Instantnood 10:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
            • There is such a thing called synonyms. Your sense of denial is amazing, especially when I am clearly not the only one who specifically used the word "maturity", for eg.--Huaiwei 11:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Glad you know this word (a word that I mentioned frequently when saying country and sovereign state have to be distinguished). Could you please kindly tell what are the synonyms of maturity and fairness that I have used to claim myself to be? Thanks. — Instantnood 11:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Just curious, but are you aware what this page is? Do you not feel any sense of shame in displaying this kind of behavior for all to see? If you spent the time to engage in wiki-soap operas on explaining the significance of this article, or adding good content to any other wikipedia article, I would think all will be better off. I refuse to further engage in senseless discussions.--Huaiwei 11:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
          • All these would not have happened if nobody boldly declared " [t]his article is the only one existing for an entity not directly affected by the Tsunami " [9], and carried on by distorting facts by saying Norway was directly affected [10], then continued to put forward her/his very own point of view that only sovereign states are countries [11]. May I know who's not aware of what? Who's staging "wiki-soap operas"? And who should be feeling shame for her/his behaviour? — Instantnood 12:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
            • I see. We have (yet another) instance of instantnood refusing to accept any responsiblity whatsoever in any contentious issues concerning wikipedia. All of a sudden, I am now being portrayed as a "troublemaker" who caused the above exchange single-handedly. Suddenly, instantnood's role dissapears completely from view. Do I need to clear my name? Hardly, because I dont attempt to shun responsiblity the way instantnood does, almost like its an inborn habit of his. I am more then willing to say that I felt ashamed that I was participating in this kind of low-level exhange in a page like this. If I hadent felt this sense of shame or guilt, I wont be asking him if he felt the same way. I call this exchange a soap opera, because it reads embarrasingly like one. Who is blaming who for "staging a soap opera", whatever that means? I suppose he dosent seem to feel any remorse based on his ceaseless attempts to be a real pain anywhere in wikipedia, even in a page like this? --Huaiwei 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Huaiwei did not express his feeling of shame or guilt when he was asking me that question [12], and I have not said a single word on whether I have shunned any of my responsibility that resulted from my responses to what Huaiwei has said. — Instantnood 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
            • From this response, I could only conclude that either it confirms his chronic inability in accepting responsibility (he practically ignored what I just said and insisted he was still innocent), or he has some difficulty in comprehending the English language. I rest my case.--Huaiwei 14:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No. Gamaliel 11:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• FYI, the similar article for Norway is now nominated. — Instantnood 13:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I see. I remember this strategy before. When an article/category which instantnood wants to keep is nominated for deletion, he gets every other related article/category nominated too, in his bid to swing the votes around in his favour, even if other similar pages may be far more deserving to remain. This is becoming yet another example of instantnood's constant manipulation and gaming of wikipedia rules/mechanisms, and I do hope other wikipedians and admins may take note of this.--Huaiwei 13:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • If an article or a category should be deleted, the same reasons would very likely be applicable to other similar articles or categories. How much similarities do the articles share, and whether such similarities merit the same or similar action, are to be decided by the community. Each wikipedian can make her/his own decision, don't think votes can be swung or manipulated. — Instantnood 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment IMHO that nomination is very close to violating WP:POINT, wether or not other nations have seperate articles should have no impact on wether or not this article about Hong Kong should be kept. I'm actualy a little supriced Germany or Sweden (and others) doesn't have seperate articles, they lost a lot of people too and probably raised simmilar debate and critisism as we had in Norway about how to handle major disasters involving our citizens abroad. The lack of or exsistence off other articles should have no bearing on wether or not this should be kept or deleted. If it contains information beyond what is in other articles it shouold be kept, otherwise it should be deleted, simple as that. Deleting it just because Hong Kong was not directly hit is just as bad a reason as keeping it just because Norway have a simmilar article. --Sherool 14:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Length of an article may or may not be relevant in deciding whether an article should be deleted. If the two articles share substantial similarities, and if the arguments mentioned in this page are readily applicable other similar articles, it would be better to assess them together. — Instantnood 14:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Article length is an often-used criterion in deciding whether an article is deleted or not, and it is a relevant criterion in this instance, since its length does not justify its existance when its information could fit into other articles easily.--Huaiwei 14:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, centralizes information that is otherwise buried in other articles. No useful redirect because the information is in more than one place. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Sub-trivial subset of larger, more important article. I was in Hong Kong (briefly) a week after the tsunami, and the biggest issue in the local paper seemed to be a) priority treatment of VIPs by Hong Kong authorities; and b) whether Jet Li was safe. --Calton | Talk 07:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd be interested to know which papers you read. :-P Were all newspapers, TV and radio news, etc., talking only about VIPs and Jet Li? — Instantnood 15:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: what Calton said could also be partly observed elsewhere. The only time HK was mentioned in the Singaporean media was whether some HK celebrities were alive for being caught in that region, in stark contrast to much more pressing and elaborate discussions related to other countries/territories.--Huaiwei 15:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm.. Norway, as well as countries like Somalia, Réunion, Burma were rarely mentioned in Hong Kong during that period, comparing to Thailand, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. — Instantnood 16:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Additional information: Many information were removed by user:TheCoffee [13] before the nomination for deletion (see edit history [14]). — Instantnood 15:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Additional observation: Much of the information "removed" by user:TheCoffee actually involves moving relevant information to their respective articles, Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. The rest of the old article includes information not fit for a wikipedia article. "Hong Kong Relief Information" and "How to donate" are examples of what wikipedia is not.--Huaiwei 15:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Donations information was considered necessary at that time, and in fact there was an article titled donations for victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, until voted to be changed as a redirect in May. For other information, they should not be merged into articles until there's a clear consensus here to do so. — Instantnood 16:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • If I may quote from User:Kingturtle's comment in [15]:
        • this article violates all sorts of wikipedia standards, but it was created to assist in donation efforts. in its creation, this article was meant to be temporary - and now it is time to delete it. although relief fund-raising continues, it has fallen off, and wikipedia *must* get rid of this article which violates all kinds of policies and standards.
      • The subsequent voting process was overwelmingly in his favour. That vote took place May, and it is a wonder why this page continues to display information considered temporary and a rare exception for humanitary purposes. user:TheCoffee's removal of this content is a step in the right direction, and lends no weight to user:Instantnood's claims that his deletions are disputable and hence should be restored in this article. On the contrary, it all the more highlights the fact that this article has nothing much to discuss beyond what is left behind.--Huaiwei 16:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I have no objection that donations information on this article should be removed. Nevertheless, other information from this article should not be merged to other articles until there's a clear consensus here. — Instantnood 16:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • If you remove those two sections, what is left remaining is basically what you see there now. Did he remove any important information? Please feel free to highlight them here.--Huaiwei 16:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • My comment was made based on your "additional observation": " Much of the information "removed" by user:TheCoffee actually involves moving relevant information to their respective articles, Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake " [16]. — Instantnood 17:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • And my comment was based on your "Additional observation": "Many information were removed by user:TheCoffee [17] before the nomination for deletion" [18]. So what are you trying to say now?--Huaiwei 17:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Apart from the information on how and where to donate, the figures showing the trend of amount of money collected were removed. — Instantnood 17:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Is this the only information you would consider important enough for this page to be kept?--Huaiwei 18:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The article has now been reorganised and expanded. — Instantnood 19:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment on expanded article: The only significant expansion we can see in this article is the "Responses of the government and other organisations" section, which quite unfortunately is simply non-relevant to this article which talks about the effect it has on HK. The only other non-dorectly affected country article, Effect of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake on Norway makes no mention on relief efforts at all, as all these should be in Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. As for the section on Impact, which should be the gist of the article, it again suffers from exagerated comments, not surprising since we have members here fighting to keep it around and make it appear "significant" enough. The reduction in travel to the region affects the entire global tourism industry, and there is nothing notably different in this text. The humanitarian response and show of emotional care is to be expected in any civilised society. Anyhow, saying "Thai and Indonesian culture is highly visible in Hong Kong" is itself debatable, besides the question of just what kind of and the extend of its impact it can have on HK itself. To sum up...what has actually been contributed to the article besides the obvious?--Huaiwei 19:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. Agree the article needs further improvement. In fact some of your comments are also applicable to the Norway counterpart. Response are results of the effect. The Norway article talks about impact too. — Instantnood 22:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Humanitarian efforts as a result of the "effect", if any, will have to directly addressed to the reader, or else no one is going to make this assumption. Does the degree of "effect" have on the amount of $$$ donated internationally? Please illustrate. The Norway article talks about impact, and rightfully yes it should, because this is mainly what an effect is all about. It does not, however, devote a sizeable chunk of its text on humanitarian responses thou, and there is no reason for it to.--Huaiwei 23:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • This article talks about impact too. — Instantnood 00:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
      • If you actually read what I wrote above, I made quite alot of commends on it. You sound like I want the entire section deleted for being irrelevant, when I was saying it was far from adequate and noteworthy to deserve its own article.--Huaiwei 00:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Ummm.. but you failed to justify why Norway is not far from adequate and noteworthy to deserve its own article. — Instantnood 00:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Am I compelled to comment on another article in the first place, and how should that be relevant in this discussion? Clearly, it is not just me who felt the need to delete one and keep the other. Tells you alot on just how irrelevant the two articles are.--Huaiwei 01:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • So far nobody has shown why the reasons to keep that article are not applicable to this one, and the reasons to delete this article not applicable to that one. — Instantnood 09:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Whatever. Let the community decide, and learn to accept community concensus.--Huaiwei 11:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
• 沖洗它喜歡從我的靶垛出來的船尾 or, er, delete SchmuckyTheCat 17:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect. GhePeU 10:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, as it was transwikied into Wikibooks. Robert 14:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atmospheric pressure demonstration

Delete, a how-to that's already been transwikied to Wikibooks Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I've completed the integration into Wikibooks School science -- Egil 11:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Presumably Kjkold doesn't object to deletion either. I'm not going to make the redirect myself, though, as I don't think it's useful. -Splash^talk 17:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Viral Lode

band created early this year, nn. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to viral load, perhaps? -- Kjkolb 08:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless a redirect is considered sensible, but I'd have thought in general people would spell 'load' sooner than 'lode'. Mallocks 13:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] School Science Experiment - Demonstrating the properties of waves on an Oscilloscope

Delete this how-to that's already been transwikied to Wikibooks. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; WP:NOT a how-to. MCB 07:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Qaz ^(talk) 14:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I've completed the transfer in Wikibooks and put the images on common -- Egil 11:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 17:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Farassoo

Not notable. brenneman^(t)(c) 06:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn/advert. MCB 06:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. — JIP | Talk 07:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Advertising.--RicardoC 12:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lawaloca

WP:NOT a web directory. Although this weblog claims to be famous, looking at the number of comments on articles on the front page (single digits), I don't think this can be the case. Alexa rank 1.3million+ — brighterorange (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• As seen above Lawaloca was nominated for deletion on September 24, but since then no further input has been received. Since I am cleaning out the September 24 list, this can no longer wait on that list and I am bringing the debate back to the October 3 list for further discussion. No vote from me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory. --Stormie 10:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete claim to be famous all ya want, but the Alexa rank speaks otherwise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Saberwyn 22:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UARM

It's a t-shirt company. Enough info so that I couldn't tag it as empty, but still basically just a link to their webpage. Wikipedia is still not a repository of links... Jkelly 06:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, linkspam. — JIP | Talk 07:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article is fundamentally a malformed link to a promotional web site. Sliggy 18:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• WTF??, will someone please rule on this?? Either delete the article or get off the pot. BretPittman 22:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tee Eff Eff

Non-notable band. Delete unless notability can be established. — JIP | Talk 07:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I know about them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisandru (talk • contribs) 07:14, 3 October 2005

• Delete, unsigned, fails WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 13:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with nom -- (☺drini♫|☎) 21:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• For a parallel discussion of the very same band, see Tff (band) (AfD discussion). Uncle G 12:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom --Qirex 13:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete under criteria A1. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eleven food stubs

These were all recipes that have since been transwikied to the Cookbook at Wikibooks. At the moment they tell us absolutely nothing at all about the item in question except that it is what its name says it is:

• Lettuce soup is a soup.
• Minestrone alla Casalinga is minestrone.
• Tarragon sauce is a sauce.
• Ham sauce is a sauce.
• Genoese sauce is a sauce.
• Neapolitan anchovy sauce is a sauce.
• Neapolitan soup is a soup.
• Mushroom sauce is a sauce.
• Mirepoix sauce is a sauce.
• Soup alla Maria Pia is a soup.
• Soup alla Lombarda is a soup.

If anyone can expand any of these into at least a stub discussing the historical and/or cultural relevance of the food in question, I'll retract my nomination for that item. Otherwise, delete them all. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say they'd all be Speedy candidates under A1. There certainly isn't enough here to merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, well I was tempted to speedy them, but I thought I'd let people have a chance at expanding them first. Most if not all of them certainly have potential for encyclopedic growth, but if some doesn't happen soon, they have to go. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete all as A1. These aren't even stubs. android79 12:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete all as A1. This is what I call "article-creation vanity." They provide no information that isn't in the title. Unlike some other food articles, these are not of any particular cultural significance, and if expanded would probably be no more than cookbook entries, which are not suitable for Wikipedia. If anyone thinks I'm wrong about that, then they should still be speedied but should then be entered as requested articles. That serves the "placeholder" function but keeps them out of the main namespace until someone has the time to write a decent paragraph about them. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete all, contentless. Sheesh, they could at least say, e.g., "Lettuce soup is a soup made with lettuce"; "Ham sauce is a sauce made with ham". -- BD2412 ^talk 13:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of content. Qaz ^(talk) 14:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Comment: Remember, the history of these articles is that they used to be recipes, and only after transwikification to the cookbook have they become virtually empty. So complaints about vanity, etc. seem off the mark. I took a serious look at trying to expand Lettuce soup, but didn't have any luck - a lot of recipes for different styles of lettuce soup exist out there, but very little exists on the culture, history, or importance of it. Bunchofgrapes 15:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• 'Delete all for now. (Unless any get exapanded in the meantime, in which case disregard this vote) Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Bunchofgrapes. A speedy seems inappropriate, due to the fact they started as more the one-liners. A delete is appropriate, since we're not a cook book. --rob 17:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 01:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Progressiveislam.org

advertising. Website does also not follow the guidelines set in WP:WEB. -- SoothingR 07:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. Free clue to author: Encyclopedia articles are not written in first person. — JIP | Talk 07:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per both of the above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. — JIP | Talk 12:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glasspool, Jeremy-James Edmund Thornton

• Delete Nonsense--MONGO 07:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as per MONGO - Anetode 08:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETED by RHaworth after a copyvio rewrite. -Splash^talk 17:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "mavalli tiffin rooms"

Notability is not asserted. Appears to be borderline notable. Text reads like an advertisement. The article name is very unorthodox. There seems to be some salvageable content, but there's so much wrong with this article that IMO it would be easier just to delete it than to fix it. I would love to be proven wrong, though. :) Ashenai 08:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I don't see much hope for this. --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Research proves that there's plenty of hope, and Ashenai is partially wrong. Deletion is only required because the text is a copyright violation, lifted word-for-word from an article in Chennai Online. If it were not for that, one could simply blank and rewrite from scratch (and I started off by doing exactly that until I reached the fourth source on my list and discovered the copyright violation). This famous Bangalorean restaurant satisfies the WP:CORP notability criteria by a comfortable margin, with plenty of independently sourced material having been published about the institution. See the references listed in the rewrite article at "mavalli tiffin rooms"/Temp for starters. Keep (the rewrite article) and rename to Mavalli Tiffin Rooms. Uncle G 12:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 18:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Animatrick

Non-notable. Ashenai 09:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non notable website, no Alexa ranking. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Sajecki

Non-notable director, no IMDb entry, 29 unique Google results. His two films, Delusions of Grandeur and Something/Anything, are also not on IMDb. -- Kjkolb 09:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Delusions of Grandeur is right - the films aren't listed on IMDB because you can't buy them - they are amateur films with copyrighted music, so delete the film articles as well. Average Earthman 21:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Do not Delete I checked with the Novim Production company which is involved with Mike Sajecki. Something Anything in fact is available for public sale if you go to the website. It has licensed music and does not violate any copyright issue. Delusions of Grandeur was shown in independent theatres and colleges in the northeast US. However there was difficulty releasing for public sale on home video because of a problem with a licensed song from Peter Frampton. They are working with the artists lawyers to negotiate terms. They do wish to have the DVD available, even if it means omitting that song. On the issue of Imdb.com, they immediately submitted credits for their production. However, they say it will take a few weeks to be processed. Mike Sajecki is a relevant director following in the footsteps of Vincent Gallo. Mike has established a local celebrity in his native Buffalo, as well as pockets of interest in Toronto, New England any many of the college towns of the Northeast. The 2006 film from him will be submitted at several national festivals. He hasn't submitted at the elite festivals yet because he hasnt had the popularity then that he does now. -Rich 3 October 2005 (UTC)(preceding comment by 128.205.238.183 (talk · contribs) )

• Delete, Wikipedia is not the right place to create notability. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

AfD Tag Deleted? It appears that the IP address that has been editing this article has removed the AfD tag, see comparison between revisions. I didn't want to add it again on my own, as I am new and something benign may have happened to it. Cpaliga 03:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• User is definitely deleting AfDCpaliga 03:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Under most (I can't think of any exceptions) circumstances, if an AfD tag has been removed from a page without the AfD itself having been flagged as closed by an administrator (usually after five days) this is a form of vandalism, usually in a desperate attempt by the page creator to defend the page. Such AfD tags should be replaced. Usrnme h8er 07:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Vanity page. The praise is unsourced etc. (I've reverted the vandalism of the AfD page). KeithD (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Usrnme h8er 07:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the film-maker is currently non-notable and the article is advertorial in tone Anetode 08:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 12:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete him and his movies. This sure looks like an attempt to use Wikipedia to gain legitimacy. Friday (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn-bio. There are lots of movies available for public sale, but that doesn't make them or their writers/directors/producers/actors notable. Film is a hard thing to break into and achieve any real measure of success and Mr. Sajecki may be following in Vincent Gallo's footsteps, but until he makes his Buffalo 66 he doesn't deserve an article here.--Isotope23 18:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 17:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Methods of Teaching Tennis Groundstrokes

A how-to guide for teaching tennis. Transwiki if anything can be salvaged, delete otherwise. -- Kjkolb 09:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete here and move to sister project if material is not already there. Qaz ^(talk) 14:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Kjkolb and Qaz. --SoothingR 07:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete. --Woohookitty 11:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Transwiki. Rx StrangeLove 19:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tennis Progressions for Teaching Groundstrokes

How-to article, transwiki if possible. -- Kjkolb 09:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikibooks Sam Vimes 17:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oliver Stevens

Hoax. No relevant Google hits. Delete Lupo 10:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No Amazon hits on the author or book he supposedly wrote either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Probable hoax from the author of Will Lewis also up for deletion. Dlyons493 Talk 15:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zero Nexis hits for book either. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)|My RfA} 18:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as probable hoax. Hall Monitor 19:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Will Lewis

Probable hoax. Delete unless verified. Lupo 10:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Probable hoax from the author of Oliver Stevens also up for deletion. Dlyons493 Talk 15:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as probable hoax. Hall Monitor 19:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete Genuine. Verified by Princeton University research department Lupo 19:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Above vote for do not delete was added by User:217.41.241.254 who created the article. CambridgeBayWeather 09:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've stricken out the fake vote [19]. Lupo 10:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Hoax. CambridgeBayWeather 09:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 17:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Rumours

Non-notable student band The Land 10:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Looking at their webpage, they've formed and might get signed. But no music in the charts yet. Delete as non-notable (you never know they might be this time next year!). The Land 10:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• keep - I understand your concerns with the article but they are not a student band; they worked full time throughout the past few months and are scheduled to release their debut EP in early 2006 and album in September 2006. The article has relevance to existing articles in the database (including Menswear, Liam Watson (which seems to have been already deleted), producer of number one 2003 album Elephant by The White Stripes). As such, I believe this article should not be considered for deletion. JDW 10:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There are guidelines on what is and isn't notable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines. While I have nothing against the band, they need to be more famous before they can be included in the Wikipedia. Thye may well be as notable as the White Stripes next year, but not now. Liam Watson was deleted because its sole content was an image; if what you say is true then there's scope for an article about him. The Land 11:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable. Their manager Chris Gentry was in Britpop band Menswear who were very famous in the mid-90s. The manager is most definitely a member of the band. Another member of the management team is Howard Gough, manager of Hope Of The States and Komakino. The stuff about Liam Watson is true and was already mentioned on The White Stripes' entry. JDW 11:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • In that case I'd definitely start a new Liam Watson entry, with more content than one photo. I'm personally unconvinced that Menswear count as 'extremely notable' and that they justify having The Rumours in. Howeve,r I'll now wait for the views of others. The Land 11:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Well I have that Menswear album (Nuisance) and as I remember, Menswear were very famous in 1995ish for being the architypal britpop band - they were signed because they simply looked the part! I'd say Gentry's link to this is enough to warrant this rumours article, but with those links to Watson and the White Stripes I personally don't think there's much doubt this band deserves an wiki-article. --Harlem4 11:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, that's a point of view, but one that would certainly carry more weight with me if you had edited wikipedia before other than to make that point. Please bear in mind that using sock-puppets on these pages is very much frowned upon. The Land 12:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's very fair. I read those guidelines you posted above and my interpretation is that there's a case for this. I suppose it is just a matter of interpretation. I have edited Wikipedia before but forgot my sign-in details and had to re-register. My main reason for suggesting the Menswear thing was grounds for it was that I do actually have that album! And I don't have that many albums...--Harlem4 12:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. There's a procedure somewhere for having previous edits attributed to you. I'm sure an administrator will be along in a minute who will let you know what it is. The Land 12:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not convinced of notability or of import of link with Gentry/Menswear. Marcus22 13:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Notable producer aside, band still does not meet the WP:MUSIC criteria, based on what is written here. When they meet that criteria I will support their right to have a wiki-article; until then though, delete.--Isotope23 18:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The band doesn't meet the requirements, and Menswear didn't exactly bestride the UK musical scene like a colossus. Extremely notable is the requirement - which to me says Blur levels of britpop standing, not Menswear. Average Earthman 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh yes, I'd consider from the description of Q Sheet that a track on the cover is more likely to be promotional advertising than a sign of notability. We're not in the business of predicting which newly promoted bands will achieve wide airplay and commercial success and which ones won't. If we were good at it, we'd be in the music business... Average Earthman 21:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article - although you seem to feel that none of these criteria have been met, I'd say that firstly it's entirely one's opinion that estimates the level of notability (referring to Menswear at the moment). With this in mind, and coupled with the genuine level of integration with existing relevant articles, I feel this is reason enough for the article to remain. Besides which, it's only a matter of months before the guidelines will be unequivocally met. QSheet is not an advertising gimmick, it is simply an indication that the band in question have already had a release into the industry, and with their notable management and production team, there's little question they're going to make a big impression over the coming year. Further, I don't see how the comment concerning the prediction of of wide airplay and commercial success is relevant. If that were the case, I'd have sent in one of their tracks. It's not an audition, it's an encyclopedia article. --Jdwhite 13:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Rx StrangeLove 19:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RedDot

Non notable Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 10:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep nearly a million Google hits. NSR (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, as performed by User:JoJan. Hall Monitor 20:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen La Roche

Rnon notable person -- SoothingR 11:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Speedy nn student Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unfortunatelly, there is certainly claim of notability, so csd A7 is not met. Speedy Delete, on second thought, there is no claim of notability beyond running for a university elected office and writing submissions to a campus newspaper... Usrnme h8er 11:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete quickly, speedy deletion candidate in my opinion. Hall Monitor 19:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied JoJan 17:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 20:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Media audiences

Not much substance to this article, not really informative or encyclopedic. -- Curps 11:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - looks like cut n paste from an undergrad's essay. --MacRusgail 13:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 01:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)