Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< October 6 October 8 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] October 7

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. -Doc (?) 10:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] تركمن

Not notebale. In (I assume) Arabic. Doesn't really belong here. Seems just to be the same user entering the same stuff but removes it later on. If it is to be re-created, then I would put into a English translation. Kilo-Lima 20:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This article should be marked for speedy deletion with the (empty) template. What are the guildelines on doing so for an article that's already been marked for non-speedy deletion? In this case I'm going to be bold and do it. Super Aardvark 20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete User Yusup is creating what seems to be a series of vanity articles relating to himself and his periodical (apparently an Arabic-language one). Dlyons493 Talk 21:10, 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. Carbonite | Talk 19:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Inch Giants

Likely fails WP:MUSIC Delete --JAranda | yeah 22:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete band vanity, nn, fails WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 22:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I could not find an allmusic entry. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:49, 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 Keep and Redirect/Merge with 4000 (number Wikibofh 23:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 4397

  • Delete I have merged the information regarding this year which will supposedly be the next time Hale-Bopp gets close to the Earth. There is nothing to redirect to --Revolución (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom :). WP:NOT a crystal ball, eh? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I placed the Speedy Tag the Page is empty now --JAranda | yeah 23:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
No, if this article hjas been merged, it must be kept and redirected to the merge target to preserve the GDFL. --Doc (?) 23:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Why would you redirect 4397 to Comet Hale-Bopp? --Revolución (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Justin Bacon 01:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 4000 (number).--Kross 06:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per User:Doc glasgow. NatusRoma 22:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hale-Bopp as per Doc Glasgow. IMV astronomical predictions don't count as 'crystal ball', because they're readily predictable. The Land 09:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

*delete, do not redirect 4397 is a prime number. The number itself should not redirect to Hale-Bopp, maybe 4397 (year) but not 4397. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 15:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • redirect to 4000 (number). 4397 is a notable number, b/c is it prime, and belongs on that page. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 15:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Does every countably infinite set deserve every element being included??? The Land 17:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ridiculous. Do not redirect, merge with Comet Hale-Bopp then delete. It is nonsense to redirect a year to an event that will possibly happen that year. It would be like redirecting 1492 to Christopher Columbus or 1776 to the Declaration of Independence. Any year is more important than any event of that year. Ex. In 1492, the last muslim forces were driven from Spain in addition to Columbus's more famous voyage. Cool3 23:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep Titoxd(?!?) 00:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All Lights Fucked on the Hairy Amp Drooling

NN, D. ComCat 01:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Forgot to list this, added it today. ComCat 01:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. First release by notable band. TheMadBaron 02:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Agree with MadBaron. Notable. Check out the listing for "Godspeed You Black Emperor!" at allmusic.com. Sunray 02:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Categorizable, notable album. If this single entry was non-existent within the Godspeed You Black Emperor albums section, someone would create it. The fight to delete this article would never be over. Bobo192 03:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable if the band is notable, and they sure look notable according to WP:MUSIC. -- SCZenz 03:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as first release by notable artist. Capitalistroadster 04:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep passes the bare minimums for Wikiproject Albums.  ALKIVAR™ 11:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Not to be contrarian, but what on earth is worth keeping here? A list of sales and tracks? Put the info in the band's article and delete this. 33 copies sold and yet it is so worthy of an encyclopedic article that it cannot subsist within the main article? That's ridiculous! Dottore So 11:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is you see it as it is now... not how it could be in a mere few hours of research and editing. Merging back into the band's article would just require it to be spun off yet again when more content was added. All of this bands other albums have very decent articles, just give it a bit of time i'm sure this one will eventually as well.  ALKIVAR™ 11:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster. I have no problem with listing early albums of bands that have achieved notability (and GSYBE is certainly notable), even if they were not notable at the time of release.--Isotope23 15:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. Amren (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep and can an admin please close this now it has been more than five days already Yuckfoo 22:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    Actually yuck... tommorrow is 5 days (12 Oct) ... since this was not properly listed til the 7th.  ALKIVAR™ 22:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename To something shorter and less offensive. - Bwfc 16:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    Did you even bother to LOOK at the article in question? Its the name of an album, you cant make it shorter and less offensive, wikipedia is not bawdlerized(sp?).  ALKIVAR™ 21:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually i did! It Could Be Named All Lights (Album). - Bwfc 21:41, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete (or to merge, for that matter). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Shaker

Take a close look at this article. It contains almost no information at all about Anti-Shaker; most of it is about Shakers. The info it does contain about Ant-Shaker seems quite nn, vague and dubious; if anything, this should probably be merged into Shaker. I would appreciate your views on this. (Don't let the length fool you.) paul klenk talk 05:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep: it looks like there were Anti-Shakers. However, the information in this article seems wrong. It should be cleaned up or merged with Shaker if there's not enough information for an article. -- Kjkolb 05:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, not sure what article you read. Gazpacho 07:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, I must criticize the poor sourcing of the article. --Agamemnon2 10:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Shakers. 90% of this article is about them anyway, and I suspect the info over there is more accurate. I'll vote to delete over keep, if no one else supports a merge. Dottore So 11:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, content should be merged to Shakers, at least. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and nuke the current article. The currently iteration is unsourced and IMO has absolutely zero value. That being said, there was an Anti-Shaker movement and I have no objection to a separate article on Anti-shakers, but I would strongly recommend deleting all unsource claims, even if it takes this article back to a stub, until someone wants to take the time to research and write a decent, factual, article.--Isotope23 15:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete or at least rewrite. A quick Google seems to show that they were merely an unrelated array of pastors etc. who criticised the Shakers in books and in front of their congregations, whereas the article does not define what they are and therefore makes it sound to the reader like they were a single united and named denomination opposed to the Shakers, which they are obviously not. And since we're now in the realm of fiction-writing, what shall we invent for our new group to stand for? Shakers are people who (at times) are so filled with the Holy Spirit that they visibly tremble, so what are Anti-Shakers, people in comas? :) GarrettTalk 16:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge While "anti-Shakerism" existed, it was never formalized as a movement, and belongs under the Shaker article; or, if that is too long, under the title "Criticism of the Shakers." Xoloz 16:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Merge I guess. I'm not sure I can vote on an article I created, but originally I meant to title this "Anti-Shakerism." I'm not sure why I titled it "Anti-Shaker" instead. Still much of their culture and history does mention imprisonment or persecution they faced. The only problem with a merger is I'm not sure this works with the Shaker article. Possibly it could just be deleted and whatever's useful in it be placed elsewhere.--T. Anthony 08:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • On consideration could this simply be moved to an article called say "Opposition to Shakerism." Shakers is a featured article and I'd hate to muck it up with something not quite straightened out.--T. Anthony 14:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - anti-shakerism was perhaps one of the reasons that they moved to the backwoods. --MacRusgail 22:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Merge There does not seem to be enough significant and accurate in

ormation on this to make it its own article. It would be better placed as a subheader under the main Shaker article, but it is critical that it be rewritten. I would vote delete over keep, but it would be better rewritten, and possibly merged with the main Shaker article. The Jade Knight 20:25, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Artemis Lover

Since it's an adult fanfic I had to laboriously exclude a fragillion Google bombs, not to mention removing dozens of incidental references to the goddess Artemis and/or her lovers, and I get the whopping grand total of 100 unique Googles. Hagor, wake the heck up, you're desperately needed! Aw, crap... ladies, can you fill in for them with a verse or two? "We're coming, we're coming, our brave little band, On the right side of merging we do take our stand, We don't test Yahoo, because we do think, The cruft that's bombed on it is likely to stink!" GarrettTalk 15:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete fanfic cruft.--Isotope23 19:10, 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. -Doc (?) 10:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asian Pavillion Hotel

nn hotel not even a 5 star hotel Delete --JAranda | yeah 21:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless someone can demonstrate notability. Travel guides, etc., do not indicate anything special about this hotel. MCB 05:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not very relevant.Rhetoricalwater 05:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Woohookitty 11:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avivo

advertisement and no assertion of notability. --Jacquelyn Marie 01:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete spam --Rogerd 01:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Ad spam. Could be re-written, however. Sunray 02:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or completely rewrite it,... as it stands it is ad spam -- Malo 02:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I concur Avalon 03:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ad spam Pureblade 20:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ad spam, but I agree that with a total re-write, the underlying technology could possibly be of value. [[user:Colin99 20:11, 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. — JIP | Talk 07:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baba jethu

(Poorly-formatted) article claims that Baba Jethu is most famous saint in India. Google has never heard the name. DS 18:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Tintin
  • Delete looks like a prank to me. User:Nichalp/sg 08:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Aw c'mon! I mean, it's just so ... famous! And remember, "Any person who wishes sweetly and honestly with heart, Shri Jeth Baba fulfills its wishes." Are we sure we want to DELETE such an .. oh, yes. Yes, we are. It's totally unverified. Eaglizard 15:53, 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. Carbonite | Talk 19:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Baby Names

consists only of an interwiki link Flapdragon 22:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as quickly as possible Justin Bacon 01:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: couldn't it be speedied as it has essentially no content. -- Kjkolb 04:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as effectively {{empty}}. I'd say, in this type of case, either speedy or turn into redirect if the link is within Wikipedia and is otherwise appropriate (which in this case it is not).
  • Delete Wasting Wikipedia servers on blank pages.Rhetoricalwater 23:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Bwithh 23:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as all above is fair, plus the page it redirects to is also up for deletion with a most likely transwiki outcome. Budgiekiller 11:53, 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. Carbonite | Talk 19:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beach Gameland

An arcade in Florida. I just don't think this meets notability standards. Doesn't really deserve its own article Alhutch 23:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete wiki does throw up conundrums! Is Gameland is home of the only beatmaniaIIDX machine in Florida a claim of notability? Seems unlikely to be true but is that verifiable? Anyways, at most I'd say merge that nugget of info to beatmaniaIIDX and remove this article. Dlyons493 Talk 05:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It definitely has a IIDX machine, and it's probably the only one in Florida, given the general rareness of IIDX machines outside Japan. Whether that makes it "notable" is not for lowly inclusionists like me to decide. --SPUI (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN Advert. Vegaswikian 05:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A video game arcade, just like thousands of others. Quale 04:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN.--Bkwillwm 18:18, 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 keep. Hermione1980 23:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bed of nails

Shaped like a bed, has nails - seems likely to be correct OK. Dictdef!Dlyons493 Talk 20:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It may be no more than a dictdef at the moment but there is much more to say. What's the history of this object? Who would use one? Not just fakirs but science demonstrators. Is it used for meditation, mortification of the flesh or just stunts? Principles which allow one to escape unharmed. Etc etc. Flapdragon 20:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Plenty of context, esp. with regards to physics and weight distribution. I'm surprised we didn't have something similar already.--inksT 20:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Was almost speediable as a rephrase of the title, but I agree that the bed of nails is an encyclopedic topic. I expanded it into a proper stub, and would appreciate more help expanding. — brighterorange (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep the rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 21:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as it is an interesting encyclopedic article. Carioca 22:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Brighterorange's rewrite as interesting little article. Capitalistroadster 01:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep following excellent rewrite.  BD2412 talk 04:56, 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. — JIP | Talk 07:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boycott Aruba

Mr. Mathew is not necessarily an unbiased source on institutional racism on Aruba, and the Natalee Holloway related Boycott Aruba call is already covered in the Natalee Holloway topic. Please see my argumentation on the discussion page Mzzl 10:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

      • Maybe this isn't the right place to ask this, but I have been trying to find out more about Mzzl and even though there is a user page, there are no other references to Mzzl on Wikipedia. And even the postings on boycott aruba and this topic do not appear on Kate's Tools or 6 degrees I am new here, so I am not sure how to assess this. Mzzl, Do you have a talk page? Are you what they call a sock puppet? If you are real, I apologise, but I was trying to find a way to talk to you. Joaquin Murietta 15:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what a sock puppet is, I've only posted on here a dozen times or so. I think you can just create such a talk page yourself if you want. --Mzzl 06:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. Sorry! Joaquin Murietta 06:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Topic is not encyclopedic. Connection of Mathew and Holloway cases is original research. Consideration of this topic here amounts to advocacy since the neutral point-of-view would be that no such thing exists. Dystopos 13:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep At issue is not whether the boycott is appropriate. #This topic has been the subject of considerable discussion at Talk:Boycott_Aruba and Talk:Natalee_Holloway#Merge and the resulting merger and edit does have a neutral point of view. To delete a controversial article is to advocate one POV.

# In Talk:Boycott_Aruba User:Mzzl has proposed the wrong test for deletion. He says Mister Mathew's unrelated call for a boycott on grounds of institutional racism is too marginal to warrant mention, and has very dubious merit. There are very few whites on Aruba, nearly everyone there, including the police and the politicians are a mixture of African, Native Aruban and Latin American. If there are other, independant sources confirming institutional racism on Aruba, I'll withdraw my request for deletion. --Mzzl 10:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC) #The test for a wikipedia article on a controversial subject is not whether one POV can be proved. However, a strong case can be made that Mathew's claim that there is racism between the Dutch and the native Arubans. # With respect to Mathew and whether he is credible, last week he won his lawsuit against the government of Aruba in the European Court of Human Rights. The September 29, 2005, opinion validates Mathew's claim of institutional racism in Aruba.

It doesn't say anything about racism. The ruling states that despite mr. Mathew's violent behaviour -he broke the prison governor's face and threatened prison staff with a self made weapon, according to the Eduardo Mathews article you have written- it was not legal to treat him more harshly than other inmates. It is nowhere stated he was treated that way because of the color of his skin or any other reason. You basically have one man and his family calling for a boycott because he feels he was mistreated because of his race and his remarkable intelligence. This might be true or not, but is it a movement? Is it encyclopedic? The inclusion of this article is in itself POV because it seems to be created with the intention of being linked to from the Natelee Holloway article and support the POV that there is something wrong with the justice system on Aruba. Your article on mister Mathews is fine, but there is no connection with the Holloway case, imo. --Mzzl 10:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

# The editor of Diario, speaking out against the boycott, opined on October 5, 2005, that the issue is between the Dutch and the Arubans. See 1 -- The principal suspects is Dutch, the lead investigator was Dutch, the prosecutor is Dutch and the five judges involved are Dutch. If you think about it, an attempted boycott against Aruba is unjust, because it is misdirected and won’t achieve the desired results. # CNN raised the issue on June 15, 2005 here The last people to see Natalee Holloway on the night she disappeared in Aruba were the white teenage son of a local judge and two middle-class young men of Surinamese descent, according to local police. Within days of when Holloway was last seen in the early hours of May 30, Aruban police arrested two black security guards who worked at a hotel near where she was staying. One question swirling around the investigation was whether police initially targeted the security guards -- who were released without charges eight days later -- as suspects at least in part because of their race or class. # One of the freed security guards, Mickey John raised the issue of racism, in several interviews, such as this one with Fox News -JOHN: Well, like I said before, the justice system, the detectives, they're all fools. They have to go to back to school. And they were used, like, a scapegoat, use, like, a black person in society to cover their mess. #See also Olumide K. Obayemi Racism in Aruba: The arrests of Abraham Jones and Mickey John were not only unfair, but classically racist San Francisco View (July 6, 2005). changing my vote for reasons stated by Jtmichcock Joaquin Murietta 02:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You did not quote the preceeding line in my reason for asking for deletion: ... the Natalee Holloway related call for a boycott is already sufficiently covered under the natalee holloway topic. I don't see how the two issues are related, and why a call to boycott Aruba warrants a page of its own. Calls to boycott France or the USA don't get their own page either. --Mzzl 06:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The issue is not whether racism exists in the Aruban government. The issue is whether "Boycott Aruba" refers to anything, and whether that thing is notable or encyclopedic. I am not arguing for the deletion of the content, but of the article that tries to connect two events that are only related by a POV. That portion of the above material that is worth including in WP should, in my opinion, appear in other articles. Dystopos 17:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete... the issue is not "whether the boycott is appropriate", the issue is whether or not this is an encylopedic article that can stand on it's own merit. I'd say it is not. There are vastly more publicized boycotts that don't have articles. Google hits by and large reference Natalee Holloway related boycott, which is not even the main thrust of this article. I don't see anything here worth saving.--Isotope23 19:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete... This topic does not merit its own page. It is a mere footnote to the larger Holloway story, and nothing more. Although I believe that a topic on the Bus Boycott in Montgomery, Alabama would merit its own page rather than being part of a larger article on the civil rights movement because of its accomplishments and scope, this "boycott" has no historical merit, arguably isn't even going on except in the minds of the Twitty family and a few others who cannot let this case go. Delete it and merge it into the Natalee Holloway page.(Unsigned comment by User:68.194.91.203)
    • Already merged. Dystopos 23:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete insofar as Natalee Holloway and Aruba topics can cover both. Jtmichcock 00:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Jtmichcock and as soon as I can figure out how to red-line my prior vote and comments, I will. Joaquin Murietta 02:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy DELETED. -Doc (?) 10:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brewster Jeffrey

Vanity. jengod 20:24, 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. -Doc (?) 10:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carlucci weyant

Crystal ball, nn. No evidence of the numerous scholarships. Probably unintentional: Carlucci was a victim of a drive by shooting. Sticking to his guns ...' Dlyons493 Talk 23:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity.--Alhutch 00:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • outstanding actorsaw him in a screening for a film, not sure which but very good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.46.135 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey I saw him with Billy Zane!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carrentonline

Wikipedia is not... an instruction manual, the yellow pages, etc. In other words: advertisement and manual for non notable company JoanneB 19:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP is not a collection of instruction manuals. feydey 11:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As Above. WP is neither a place for free advertising nor a directory. Cool3 23:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 23:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by User:Doc glasgow Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:59, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CarRentOnline.com

Article appears to be an advertisement Bobstay 19:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Also a copyvio... Thue | talk 19:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisement Ritchy 7 October 2005
  • Speedy Delete. Meets CSD:A8 criteria. So tagged.--inksT 21:49, 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Castro-directed overt and covert operations

This doesn't feel right as an article. Not sure I can verbalize it more than that, but it's.... it's not the content, it's the idea of facet of the subject having an article. DS 20:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Feelings are usually not enough to work with, unless of course one is in love. The article on the History of Cuba does not cover this important point, and it should not be missed.


Web sites from inside Cuba, tell of small towns in Eastern Cuba which have lost a good number of their men to these Castro promoted adventures. It is common knowledge that Castro started doing these kind of things before he was a rebel working some say for the communists, and others from the CIA to distabilize democratic elections in Colombia in 1948. About that time he also was part of the far more worthy cause the Cayo Confites effort of the "Caribbean Legion" to over throw the Dictator of the Dominican Republic Rafael Trujillo.


Soon after victory in Cuba Castro disposed of the remnants of Camilo Cienfuegos forces by sending them on a doomed mission to the Dominican Republic (as he would do later with the "Che" in Bolivia). Castro trained, armed and sent expeditions to almost every country in Latin America, with possible but not certain exception of Mexico.


Castro supported and still supports the Basque Separatists of ETA, the Polisario front in North Africa, he even sent tanks to Golan Heights (whether these tanks saw action is a matter of some Israel 's discuss). He provided refuge to certain IRA members, some who turned up later showing the Colombian FARC rebels how to make better bombs. He supported supplied and armed rebels in most of Central America.

I have heard Castro supplied so many arms to the Salvadoran Faribundo Marti group that they would leave untrained but magnificently armed rebels, on the side of volcanoes to be slaughtered by helicopters of Salvadoran Army. He sent at least one expedition to Venezuela, which caused much bloodshed. and the list goes on.


Of course all know of Castro's support of the North Vietnamese, and the Cuban "interrogators" of US POW. My favorite account of those times is a standard press report of a Cuban vessel supplying weapons to the Sri Lankan Tamil rebels. Castro was most busy. Much of this info comes from the KGB files which are now to some extent in the public domain.


Thus if somebody has a feeling that this is not so, then that person has much to learn. If a Castro simpathizer objects ask him about the "internationalistas," they are their heroes why be ashamed of them. Let him/her tell his/her side of the story......


I have no objection to any label you may wish to place on the site, but one would think that placing such a label indicates a lack of ability to rebut argument. (El Jigüe, 10/7/2005)


  • Delete. Someone tried to do a sort of okay thing here, listing these "operations" separately rather than trying to jam them all into the paragraph towards the end of Cuba#Brief History, where this page is referenced. But the effort to properly "jam them in there" (more cleanly, of course, and with some verification) needs to be taken, or perhaps to add them to Fidel Castro (where the Angola operation, at least, is already mentioned), because these operations certainly aren't worth their own separate article yet. I suggest copying the text here onto Talk:Cuba and Talk:Fidel Castro, and letting it filter onto those pages as editors see fit. Steve Summit (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • At the moment the article is a list of assertions, and is woefully under-referenced. There is one web link (that I can't get to work at the moment). The article needs tens of references. For example the sentence "In Vietnam Cuban engineers help build the Ho Chi Min trail, and Cuban intelligence harshly interrogated US prisoners" requires at least 2 references, one for the Ho Chi Minh trail section, one for the interrogation claim; I'd prefer more.
Nowhere in the article is the covert or overt nature of each operation identified. I can imagine that the overt operations could be verified. The covert operations would inevitably present verifiability problems that are orders of magnitude greater. In the absence of verification (i.e. at least one reference for each claim) delete. Sliggy 22:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Humbug! All you guys want is to find and excuse to delete because this reality offends you. Apparently you only read the news you like. I will put in the references, even though I am sure you will say that they are insufficient, wrong, or in the wrong format. However, when you do that remember this identifies your call name as that of a marxist radical. And provides more evidence that Wikipedia is merely a source that rewrites history to its own far leftwing agenda. (El Jigüe, 10/7/2005)

G. that article does not mention the Polisario front, Ethiopia, the Congo, Bolivia, the Chile intervention when he had a Cuban bodyguard Patricio de la Guardia kill Allende to make him a martyr, the old and new Venezuelan adventures, the support for the Macheteros in Puerto Rico,for the Montoneros, the disastrous landing in the Dominican Republic, the material and manpower support to North Vietnam, and who knows what else. Appears that the above acts are not consistent, with the conclusions reached in Foreign relations of Cuba ; and thus one is tempted to consider that the proposed deletion of this section is merely to facilitate a single view of Castro's action that differs from objective reality. Therefore the proposed deletion is quite clearly a violation of Wikipedia guidelines (El Jigüe, 10/7/2005 ).


I have added a historical introduction to the article, including Spy vs Spy. (El Jigüe, 10/7/2005 ).

  • Comment Overly verbose, and somewhat disjointed, but those aren't reasons for deleting an article, but for cleaning it up. Also I agree that the atricle title isn't ideal. I suggest merging the overt activities to Foreign relations of Cuba and moving the covert activities to History of Cuban espionage which would be in keeping with the naming pattern of some of the articles in Category:Espionage. Caerwine 04:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


Cleaned up a bit and added more detail, there is an amazing amount of the stuff (El Jigüe, 10/9/2005)

  • Since you also decided to triplicate the article by adding identical versions under History of Cuban espionage and Brief history of Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity, I'll change my vote to a simple delete. Caerwine 22:28, 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. Carbonite | Talk 19:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clapham Road

Another nn road that is probaly no longer than a few blocks Roadcruft Delete --JAranda | yeah 22:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Expand or delete. This isn't an atlas in words. Pilatus 23:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Justin Bacon 01:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep roadcruft that is part of an A road. Fuck off. --SPUI (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete utterly pointless, unencyclopedic, useless roadcruft. --Calton | Talk 01:23, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirect. -R. fiend 15:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Class object

Badly written article that explains nothing. I was tempted to speedy it, but decided to bring it here instead, in case it's salvagable. R. fiend 21:50, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of origins

This seems to be a non-published fictional universe. It doesn't seem to be notable, and as such should not be in Wikipedia. Thue | talk 20:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - doesn't say anything not on referenced web page. Steve Summit (talk) 21:02, 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 No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmic ray deflection society

Non notable I think (but I might just make one of those hats). Perhaps a candidate for BJAODN. See also Dysonberg Confusion Principle CambridgeBayWeather 05:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC) See below. CambridgeBayWeather 06:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nonsense (maybe not quite patent). --Trovatore 06:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It does look much better now. Weak keep. --Trovatore 01:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The patent must at least be pending for this nonsense. Give it the elbow. Grutness...wha? 07:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The group themselves may be spouting nonsense but that is not a reason to delete. I think these people, Heaven's Gate (cult) and Order of the Solar Temple, are also spouting nonsense (and a lot more dangerous) but I would not want to see them deleted. The reason here to delete is non-notability. CambridgeBayWeather 08:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, inconsequential nonsense. Can't they even get a decent website? Average Earthman 08:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Wetman 09:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Tentative, precarious keep, as per CambridgeBayWeather's second contribution to discussion. As for notability, looking through google, I think for now it's notable enough. However, it needs to be wikified, cleaned up, and made neutral or at least given a npov tag. --Qirex 11:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC) ps. god bless evangelical zealots who encourage this kind of anti-science
I was unsure as to their notability which is why I didn't tag it as a speedy. If others feel that the group as such has some sort of notability then it should be kept. CambridgeBayWeather 15:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, there are not many unique Google results if quotes are used. I don't think anyone will be looking for it in ten years, either. -- Kjkolb 03:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I wrote the three articles in contention here. I am also aswell, a chef/webservices specialist in New Orleans. Sorry that I registered after I wrote these entries. Reach me at a.asell(at)gs.net.

We have about 250 members world wide, including many artcart artists, environmentalists and art critics. We are a humorous environmental group. We were a major player in the web goes black, back in 1996 and were one of the first groups to call attention to the whole in the ozone in the 2 year period back in 73, when no one seemed to care. We were the ones with the holes in our heads then. I have looked at all the pages of those of you that want to delete the cosmic rays from this site and am surprised that none of you see the tongue in cheek humor/putdown of the psuedo-sciences. While at the same time producing some rather interesting recycled art. Here's a list of awards, articles, links and more. I am correcting the original page to fix the links... One last question, why does my name come up empty? Do I need a page on myself (the ultimate vanity) where everyone else can come in and edit?

Accoladeswe have received... Web Awards, Geek Site of the Day, Morts top 99% of the web, Freedom Finger Award as well as several site of the days, now defunct. We have appeared in... Two movies, Wild Wheels by Harrod Blank and Life & Death at Barrister's Newspapers and magazines... AP wire article picked up by 130 newspapers Omni Magazine Article in Raw Vision Bands Plan Nine and Eugene Chadbourne have dedicated songs to the society. Plus... 645 links in parenthesis on Google Organizations that link to our organization...

Science Humor in the Yahoo! Directory

Anti-Censorship Page

Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie

The Church of the SubGenius

The Environment Directory - Science:Atmospheric Science:Ozone

University of Utah, the High Resolution Fly's Eye (HiRes) is an experiment to study the highest energy cosmic rays to determine the energy, direction, and chemical composition of the incident particle.

Factbites

Super-Kamiokande is a joint Japan-US collaboration to construct the world's largest underground neutrino observatory.

Scientific Computing at Evergreen State College

Business Council on the Environment

Merge Valloween and Dysonburg Confusion Principle which are also under penalty of death. also aswell 07:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete. I'd like first to thank Alsoaswell for taking the time to find out what Wikipedia is, what it's all about, and what it is not. Your long additions to the always-burgeoning AfD page are.. wait, I'm being sarcastic. Sorry. *ahem* Your group is NN - very funny ideas, but unless referenced to prove relevance to anyone outside their circle, I say again: delete. Wikipedia isn't about funny ideas. It's an encyclopedia. Eaglizard 10:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC) Abstain. Eaglizard 05:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply to Eaglizard: I don't find that attitude to be appropriate at all; we were all new at some point, and honestly, it's not the end of the world that someone made an honest mistake. Get a life. -- (the following paragraph also written by me)
    Qirex 11:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Reply to Alsoaswell:Wikipedia is not meant to be cryptic or sarcastic, it's just an encyclopaedia, and so, in my opinion, these articles should not present this information as if this is a serious weirdo-collective. There are plenty of articles around about internet jokes etc, but they are explicit and clear in the explanation of the joke. I stand by my original vote to keep (and the other related articles should merge), and I strongly suggest that the author, also aswell, should change the style of writing and the content to explain what this organisation is about etc. But, so as not to mess with Wikipedia policy, this should be done after this nomination has been decided upon. With regard to the page on yourself, yes, create it, just click on your name in the upper right corner of the page (next to "My talk, Preferences..."). The structure of Wikipedia is such that these pages are created in a different directory and indexed differently to the articles etc (and attacking Wikipedia directly is not going to help you plead your case, honestly). Please read the help pages for more info. -- (the preceding two paragraphs both written by me) Qirex 11:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply to Quirex I followed the directions at the helpless newbie page and dropped by The Welcoming Committee and picked a member who I think will help me bring the cosmic ray page into compliance along the lines of Sub Genius. I live in New Orleans and have a lot of other things going on in my life right now so I don't have a lot of time to devote to this, but I am starting to see that I need a serious re-edit of the article. If anyone here cares to help out, please feel free to join in. I feel that I have shown enough links to show that the organization is real and respected in humor, physics, outsider artists, free speech and just plain wierdo circles. I am just asking for a little time to get my first attempt right. Thanks for any of you that have bothered to check my references.

also aswell 16:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I have done an edit and realize there are still too many quotes from the original manuscripts, but I feel this is a good start on satisfying some of the problems that have been pointed out. Again, I ask for a bit more time to work this out as I have other business/flood/hurricane related problems that really need addressing. also aswell 19:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply to Qirex: 1) You're right. 2) You correctly chastise my lousy attitude (I was annoyed after having been working off this AfD list for about 5 hours, and I mistakenly got the (researched) impression that this was an attempt to slide a popular joke / hoax site into the 'pedia under the guise of a straight face), but then you tell me to 'get a life'? Eaglizard 05:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • To Alsoaswell: I apologize. My sarcasm was completely misplaced in this forum, and not very clever, either. I prefer it when I act like this; I don't know wtf was up with me here. Again, sorry. I've changed my vote to 'abstain'. Thanks for contributing! Eaglizard 05:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Along with Qirex, I believe the group is sufficiently notable. The article has been improved to make it clear that the group is satirical, and now satisfies basic Wikipedia standards. also aswell did most of the work himself, after receiving some coaching tips from me on his talk page, so I am confident that he is willing to learn and conform to Wikipedia policies. Mamawrites 10:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Having read through everything again, and the fact that also aswell took the time to work on the article (and ask for help). I have checked the links and think that I was hasty (not the first time) and wish to change my vote. CambridgeBayWeather 06:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I did my homework and learned a lot about how Wikipedia in the process. So I decided I knew enough to vote. also aswell 07:30, 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. -Doc (?) 10:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crudfucker

nn, crystal ball Dlyons493 Talk 21:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Note the line "expected in time for a holiday anti-release". Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Alhutch 00:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Crudfu... er, I mean, Delete, per nom.  BD2412 talk 04:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this vanity-posting, nn nihilist. That oughta make him happy! I mean... do nihilists even exist? Eaglizard 16:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


Message from Crudfucker - I will soon have MP3s posted and a semi-functioning website for the record. Now stop your editorials and wait for the goods.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniele Geltrudi

vanity page? --Trovatore 15:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain as nominator. The accomplishments described might be notable enough for inclusion, and he does get some Google hits, but my suspicions were raised by the fact that the page appears to be edited several times by Geltrudi himself (or by someone who's such a fan as to take his name as a handle; also suspicious). I think there's no hard rule against a notable person writing about himself from reliable references, but it does raise doubts. --Trovatore 15:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like he didn't write about himself, at least under his own name (most of the text is by an IP). Rather, he added a picture of a building (presumably one of his designs?) and then removed it. --Trovatore 15:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up. I did a first pass, wikifing and doing basic formatting. But sources need to be cited and more work done. This person seems notable enough to me, but all the google hist i found were non-english pages. The automatic translations are good enough to make the page look plausible, but i dodn't trust them enough to use them as the basis for adding or revising content. DES (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll go keep based on initial clean-up. Marskell 21:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Thanks to DES for his work on the article. Capitalistroadster 01:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn commercial architect. Unverified info in article indicates Geltrudi has entered contests and exhibited his designs (not generally notable), but only actual buildings mentioned are minor commercial works. Besides, if he's not verifiable in English-language sites, does he belong in the English 'pedia? Obviously he could go in the Italian, but .. well, I don't know enough about how the diff. language versions are coordinated, if they are at all. Anyways, NN. Eaglizard 15:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough. If he belongs in the Italian WP, he belongs here, when someone writes a reasonable article in English about him, for which this is a start. Xoloz 17:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I strongly disgree with that statement. Given that the subject is Italian, while it is necessary that he be notable enough for inclusion on the it Wiki, it is not sufficient as I would expect topics that would be of marginal and localized notability to be notable enough only for inclusion in certain Wikipedias. For example, the vast majority of U.S. high school articles are not notable enough for any Wiki execpt the en Wiki. Caerwine 18:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, but it'll need some cleanup. Karmafist 17:58, 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Doc (?) 16:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Tide: Siege

Novel was actually never completed. It "was to have been" part of a trilogy; but it "isn't"; therefore it doesn't exist. Perhaps the info can be added to another article and this turned into a redirect. Your thoughts are appreciated. paul klenk talk 00:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - A non-existent novel doesn't merit an article. I agree with adding content to another article. Sunray 02:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonexistent. Gazpacho 02:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Dvyost 02:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Would be different if it were the lost novel of a great writer. -- SCZenz 02:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with New Jedi Order, possibly under a heading of "Cancelled Novels". The Knightfall Trilogy could also be merged into this section. Saberwyn 03:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of interest to users. Kappa 06:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not just StarWarscruft, non-existent StarWarscruft. --Calton | Talk 07:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • lol. Delete per above. Dottore So 10:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, factual and informative. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to the series it was to have been art of. Rich Farmbrough 15:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to the series it would have been part of. --Celestianpower hablamé 15:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think we should raise the inclusion bar very high for things that don't actually exist. Gamaliel 18:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gama. Very high indeed. Marskell 20:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and Gamaliel. Quale 22:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I disagree with the gut instinct to label unpublished novels non-encyclopedic. Just because something gets cancelled doesn't mean that people were unaware of it or uninterested in it. Now, in general, I question the need for every single New Jedi Order novel to have its own wikipedia article; but if that's the basis for deletion, then I argue for a Merge of all these novel stubs into the primary article. Justin Bacon 00:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to the series article. Amren (talk) 13:50, 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. -Doc (?) 10:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darkain

nn bio. 202.156.6.62 22:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep Quite a few Googles for [1] Dlyons493 Talk 22:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Largely involved in Winamp scene [2][3] as well as Nintendo DS scene[4]. Article to be expanded regarding his scene involvement and projects rather than his person life. Xnolanx 23:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per above Justin Bacon 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Darkain deserves recognition for his work in the Nintendo DS scene alone. Deltro 11:42, 8 October 2005 (GMT -6:00)
  • Keep per above. Robert 17:39, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied as nn-bio --fvw* 05:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Goop

This is an article about a DJ who submits mixes to web radio stations. I couldn't find him on All Music and the article doesn't say anything about touring or albums. -- Kjkolb 05:23, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 07:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Thinker

Our friend here has spent more time thinking than he has being made famous, yielding only 199 unique Googles after subtracting us from the hits of course. Cut out the forum threads and it would be even less. Also 90% of this article is worthless fanfic titles; if rewritten in paragraph form it would be a lot more useful. Sigh. GarrettTalk 14:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete... nn-bio about a fanfic author.--Isotope23 19:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Disclaimer -- I am not a close friend of Dr. Thinker, but I have "met" him (real-time Internet conversation) on several occasions and have helped MiST some of his works. I can attest that within the sphere of online MST3K fandom, Dr. Thinker is really pretty notable -- if I remember correctly, Web Site Number Nine (the largest archive of MiSTings on the Internet) had a classification tag for MiSTings of Dr. Thinker's work, and he was one of only about 3-5 authors to have their own classification tags. However, I am aware that every fandom is huge to itself, and I sadly doubt that his notability within that sphere really translates to notability outside it. I have to vote Weak Delete -- weak because I could, of course, be underestimating how notable Thinkerfics and MiSTings thereof became outside the fandom proper. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I love(d) MST3K, but fanfic has a high bar for encyclopedic notability. Quale 04:02, 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 No Consensus, feel free to merge as suggested. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dysonberg Confusion Principle

Non notable I think (but I might just make one of those hats). Perhaps a candidate for BJAODN. See also Cosmic ray deflection society CambridgeBayWeather 05:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC) See below. CambridgeBayWeather 17:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nonsense --Trovatore 06:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, dribbling nonsense. Average Earthman 08:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Why isn't "hoax" a speedy delete category? --Wetman 09:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Mainly because it can be hard to define when a hoax is "obvious" enough for a csd. Also, in many cases an obvious hoax can be csd'd as nonsense... Usrnme h8er 09:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. Merge, per Qirex, I'm happy to conceed that point. Usrnme h8er 09:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Cosmic ray deflection society (see other discussions on that page there, as well as at Valloween). Also to those voting delete on the grounds of hoax, I suggest you read the articles and their links before voting in future. --Qirex 11:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I forgot to cross post this from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic ray deflection society yesterday: The group themselves may be spouting nonsense but that is not a reason to delete. I think these people, Heaven's Gate (cult) and Order of the Solar Temple, are also spouting nonsense (and a lot more dangerous) but I would not want to see them deleted. The reason here to delete is non-notability. CambridgeBayWeather 08:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I was unsure as to their notability which is why I didn't tag it as a speedy. If others feel that the group as such has some sort of notability then it should be kept. CambridgeBayWeather 15:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Cosmic ray deflection society. Having read through everything again, and the fact that also aswell took the time to work on the article (and ask for help). I have checked the links and think that I was hasty (not the first time) and wish to change my vote. CambridgeBayWeather 06:53, 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 07:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elada Omnia Consulting

Appears to be an advertisement for the company Bobstay 12:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Is this my first delete here? Delete POV advertising. --ShaunMacPherson 12:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - I put up a speedy delete notice before; advertising to the fullest. -WindFish 12:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Additionally, it returns 133 Google results. -WindFish 12:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete spam, non-notabel company. i have munged the links so they don't show up in google searches and arte not clickable, panding deleteion. This is not, however a speedy, at least not IMO. DES (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article says "We want to deliver our products and services that you need: <snip>", and includes a fax #. spam, eggs, bacon and spam. Eaglizard 14:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant advertising. -- DS1953 04:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Carbonite | Talk 19:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Face eating

Appears to be a hoax. No mention of the tribe cited found via Google. A strong burden of proof for this is required, and is lacking from the article. CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination, unless references are provided, etc. By the way, does anyone know if there's a speedy deletion tag for this kind of article? --DannyWilde 05:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's a speedy WP:CSD since G1(nonsense) doesn't apply to hoaxes unless they're "unsalvageably incoherent". --rob 06:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Although it does say "This is not a joke"... that adds credibility to any article. References please. -Eisnel 05:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete rather disguisting hoax. --rob 06:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not verified. Gazpacho 07:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, inane. --Agamemnon2 10:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, poor hoax. Xoloz 16:48, 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 SPEEDY REDIRECTED. — JIP | Talk 07:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Femme Fetale

nn 1-episode fictional character Dlyons493 Talk 20:23, 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 MERGE to University of Wales Bangor. -Doc (?) 10:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ffriddoedd Site

Non-notable, trivial, amounts to no more than a few names of halls of residence; article cd be cleaned up but not brought up to encyclopaedic standard, really nothing interesting to say on this subject Flapdragon 18:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Justin Bacon 01:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dlyons493 Talk 05:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment on reflection, I've been bold and merged these into University of Wales Bangor Dlyons493 Talk 13:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Fair enough. I've trimmed it in situ of its large amounts of non-encylopaedic (advert-like and duplicated and trivial and misspelt) material. Wikipedia is not a university prospectus. Flapdragon 13:33, 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. -Doc (?) 10:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Four Letter Lie

NN band. vanity page --202.156.6.62 22:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:MUSIC. Are unsigned and their tour was insufficient to meet the criteria. Mallocks 22:27, 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 07:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] G3 microsystems

Advertisement for a small company JoanneB 17:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Adcruft.--Isotope23 19:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blatant spam (sorry Georgiepooh). But OMG this is funny stuff! I just had to save it for his posterior's sake:
"The G3 Microsystems was founded in 2005 by no on other than, George Kuruvila. He, through no coincidence is the computer industry's chief executive officer. He has accomplished this based on a simple concept. He decided to sell personal computer systems directly to customers. His direct selling empowered G3 with the knowledge, so he could best understand his consumer’s needs; and provide the most comprehensive computing solutions that met those needs." (emphasis mine)
So who knew we all had the same boss, huh? Spinnnn that lack of experience, Georgie baby!!! Ok, I've been AfD'ing for 6 hours now. I need a break. lol Eaglizard 15:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Advert and boring! --[[User:Colin99 20:42, 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. -Doc (?) 17:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ghenna Creole

The only verification for the existence of this language I can find is the pdf document from www.linguasphere.org linked to from this page. It's not in Ethnologue, nor can I find it on Google apart from Wikipedia mirrors and linguasphere. Also, I took a class at the University of Texas from Ian Hancock, a prominent creole specialist, who taught us all about Gullah and Afro-Seminole Creole but never mentioned "Ghenna", which strikes me as suspicious. Therefore, delete as unverifiable. Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'd easily switch to keep if I found any evidence of a place or ethnic name "Ghenna." "Ghenna" is apparently a name used by Ethiopian Christians for Christmas. It also appears as a frequent misspelling of Gehenna. Neither seems helpful in context. Smerdis of Tlön 17:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Justin Bacon 01:21, 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. — JIP | Talk 07:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gizoogle

del. nonnotable, both in content and visibility. About 800 unique google hits. A poor score for a website. Also Original research. mikka (t) 16:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain I saw Gizoogle about 6 months ago. I've no idea how many people have seen/used it. Probably doesn't pass notability, but I just can't bring myself to vote delete. If it survives it definitely needs a rewrite.--Isotope23 19:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Dizzizzleete The best that can happen is a small blurb in the Google article about sites that look at it satirically. Non-notable, sucka! Karmafist 22:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Yes, we all have websites. Few of them are significant. Friday (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Please check in again if you're still around in ten years. Denni☯ 00:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, and also pretty bad. Ytram99 17:35, 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] God alone

This is a book, not an article Dlyons493 Talk 22:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Probaly a Copyvio From Somewhere --JAranda | yeah 22:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a copy of a text entitled Quran - The True Sunnah of the Messenger by "brother Naveed" which soemone has posted at multiple net sites. I have tsgged it as a copyvio, but it may well be that the author has uploaded it. If so, it should go on wikisource if anywhere, but probably not there either. DES (talk) 22:25, 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. Carbonite | Talk 19:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Har-vest

advertisement Dlyons493 Talk 21:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Del-Ete™. --Optichan 22:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as nn and pro-motion. feydey 23:03, 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. Carbonite | Talk 19:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hax with tax

Non-notable piece of software. --fvw* 04:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Pure advertising. The hack author is using Wikipedia to advertise their cheat program. A link was placed in PSO's "See also" section, which is how I noticed it. I reverted that link. -- Myria 04:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Reads like an ad. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am definitely not Taxer, and not a Hax/Tax user.

It's an important phenoma in the PSO community right now. If it was an ad, don't you think I would have offered a way to recieve it? Rahonavis 05:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'm PSO's most famous cheater, but you don't see my name or my work anywhere with PSO. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. -- Myria 04:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is not an ad, or even a joke - it is an insight to the psobb world (vote by 82.9.104.91)
  • Delete and enter as candidate for Poster Child of Non-Notable Gamecruft. Dottore So 11:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing more than a seemingly vanity description of the program, and a version history. A summary could be placed in Phantasy Star Online if really required. -- Mewcenary 14:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Marcus22 19:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ad --JAranda | yeah 19:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Optichan 19:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a joke that started on the PSO:BB forums. I mean, really. Code that will be compiled on a 286 or 386? An algorithm that predicts password changes before they're MADE. This just shows people will believe anything. Nezu Chiza 20:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow..er, Delete, per Nezu Chiza. I wonder, sometimes... pls tell me this is NOT an "important phenoma[sic] in the PSO community. From the article: "[The authors] even go as far as acting as if it's a joke to prevent being taken seriously." For real, tho. Eaglizard 09:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a real program for a real game. Why delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.186.33 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 8 October 2005
  • Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 15:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- did anyone look at the screenshot? Obvious hoax. The image probably belongs on IFD, too. --Zetawoof 23:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I am a software developer, and this appears to be pure fabrication, judging by both the screenshots and the version history ("100,000 lines of code", etc.) This is either an inside joke to that community, or a "script kiddie" attempting to impress their peers. --Dan East 05:58, 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. Carbonite | Talk 19:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homer (aficionado)

dicdef, no obvious potential for expansion --Trovatore 04:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Depending on how you read it it could be an nn-bio. Delete anyway. --fvw* 04:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dictionary entry. Flowerparty■ 00:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef Denni☯ 00:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Dicdef, and not even a particularly good one, since the term is more often used to refer to announcers or referees/umpires rather than fans. MCB 06:24, 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homework excuses

No part of an encyclopedia. DJ Clayworth 19:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • The dog deleted this entry. Not encyclopedic topic, not authoritative source for list, no good enough alibi to let it slide. Barno 20:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I could see this going somewhere. Keep. Voyager640 20:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I suspect fraud, they're not even funny, half of them are "X ate it", did 100 people really vote on these? (Oh, yeah, and in any case, not very encyclopedic.) Steve Summit (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete junk maybe BJAODN on a few of them --JAranda | yeah 22:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikify and Transwiki to Wikisource where this kind of list belong. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Grobertson 22:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete or my hamster will chew through your radio alarm cable tomorrow morning. --MacRusgail 22:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. -Doc (?) 10:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hubble Flow

This stub is entirely redundant and the title is a nonstandard term. The standard term is "Hubble expansion" and there is already a fine article called Hubble expansion. At the very most we require only a redirect page under the name "Hubble flow". CH (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - it's a standard term - see [5], and compare with [6]. Hubble expansion is a redirect to Hubble's Law. Hubble's law and the Hubble flow are slightly different things and deserve separate articles. Worldtraveller 23:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Let's come at this a different way. The stub in question doesn't say anything that Hubble expansion doesn't say better. The wording you added was particularly misleading. ---CH (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
If you thought my wording was misleading, you can improve it. I can't see why you first reverted my editing, then added some poorly written material, then nominated for AfD, all within 12 minutes, if all you want to do is make it a redirect. You can do that at any time, without AfD. Worldtraveller 00:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I reverted to the version by Hall, then improved the wording, then noticed the preexisting and far superior article. Let's try this a different way. Can you clearly and concisely explain on the talk page of the affected article precisely why you feel Hubble expansion is inadequate? Can you give a citation to a standard cosmology textbook which uses Hubble flow rather than Hubble expansion? Which supports your contention that there is a distinction? ---CH (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could this be sorted out on the Article talk page as it seems to be an editorial conflict?Capitalistroadster 02:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Capitalistroadster, point taken. If you know how to migrate this gracefully to an RFC rather than a AfD, I won't object to that.---CH (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. The article on Hubble expansion should define what the Hubble flow is, and clearly explain what the difference is. (I personally have no clue as to what the difference is, and having two articles that seem to be talking about the same thing doesn't help me or most enyone else.) If there comes a day when the article one Hubble expansion has an incredibly long section on Hubble flow, then it will merit a split into two distinct articles. Splitting prematurely, however, only leads to chaos, as multiple editors make almost the same, but conflicting/confusing edits in related artciles, resulting in a nasty mess. I've seen this far too often in the math articles; it can and should be avoided in this case. linas 21:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect. AFAICT, 'Hubble flow' refers to the same thing as 'Hubble expansion'. The latter term has been around for decades and is clearly standard, but the former is very new and definitely not standard. The two terms refer to one and the same thing (the expansion of the universe); if you're digging for a difference Worldtraveller, I'm afraid you won't really find one. ---Mpatel (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Hubble flow is the more commonly used term in the astronomical literature. Hubble Expansion and Hubble Flow are of course different terms for the same thing - what I said was that Hubble expansion currently redirects to Hubble's Law, and the law and the flow are not the same thing. We don't have an article at Hubble expansion, we have a redirect, so it is not correct for Hillman to say there is already a fine article called Hubble expansion. Worldtraveller 12:07, 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. — JIP | Talk 07:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I Cup

not encyclopediac, not notable. Account of a childish joke. Was tagged as a speedy, but does not fit WP:PN. Delete DES (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as G1 (no meaningful content) and G2 (test). If this is not a candidate for speedy deletion in the eyes of the admin at hand, I vote delete as utterly non-encyclopedic. Aecis 17:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • IMO there is meaningful content. This describes a joke that many children do in fact make. If there were more about why this sort of thing is amusing to children of a certian age, and how adults react, and if that were sourced and not original research, it might even be a valid article. As it stands that is not enough useful content for a worthwhile article, IMO, but this is not patent nonsense in the quite restricted sense that justifies a speedy -- all IMO of course. If another admin speedys it, that is that admin's judgement. DES (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Bobblewik 19:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia isn't a joke book. -- Kjkolb 03:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Clasp your hands above your head and while holding them there, spell the word "image" and then say light bulb. Qaz (talk) 08:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • REDIRECT to Brassiere... I think Japan has I-cup bra sizes, which is the equivalent of an American single-D. 67.71.169.168 05:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Woohookitty 11:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Stile

NN, D. ComCat 01:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as nn. --Dvyost 02:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Stile Project, unless somebody thinks that's NN also...? -- SCZenz 03:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. The Stile Project is many things, but NN is not one of them. Dottore So 10:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect or keep -- isn't this the guy who faked suicide on his webcam? he was noted for that, and 'jay stile' is a psuedonym, so discussion of his real identity is relevant b/c StileProject is notable, it and rotten.com were once very well known sites. Stiles should not be listed under category musician tho, afaik; putting songs on mp3.com doesn't qualify. :) Eaglizard 08:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Stile Project. Jay Stile and his website are (in)famously notable. [7] [8] [9] [10] —RaD Man (talk) 16:01, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Tischfield

Whatever this is, it sure isn't an article. [edit] 05:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain for now. Dr. Tischfield has, apparently, authored a paper called "Loss of heterozygosity or: how I learned to stop worrying and love mitotic recombination.". Now, this is a great title. He is also the Chair in Rutgers Department of Genetics [sauce], and has apparently won some awards. I'm not sure how to vote on this guy, but at the very least it needs total cleanup. Lord Bob 05:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It needs writing before anyone can clean it up. Like edit says, it isn't an article. Delete. TheMadBaron 07:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not an article. Dlyons493 Talk 07:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. The title is excellent though. Dottore So 11:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete... I like anyone who makes Dr. Strangelove references, but ultimately I don't see any assertion of notability that merits a wiki article.--Isotope23 15:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator, this is not an article. Hall Monitor 17:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Looks like a Speedy Delete here for lack of content Placed the Tag --JAranda | yeah 19:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I removed the speedy tag. Please check out the underlined words in the A1 speedy at WP:CSD. -Splashtalk 00:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom, this is not an article. If someone makes it an article, I may change my vote. Justin Bacon 00:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I am a an academic geneticist, and I haven't heard of this guy. Every department chair at any large school will have ten titles like that (they come with big chunks of research money from the school). He published an interestingly-titled article, but that isn't significant. He is not up for a Lasker or a Nobel, and almost certainly never will be. A quick check shows that many Nobel-level geneticists are not in WP, and they should be in here before this guy is: Randy Sheckman (chair of genetics at Berkeley, cloned all the secretion genes 20 years before anyone else), Richard Palmiter (invented transgenic mice), David Anderson (caltech, isolated neural stem cells) &c &c &c. This is a vanity page.
    • While you may be right, I like to think that a somewhat-noted academic would be able to write a better article than that! Lord Bob 04:02, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to J.J. Daigneault. DS 16:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Jacques Daigneault

The J.J. Daigneault article was moved incorrectly. The current Jean-Jacques Daigneault should be deleted so that the J.J. Daigneault article can be properly moved there.

  • I don't feel that the article needs to be deleted. All that needs to be done is to blank the page and turn it into a redirect to J.J. Daigneault as that is where the page should be. The J.J. Daigneault page should not be moved to Jean-Jacques Daigneault. Why? because J.J. is by far the most common way to refer to that player. A redirect should suffice. Masterhatch 10:23, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:06, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Lindsey

I removed nn-bio tag; if he really is "one of Arkansas's most famous residents", I think that's notable. --Trovatore 05:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Abstain as nominator --Trovatore 05:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A quick websearch confirms one James E Lindsey is a trustee of the University of Arkansas [11]. Average Earthman 08:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Average Earthman. -21:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Average Earthman Justin Bacon 00:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Average Earthman, and yay!, cases like this are why AfD is a wonderful process. Xoloz 16:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Average Earthman. -- DS1953 04:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. -Doc (?) 17:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John (R.) Sullivan

Can't google this guy... seems kinda unverifiable. Kappa 06:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. If I read this article correctly, he is a solicitor in the Irish Supreme Court and not notable. Google does not assist in verifiability. Capitalistroadster 06:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. Eaglizard 10:54, 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Doc (?) 17:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kai, Death of Dreams

NN Machinima production that has been in development for years, with very little to show. DooMDrat 07:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - DooMDrat 07:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Inclined to keep due to the quality of the article, and hope that the opera arrives in time; anyway, if it has been around that long, it might be notable in the correct circles as Duke Nukem Forever is notable in gamers' circles. Grobertson 22:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per User:Grobertson Justin Bacon 03:19, 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 07:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KMXV

  • Delete: It's a poorly-written vanity page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchy (talk • contribs) 2005-09-27 13:56:24 UTC
  • Delete advertisement Dlyons493 Talk 18:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Since when did the criteria for deletion include badly written articles. This is radio station stub. Vegaswikian 05:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup; licensed broadcast stations are considered notable. MCB 06:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per MCB, just voting to make sure consensus is reached. Eaglizard 14:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per MCB. Xoloz 17:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons above. It can be cleaned up and certainly will be eventually. Jtmichcock 23:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep radio station in a reasonable sized metropolitan area. -- DS1953 05:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - plenty of precedent for radio station articles. 23skidoo 23:02, 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 speedy. mikka (t) 16:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lacorte

Unattributed prose that was posted, then blanked.--Irixman 15:32, 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 07:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ldbsnow

A group of friends from Vermont that like to snowboard. Non-notable. --Quasipalm 17:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --Quasipalm 17:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, famaily&friands vanity. Wikipedia is not a personal web site. DES (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Google gets minimal hits and as pointed out it is basicly a social club.--Isotope23 19:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete JoanneB 19:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 18:23, 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. — JIP | Talk 07:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy of huh

Examples of the use of huh. Huh??? nnDlyons493 Talk 19:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Huh? Original research, unsupported, erroneous in time of origin, not encyclopedic. Delete. Barno 20:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Barno. Steve Summit (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Also, would anyone search using this title? Grutness...wha? 01:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Grutness. feydey 11:04, 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. -Doc (?) 17:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish heads of High Schools

Besides the fact that the list is mnot what it says it is in the article title, it is useless: there is no point of classifying heads of high schools or universities by religion. What's next: list of Protestant heads of elementary schools? Graham/pianoman87 talk 08:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

What about the other lists in the same category? Have listed one (List of Jewish engineers) for deletion already, but there are still numerous others, and I'm not sure if I'm experienced enough to list those as well....could be nice to have the opinions of other users as well. bjelleklang 00:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, you've got your first delete vote on the list of engineers. Obviously easy to go off on tangents on this one but I'll post here what I posted there: "Why do we need a list of Jews in a particular, generic occupation? Do I need to explain why I find this creepy?" Ya, it's creepy. Marskell 01:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and it's not exactly what I would expect to find on a site like this. Thanks! bjelleklang 01:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
There's a whole category for lists of jews here, and a preface article here, could someone perhaps more familiar / experienced with wikipedia policy suggest what is to be done with these several dozen pages? Or should they just be left alone? (sorry, I know this is probably the wrong place to post such a request, but I'm not sure where else it'd go) --Qirex 11:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Judging by the heated debate on talk:list of Jews, and an examination of Who is a Jew?, I have chosen to leave the more established lists alone. It seems that they are not just talking about Jews in terms of religion, but in terms of an ethnic group. I don't know where to start a talk page for some *real* discussion on this though. - Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I have posted a general comment at: Category talk:Lists of people by nationality, which you could check. Marskell 12:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Just about the most useless thing I've encountered so far....(in my short wikilife) bjelleklang 09:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Irrelevant article. *drew 11:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom --Qirex 12:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete LOL...just, LOL. Ya'Aseh Shalom
  • Delete Stu 13:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Going back over this article, I find it somewhat more sinister then I did before. One a historical level, of course. What's next a list of banks headed by Jews - I hope not. But there is this nagging political agenda issue that is really bugging me as well. Stu 22:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No good can come of this.  BD2412 talk 13:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Even the school ilusionests probaly agree this is going to far --JAranda | yeah 20:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Awful schoolcruft. Um, ya, let's start making lists of Jews in particular occupations. Marskell 20:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 03:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft. MCB 06:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, pointless listcruft. Punkmorten 18:13, 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. — JIP | Talk 07:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Singapore Television Channels.

Misinformed creation and inferior dublication of List of Singaporean television channels.--Huaiwei 18:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreeant_ie 19:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Forks are bad for the project. -- Natalinasmpf 20:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect. — Instantnood 20:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I dont think we need a redirect when the article title includes even a full stop.--Huaiwei 21:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The edit history of duplicated articles is usually kept. — Instantnood 21:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Asking for articles to remain just because of their edit histories is kind of revolutionary as far as I know.--Huaiwei 21:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • From what I read from its edit history [12], this article has twice been moved. Why don't we move it back to Singapore television channels, and keep as a redirect? Quite a few pages are pointing at it. — Instantnood 21:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • If you may apply abit of common sense here, the two page moves were of little historical value to wikipedia, and mind telling us what is the use of having List of Singapore Television Channels. staying when List of Singapore Television Channels does not? Are we expecting lots of people to type "List of Singapore Television Channels." (with the dot) when searching for this article? The only so called "links" to this article is from another re-direct page, Singapore television channels, the later of which is only linked to talk pages, templates, and so forth. What do wikipedia stand to loose? Anyway, I am going to correct the re-direct links.--Huaiwei 22:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • What I am suggesting is to move it back to Singapore television channels, keep the edit history under that title, and make it a redirect to the list of Singaporean television channels. The redirect then left at list of Singapore Television Channels. can be deleted. — Instantnood 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Er....I dont know what is the need to do such a complicated set of movements, but as long as useless articles and redirects like this one are removed, I have no comments.--Huaiwei 00:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Alright. Nothing is to be kept under this title. What has to be kept is the edit history of the duplicated article. — Instantnood 00:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, although if someone wants to work out all the redirects and edit histories, more power to them. :) Justin Bacon 01:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no problem with it. --Vsion 04:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just noticed that tralling "." so no need for redirect. Vegaswikian 05:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not seeing the issue with the edit history. MCB 05:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Improper title and duplicate. *drew 18:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per reasons above. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Slavs

del. An utterly ridiculous list. Three people at talk page suggested to delete it. mikka (t) 16:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • KeepNeeds some work though-71.28.243.246 16:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I see no reason to exclude Slavs. Gazpacho 16:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Slavs aren't excluded, they're included in other lists (see below). Carbonite | Talk 17:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. There's already lists for individual countries (List of Belarusians,List of Bulgarians, List of Croatians, List of Czechs, List of Macedonians, List of Poles, List of Russians, List of Serbs, List of Sorbs, List of Slovaks, List of Slovenians, List of Ukrainians) so why is this combination list needed? Carbonite | Talk 16:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. I feel that the List of Russians, etc is also a candidate for deletion. We have categories for this purpose. --Ghirlandajo 17:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Kpjas 18:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Come on people, this is what categories are for. This is an absolutely textbook situation for a category. Lord Bob 19:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is why categories were created. Denni☯ 00:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Slavs are a significant enough category of European people to warrant a list apart from the constituent nationalities. Capitalistroadster 01:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Why not use a category instead? Surely anyone notable enough to make that list would or should have an article. Carbonite | Talk 01:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Slavs have always been seen as a much more coherent group of nationalities than any other linguistic group in Europe. Some cleanup may be needed. VMORO 01:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete categorize please Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft. Good category candidate. MCB 06:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete by User:Carbonite. Martg76 09:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete categorize. feydey 11:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and merge into more specific lists and/or categories. -Sean Curtin 03:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ghirlandajo and others. --IJzeren Jan 09:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. The list is (a) unmaintainable, since all attention of people is turned to country lists, (b) nonsensical since the only relation between the people there is common language in ancient past. Equivalent would be to create "List of people speaking a Germanic language" and get mishmash of names just like here. The list is not "List of Pan-Slavists" which would make some sense but is example of useless trash Wikipedia contains more and more. Pavel Vozenilek 17:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete too many of them.  Grue  18:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. It is listomania at its worst. KNewman 19:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and list by individual Slavonic ethnicities. --MacRusgail 22:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A much more granular approach in categories is what is called for here. Jkelly 01:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, wikipedia users should be able to find examples of famous Slavs, and what they are famous for, and when they lived. Categories cannot do that. Kappa 13:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Utterly pointless list. There are many lists that are pointless but this one may be their master. Why isn't there a list of Germanic people or list of Romantic people ??? Because it's pointless.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liucor

This is just some uninformative advertising created by User:195.237.27.2, who also vandalised some other pages. Wempain 17:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Liucor is a very effective ... company with <5 Google hits oh no, it's not. Dlyons493 Talk 18:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Vsion 04:47, 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. -Doc (?) 17:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Live Covers, Ace of Base

According to the article, Ace of Base have only ever sung one live cover version, so the article can't be expanded into a list. One song sung once at one performance with no other assertion of notability does not warrant its own article. Delete (I'm not convinced this is even worth merging or redirecting to the main Ace of Base article.) CLW 08:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete -- (and add a notice about it on Ace of Base) Somewhat interesting that "Vårvindar friska" ([13]) has been sung by Ace of Base live. // Fred-Chess 11:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and move info across, as per Fred's suggestion --Qirex 12:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and merge, per above Justin Bacon 01:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, with a merge only if there's anything verifiable to say. Jkelly 01:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, this info in 100% true, they sang this Swedish cover in the Viña del Mar Festival on 1996 (THE BRIDGE album promotion) Just merge this info in the main page (Ace of Base) CrushNush 16:21, 11 October 2005 (GMT-3)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – Rich Farmbrough 21:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Love Rug

Unverifiable. 203.120.68.68 09:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment I have no idea if this is true or not, but I can not find anything that verifies that such a thing exists as in the article. I have however found articles detailing "LOVE" rugs that spell out LOVE in four-square 1960s sytle and one from Wired Magazine detailing a 2003 e-mail mob action. Stu 13:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete, pending factuality. "Love Rug" "Hung Dynasty" gives no Googles, while shoving beaver into the mix gets synonyms for vagina. Fascinating stuff. Of course if someone else arrives and delivers some facts about this I'm all for keeping it, or at least merging it into shag rug or similar. GarrettTalk 15:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete of course. Shag, Beaver, Hung Dynasty, Bushmen etc -- clearly an attempt at humour. Flapdragon 18:14, 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 No consensus Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Low-power

This article is not profound and adds little value. It merely takes the term power and describes what not much of it means. Bobblewik 18:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


I'm the original author of low-power, so I'm not exactly unbiased, so I don't expect you to count my vote to keep. I personally think it is a very interesting and counter-intuitive idea that "whispering" may be better at communicating than "shouting". (I wish I could remember that nice "whispering vs. shouting" article I read about it, comparing low-power spread spectrum meshes over high-power tall broadcast towers ... Ah, I think it's the one mentioned by [14]. Similar ideas are expressed elsewhere [15][16] [17] [18] [19] ). I hoped that people would expand the low-power article to talk more about that idea. (The name "Low-power communication device" *sounds* like it might be more appropriate for that sort of talk, but the content seems to be about a legal term that only applies to one specific frequency band, not about low-power communication in general). You may be right -- it might work better as a disambiguation page between the two very different meanings of that phrase. --DavidCary 19:48, 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. Woohookitty 11:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lucero (band)

Band with no assertion of notability. -- SCZenz 02:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --Dvyost 02:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 02:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Allmusic knows their name but has no bio. Delete unless shown to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Friday (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, their allmusic page shows that they have 3 albums on 2 smallish indie labels, which doesn't quite get them in under WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 16:40, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied, vandalism. --fvw* 04:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mathiassaurus

prank (nominated by Subramanian)

  • Delete. Nonsense. Should be a speedy. TheMadBaron 02:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy as per CSD G3:Pure vandalism; this is an unambiguous prank. --Dvyost 02:51, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. -Doc (?) 10:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matt_Fleming

Useless garbage. Irixman 20:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Looks like it's been deleted already.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 speedily deleted by me, as lacking sufficient context. The article creator is a sockpuppet of USer:Maoririder, currently subject to an arbcom hearing over such nano-stubs. --Scimitar parley 21:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mayo North

It is a stub about a family heretage centre, supposedly in Ireland (I reckon it's advertising). It's... Thelb4! 17:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is the link http://www.mayo-ireland.ie/General/NrthMayo.htm --Sandove89 17:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or [20] It exists but isn't notable in my opinion. The article is a sub-stub. Dlyons493 Talk 17:18, 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 07:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mercedes Benz F1 Engine Unreliability

Delete if concensus reached that page serves little purpose other than to denigrate its subject User:D-bot forgot to sign

  • Delete -- Egil 18:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Bobblewik 19:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - as non-encyclopedic "article".--Isotope23 19:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic topic. If M-B's F1 engines were failing at a rate much higher than competitors' engines, and if that were a point of widespread discussion, then maybe this topic would be worthy of being merged into an article such as "2005 Season in Formula 1 Racing". In fact, though, there's no notable content here. Barno 20:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Uh... they are failing at a higher rate than their competitors, and the relative technical unreliability of the Maclarens is already mentioned in the 2005 Formula One season article. Which is all that is needed. Delete.Average Earthman 13:12, 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 Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7 (non-notable biography). DES (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Willbanks

Advertisement, non-notable Avalon 03:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity/commercial advertisement Avalon 03:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability (the web design business he "founded" has nothing in it's portfolio, and as such does not count). Not to mention vanity and advertising as per nominator.--inksT 04:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per Inks. Dottore So 10:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy vanity. I would have done it myself if not for the AFD. Guess I'm not bold enough. Jdavidb (talk) 16:48, 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 KEEP. -Doc (?) 10:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monty Sarhan

Fairly blatant vanity page, most of the content is from a press release from the company that he works for and the only reason I did not speedy this as a vanity is due to the fact that it had an edit history and therefore should at least be put through AFD. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. Press release can be found at [21]. Zach (Sound Off) 22:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but only if verifiable. Additionally, this has a good claim to notability, and was not a CSD, even if it had no history. --Phroziac(talk) 15:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if verifiable. Jdavidb (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - By the way, this isn't vanity. --Phroziac(talk) 14:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. Gamaliel 05:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morkania

Page is useless garbage. No facts whatsoever. Irixman 04:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, an awful lot of work for a hoax. -- Kjkolb 05:28, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 07:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I am placing a request to remove the deletion process as my account was hacked into and I have no intention to nominate MuggleNet for deletion. This deletion process is not the fault of the original account holder. Rajdumbledore 07:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Request denied - afd discussions are not to be deleted. --Doc (?) 08:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
However, while we do not delete the discussion record, we do have the option of Unlisting the page, or in my interpretation, closing the debate as "speedy keep", as seems to be the consensus. However, I already voted on the page so I can't take that action. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 15:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mugglenet

I am correcting a malformatted afd. I vote speedy keep as a bad faith renomination of a page that has passed an afd process already. Usrnme h8er 09:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Previously this article was also nominated for removal, which was saved by the MuggleNet fans themselves by voting in favour of keeping the article. Apparantly MuggleNet had posted this link to vote in their favour on CoS forum [MuggleNet's official Forum]. This was a serious bias decision as majority of voters were MuggleNet fans redirected from the Forums and they had no idea what they were voting for or What Wiki is really about. The previous Nomination for Deletion page can be found here.

An Excerpt from previous nomination which proves MN's intentions:

  • Keep - As harry potter fandom is one of the biggest in the world and mugglenet is the most popular fansite within it, Mugglenet should be kept but definitely expanded. It has a rich history in the fandom and it's inclusion in this article would greatly expand it <--- See! They want MuggleNet to expand by including it on Wiki. Now tell me, is it ok for sites to make pages of their own to gain hits for their sites? Isn't this Vandalism?
No, it's not. To be vandalism, it has to make a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia". If it's simply promotional, it's wrong. But not vandalism.Eaglizard 14:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Also MuggleNet is really cautious of not letting this article to be deleted. If MuggleNet is notable enough and worthy enough to be included in Wiki, why is MuggleNet trying so hard to save this article from deletion? Why are majority of voters from MuggleNet who vote in favour of keeping MuggleNet on Wiki? It is time that this has to stop! And the time is now. Lets make Wiki the best encyclopedia in the world, not a advertising campaign/dictionary.

And now, speaking of whats left of that big article now is this: Emerson made this site [it was a different layout not the current one] when he was 12. So what? There are loads of people who make sites at the age of 12. How will this information justify its existence in an Encyclopedia? Ask majority of the people in the world, take a survey. Do they know MuggleNet? I agreee they know JK Rowling and Harry Potter, but MuggleNet? What is MuggleNet?

2nd point: He met JK Rowling once. So? Many fans met JK Rowling. Its not like they are having telephone conversations everyday. And even if he knows JK Rowling like a friend, so what? If you say include this article because he know JK Rowling then I suggest you also put up articles on JK Rowlings husband, her family, her friends, her children. Is this justified. Surely not. --Raj Dumbledore 05:10, 05 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: Mugglenet seems to be antibritish, well anti-everything-non-american actually. - Richard Myers, richardmyers@hotmailco.uk
  • Keep It was AfD before and survived. I notice too that Rajdumbledore has made multiple (all this morning), and what looks as if they could be questionable, edits to MuggleNet all of which are listed as minor. It's hard to understand how a AfD notice, his last edit, can be minor. Also I notice that on User talk:Rajdumbledore he has created his own Harry Potter sites and that makes it appear as if he has some other motive than a legitimate AfD. In one point he is correct I had not heard of MuggleNet, nor his own sites, however just because I have not heard of a site does not qualify it for obscurity. CambridgeBayWeather 12:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC) --- Your reply has made me again enforce one point. Someone had HACKED in my Wiki account. I had no control over it. I just got back the access yesterday. 2nd thing. I have nothing against MuggleNet. I think its good site too. But its inclusion in Wiki is not called for in my opinion. Lets not make this personal war. I am not Anti-Mugglenet activist for God's sake.
  • Abstain, but consider this. Deletions must be based on the here-and-now, not the past. What is MuggleNet's status right at this moment, never mind the past AFDs? Is it, in fact, an inherently notable site on its own merits (number of users, importance to the fandom, etc). I'd go as far as to suggest that those who voted for and against in the previous AFD abstain from vothing this time, since this sort of thing is biased. Actually, I'm going to go Delete on this out of non-notability. --Agamemnon2 10:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I must disagree as to deleting an article just because it's no longer notable. A better requirement (my POV) is that as long as it was notable at any time it should be here. CambridgeBayWeather 04:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep: this is really unclear, and the lengthy spiel above is badly formatted and almost illegible, but it would appear that this is a bad faith nomination by the creator of one or more rival Harry Potter fan-sites: the fact that the nominator has made so many confusing edits to the article, all marked as "minor" but removing apparently-siginificant information, does not help matters. The previous nomination resulted in a resounding keep despite being formatted almost to death.
    Mugglenet is one of the very few Harry Potter websites granted an award by J. K. Rowling herself, and as such is highly notable. The author was one of two people granted an exclusive joint interview with Rowling at the time that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince was released: this would not have happened had the website not been so prominent in Harry Potter fandom. —Phil | Talk 11:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a remarkably notable site. I've never read any of the books, but even I have heard of it. I heard an interview with Rowling once where she said that she used Mugglenet regularly to check her own continuity. If that isn't notibility, I'm not sure what is. Also, in response to this: "Ask majority of the people in the world, take a survey. Do they know MuggleNet?", if that was the standard for deletion, Wikipedia would be very small, not to mention useless. -- Plutor 17:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, I am fed up of these constant votes for deletion, and this is actually the 3rd not the 2nd. Please can the people take a hint that it should NOT be dleeted? It is worthy of the Wiki article because it is an essential part of Harry Potter fandom. (Jamandell (d69) 18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete An essential part of Harry Potter fandom? As decided by who and what? The guidelines for Wikipedia, which tend towards the non-notiable classification, or the people who frequent Mugglenet...who have already established a bias towards keeping it even if nobody but their rather small community considers it worthwhile. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about personal biases, that's why their are guidelines and classifications for what does and does not go here. Now, I'm not saying that my recommendation of Delete is automatically correct, or that all others MUST vote for Delete as well. All I ask is that people look through the guidelines for content and make their own decisions rather than be swayed by situations like the LAST time, where Mugglenet forum members swarmed over here to vote for Keep. Nezu Chiza 20:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep While this forum may not be "essential" to anything, it has enough of a fanbase and outreach to make it noteworthy. If this is up for deletion than we should put Fark and Something Awful up with it. Makenji-san 22:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per CambridgeBayWeather and Jamandell's comments --Presnell 00:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (If Speedy Keep fails.) Esp. if they get the 6 million hits a month they claim. Even if not, it's clearly legit, I checked Rowling's official site, and mugglenet is the 2nd of 4 or 5 fansites listed, and she has this to say: "It's high time I paid homage to the mighty MuggleNet. Where to start? I love the design, (I currently favour the 'Dementor' layout), the polls (I actually voted in the 'Who's the Half-Blood Prince?' one) the pretty-much-exhaustive information on all books and films, the wonderful editorials (more insight there than in several companion volumes I shall not name), 101 Ways to Annoy Lord Voldemort (made me laugh aloud) <snip>". Not that Rowling's praise makes it notable, but it does prove its a well-recognized fansite of an enormously popular series. And no, I'm not a sockpuppet, I've not read a word of those books. <smile> Eaglizard 14:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is the top website for Harry Potter fans throughout the world. As to the fans at the site rallying to save the page upon learning it may be deleted, there's no "bad faith" I can see. Jtmichcock 17:18, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, already survived VfD attempt, notable website. And yes, rather smells of a bad-faith nomination. Hermione1980 17:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable website. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 18:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I know enough people from a diverse social situations who know about Mugglenet. Just the other night Mugglenet came up in a non-Harry Potter related meeting I was at. Oh - and the majority of people in the world don't know about the vast majority of things on Wikipedia. And if you look at the people voting keep on this page, you'll see we aren't just "fans of the site". We're regular wikipedians. Cmouse 02:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
One thought: isn't it the purpose of an encyclopedia to inform you of things that you don't know about? If all the information on Wikipedia was stuff we knew about, then what would be the point? I run across obscure words, references and URLs all the time. Where are we going to find out more information if not here? Jtmichcock 02:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
But I didn't know about Mugglenet until I saw the AfD. An encyclopedia can't guess what everybody knows. It has to include as much as it can. Insofar as it's of some importance. I'm sure that you would not suggest that we delete Weather even though we all know about it. CambridgeBayWeather 04:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Assuming that the info currently in the article is true, then Mugglenet has several reasonable claims to notability, and judging by the discussion here I'm inclined to accept the veracity of the claims without bothering to research them. Caerwine 04:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Jtmichcock. It's... Thelb4! 06:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Absolutely a notable and compehensive website that should be mentioned. --Egil530 14:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 determined by Geogre (talk · contribs). Jdavidb (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nairb Oicruc

A Jedi warrior whose name doesn't seem to show up anywhere except wikimirrors, and which is "Brian" spelled backwards, makes me suspicious of a hoax. DS 00:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete junk --Rogerd 01:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete short/no context. Gazpacho 02:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete possible hoax Olorin28 02:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or speedy. I am not a super star wars geek, but this looks like a prank on one hand, but lucas is just weird enough to use a name that is brian spelled backwards. Either way, it is not a notable character, and if it isn't a hoax then it can still be deleted as not-notable. -- Malo 02:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - Nothing, really. Sunray 02:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I found the name on non-wiki sites, but there was no information beyond the fact that he is part of the New Jedi Order. If real, it can be recreated when more information is available. -- Kjkolb 02:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - see user's other contributions, Tesar Sebatyne, Tekli, Kirana Ti, Alema Rar, Daeshara'cor (redirects to Star Wars, vandalism to Dune Sea. TheMadBaron 02:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • While the other characters mentioned are part of the New Jedi Order character set, and have the potential for expansion, Nairb Oicruc does not exist in the series, or even if he does, he's not notable enough for even my crazy, NJO-obsessed mate to remember. Delete Saberwyn 03:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete far more important characters don't even have their own article. There are articles with short descriptions of Star Wars characters; this should go in one of those. (And on the Star Wars Wikicity, of course.) Jdavidb (talk) 16:52, 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. Carbonite | Talk 19:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan brain

obvious hoax, possible attack page --Trovatore 04:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete obvious hoax, probable attack page Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletefound no reference to this person on internet. joke or vanity-Dakota 04:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, perhaps speedy on the basis of "People's Republic of Elbonia". Gazpacho 07:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per WP:PN. Hall Monitor 17:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Normal delete; While silly, it sadly doesn't meet WP:PN. Eaglizard 09:53, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirect. -- RHaworth 18:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] National Oceanography Centre

Topic already covered at National Oceanography Centre, Southampton --Daniel Lawrence 15:46, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. -Doc (?) 10:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Natural skin care

Not particularly encyclopedic. Maybe merge with skin? jengod 22:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks like an odd article, but still with useful info and can be expanded so keep. feydey 22:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the unsalvageable rant. Particularly grating is use of the word "natural" without proper definition and the failure to give any background into peoples' motivation why people might use "natural" products. Pilatus 23:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per User:Feydey Justin Bacon 01:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Pilatus. -- Kjkolb 04:16, 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 Delete Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neewah

Neologism dicdef. Thue | talk 19:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Bobblewik 19:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-encyclopedic JoJan 19:22, 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 07:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nevermas

Non-notable band, very few Google results. WindFish 09:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, band is not (yet) notable (it may one day become so). If not, it should be tagged as needing a clean-up as it is unpresentable. Cdyson37 | (Talk) 09:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable at this time. Thue | talk 09:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, "will debut", no albums, no tours, no label, fails WP:MUSIC. Mallocks 16:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. --Isotope23 20:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE!!!! THIS PAGE IS SUITABLE FOR WIKIPEDIA BECAUSE OTHER MEMBERS HAVE PUT UP NONSENSE ABOUT THEIR LIVES AND WHAT THEY DO... AND I QUOTE "Why I'm Here I joined Wikipedia to inject a healthy dose of skepticism and critical thinking where it is needed. I also spend time cleaning up vandalism, jumping into the AfD fray, making grammar/spelling corrections, and rewriting article to conform to Standards or to achieve NPOV." THIS WAS FOUND ON "Isotope23" USER LOOKUP. USER:SIMON_771 15:10, 13 October (UTC)

    • Yeah... I'm always spamming useless crap about myself on my own user page. I should be banned.--Isotope23 16:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 07:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nikolai radishev

  • The guy appear to be not notable, zero google hits, there is no University with the name Moscoe Academy of Science, there he is allegely a professor abakharev 12:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No Yahoo hits, either. While I understand that simply returning zero hits in a search engine should not be the only measure for deleting an article, there doesn't appear to be any more substance to the claims in the article itself that can be crossed referenced. Stu 13:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. KNewman 16:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • del nonverifiable. mikka (t) 17:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per referrer. --Ghirlandajo 17:42, 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 keep. Woohookitty 11:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Niles North High School

NN, D. ComCat 01:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete public school. Gazpacho 02:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please just because it is about a public school does not mean we should erase it that does not even make sense Yuckfoo 02:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Utterly un-notable. Sunray 02:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep schools are notable, stop putting them up for deletion. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, this school is notable, as are bridges, stations, battleships, and pokemon. Silensor 03:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article has been up for two weeks, give it a chance. At any rate, the school is notable. The some of the interior scenes in the movie Sixteen Candles were filmed there. (Maybe I'll just go add that fact to the article.) Crypticfirefly 03:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Sixteen candles certainly makes this school notable. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Not really - its useless trivia which should be put in the movie's article if it is really worth keeping :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I respectfully disagree with Ryan Norton. John Hughes surely knew this school when he was growing up and has used a number of schools in the area as locations for his films. The fact that he chose Niles North as a filming location shows that its atmosphere fits into a certain idealized type of midwestern "upper middle class" high school. Crypticfirefly 05:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • You see - it was in the movie precisely because it was not notable - because it was just like every other midwestern "upper middle class" school out there. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, of course :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
          • No, I don't see, and I still think you are wrong. Information that a film was made at a location also belongs in the article for that location can make that location notable. The school was in the movie due to having a certain look -- being a quinessential example of such a school-- and being in a certain location. I doubt that Hughes sent out a team to look for this location, given where the school is he almost certainly was familiar with it from his personal life. Furthermore, assuming the information were added to the Sixteen Candles page, wouldn't it be more elegant to mention the school and then link to an article with more information about it (location, info on architecture, etc.) than it would to put all of that in the Sixteen Candles article? That is what hyperlinks are for, after all. Especially since the article currently has no information about where any of the scenes were filmed. Crypticfirefly 12:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
          • The demands for "notablity" of schools (not a valid criteria for deletion of schools in the first place) by deletionists are getting increasingly baffling and incomprehensible. This school was used in a major motion picture, front page of the Chicago Tribune and already has some listed notable alumni. The fact that this school has these clearly notable events in it's history just goes to demonstrate how pointless it is to argue "notability" with deletionists in the first place. This institution is inherently notable anyway - waiting for deletionists to subjectively call out the particular instances of notable events and then argue about them is just a waste of time; after all, we have so much to do voting to keep on other school articles!
    • May I perhaps add my two cents about this matter? Although it is certainly trivial knowledge, adding that information just to the sixteen candles articles is a disservice. Consider the following situation. I'm researching, say, facts about schools in this school system. I may not have the wherewithal to search and look at all the hits, I may just look for articles on each of the schools. In this case, having the article serves a purpose. Sure, its not much of a purpose, but in the case of things like schools (who are not here trying to get hits or sales), as far as I'm concerned, any reason is a reason to keep. What's the harm? To trot out the old standby, we're not killing trees. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Still a School Stub --JAranda | yeah 04:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing here differentiates it from the other schools - thus it is non-notable Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Use in film meets one of my criteria for a school to be notable.  BD2412 talk 05:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep.  ALKIVAR™ 05:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Nominating schools is a waste of everyone's time. CalJW 06:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as usual, and for the benefit of viewers of Sixteen Candles who might like to know more about it. Please consider attempting to reach consensus instead of voting to delete schools. Kappa 06:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I strongly agree with Kappa's "please reach a consensus" point. Debating schools, at length, almost daily, here at AfD is a sad waste of intellectual energy.
  • This is not consensus - in fact its obvious there is no consensus. Until both sides agree to do something with these terrible "articles" this debate will continue every day here. I already suggested making school district articles and moving it there instead, but the keep all schools side does not agree, so instead we have this - every day. At least on the keep side things have degenerated to cut n' pasted arguments - give me something about the particular article that makes it noteworthy, not a keep all schools argument please. Oh, and comments like "Nominating schools is a waste of everyone's time" is just going to make things worse. Something needs to be done here, and just deleting everything or keeping everything is not the answer. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 13:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What is obvious is that 85%-90% of school articles nominated to VfD/AfD this year are not deleted. 85% not deleted over the course of a year sure sounds like a concensus to me. It may not be a concensus to keep or a concensus to delete, but it is a concensus about something. As though the arguments to delete from the deletionist side aren't every bit as tired, facile and formulaic as you are suggesting the keep arguments are. Case in point, this very article is nominated with the oh-so-impressive and intellectually rigourous comment: "NN, D." by none other than a deletionist usual suspect.--Nicodemus75 18:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for being a high school. Sixteen Candles is a nice plus. I find it interesting how an article for a school teaching 2,300 is being seriously looked at for deletion but, at the same time, an album which had a total of only 33 copies on tape and is just a track listing, is getting a near-universal keep vote. When somebody tries to make an article for a single class of 33 students, I'll AFD that, but a 2,300 student ongoing school stays in my book. --rob 06:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep non-notability not established --Isolani 06:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Skokie, Illinois. See Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nn school argument. Agree with Ryan Norton's point per the only possible claim to notability. School should be mentioned in the 16 candles article. Dottore So 10:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Enough WPians (and I am not one of them) are convinced schools are inherently notable, and they have reasonable arguments supporting their position. Let them have their articles. Xoloz 12:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep No more school nominations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain - would have been delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete, but someone did try to put some decent information in, and I'm hoping that with Gyu-whatsit from yesterday it'll start a trend. But being the location for a movie isn't that notable. --Last Malthusian 14:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because movie inclusion confers notability... even though most of the other keep votes are based on lousy reasoning.--Isotope23 15:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep High Schools. — RJH 20:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Marskell 20:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Public School doesn't equate to irrelevant Makenji-san 22:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete That a student held this school in high enough esteem that s/he was ready to auction it off indicates to me some relative value of this school. Emminently non-notable, even as a pile of bricks and mortar. No more non-notable school articles. Denni☯ 00:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Vsion 04:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Schools that are much more non-notable than this one were kept before, so it is foolish to not be consistent with votes now.Amren (talk) 13:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not consistent. Denni☯ 22:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
      • That doesn't mean it shouldn't try to be. Kappa 23:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Be careful what you wish for. There was a time high school articles did not have carte blanche entry to Wikipedia, and the suggestion that elementary schools should have articles was laughable. If Wikipedia were consistent, this would not have changed. Denni☯ 00:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons already expressed by others. --Loopy 00:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Emminently notable, even as a pile of bricks and mortar.--Nicodemus75 18:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per precedent regarding schools. Dystopos 04:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep high schools. -- DS1953 04:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable Dudtz 10/12/05 8:34 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 KEEP. -Doc (?) 17:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nokomis Regional High School

Read this before issuing the usual carte blanche opinion about schools please. Anyway, this is a one-liner about a school that should not be here - its not notable and clearly no different from any other school out there. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete or Merge. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for regurgitating Denni's previously regurgitated, sorry, tired, deletionist arguments that clearly no one (except your own choir) cares about anyway. --Nicodemus75 18:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Come, come, be civil. I could replace User:Denni with User:Kappa, and "deletionist" with "inclusionist", and the argument wouldn't look at all out of place. :) --inksT 00:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • No problem, inks. Nicodemus hasn't been civil since s/he arrived - why should things be different now? Denni☯ 00:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Pot. Kettle. Black.--Nicodemus75 05:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
          • And what would you propose to change this circumstance? I am a fine and decent human being when people don't deliberately set out to push my buttons. I also respond well to civilized invitations to discussion (which is more than 'Schools are inherently notable. The end,') but less well to browbeating and frothing at the mouth. I'll make you a deal - I'll put down my gun if you put down yours. Denni☯ 00:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
            • This is a good start.
              Things get past a good start and start actually getting better on AFD when everyone is a fine and decent person even when they feel that people are deliberately setting out to push their buttons. Someone needs to set their gun down first. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
            • No Guns in Schools, please. --Vsion 01:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually I agree with Denni. You, Kappa and a couple others have been rather anti-discussion on these. There are some, such as Xoloz, who are willing to discuss it in a civil manner, but going around accusing people of bad faith, WP:POINT, and factionalizing them is rather disappointing to AfD as a whole. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
        • anti discussion is my experience too. i happened to vote delete on a few one liners and low and behold you are labelled a deletionist. Even if you try and be constructive their ear plugs are firmly stuck in place. This is less about putting down guns and more about being communicative. David D. (Talk) 04:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I would say merge, except there's nothing here. Mention the town in the Newport (town), Maine article. And for crying out loud, please don't say 'expand' unless you're actually going to do it decently and substantially, otherwise we're better off having any info in the town article. Average Earthman 08:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Why do you suggest merging or deleting schools, but you skip right past the AFD for an album which only sold 32 copies. But it's getting all-keep in it's AFD. Why not suggest merging the album into the band article? There are lots of things less signficant than schools, that are kept on wikipedia, without a fight. I know that "non-notability" isn't the real reason for most delete votes on schools, since many less notable things are safe from deletion. --rob 08:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Because I felt like it. You are not required to vote on every single AfD article, and neither am I. And why are you going on about delete votes, I didn't vote delete, I voted merge. Average Earthman 13:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
      • We are voting here based on the encyclopedic nature of this article and its non-notability. As for the album, supposively its by a band thats notable. However, the argument is simply not valid because nothing is inheritly notable - that's why we're here. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • It's relevent because the band (community) is notable enough to warrant an article. Those with a deep interest in the band (community) wish to delve into the subject by reading about individual albums (schools). They feel that the album (school) is an inherent component of the band (community). Information on every album (school) would clogg up the larger article about the band (community). Plus not all those reading about the band (community) care about every album (school). But the dozens (hundreds or thousands) of people who bought the album (graduated the school) would have great interest in the album (school). Therefore the notability of the band (community) means that every album (school) should also be kept. --rob 10:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
          • That's kind of a fractured analogy. If every album ever published got an article, it might be apt, but they don't. The inclusionists want every school to have an article though, no matter how insignificant and ordinary. As it stands now, some album articles get kept, others get deleted. You can't say that about school articles. Denni☯ 04:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - expand. --rob 08:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • OK, just a question - why do you think this particular school is notable? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete more nn schoolcruft. Dottore So 11:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Enough WPians (and I am not one of them) are convinced schools are inherently notable, and they have reasonable arguments supporting their position. Let them have their articles. Xoloz 12:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your cut n' pasted wisdom :) - mind telling me whats so good about this one? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 13:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I can cut-and-paste the same argument (I won't insult anybody by calling "wisdom") that I used to reply to your last nearly-rhetorical, semi-sarcastic inquiry. These things get nominated wholesale, I comment wholesale, although I am thinking of putting my rationale on my user page someday. However, I do have a day job. :) Xoloz 13:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Ask and ye shall receive... below I quote from our other exchange:

**And those reasonable arguments would be? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

      • See #Keep, but briefly, as I understand the arguments, schools are public institutions essential to communities and masses of individuals in their formative years. They are generally fixed in location, and often have long histories. They are likely each to attract substantial communities of interest to WP. I don't firmly agree with these points, but I see some value. My high school, for example, was founded in 1970, with an average class size of 1,000 people. It serves a city of 70,000, each citizen likely to know it. It is known across the entire US state, and well-known by adjacent towns, such that I estimate at least 350,000 people know of it and have reason to search for it. In my state, my school is (or was) average (ie. I looked up class size and campus size when enrolled there, and it was in the middle.) 350,000 potential searchers is good enough, arguably. Xoloz 10:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I do firmly believe, however, that these arguments absolutely distinguish schools from boxes, gyms, bars, factories, and all the other general categories to which the are compared by some here. Generally, most students have at least some interest in their school (if only because they are stuck there in young life when they would rather be outside), and I know most parents have an interest in their children's school. The aggregate community attachment to these places, in my experience, far exceeds community concern for other "buildings," as schools are called here in dimunition by some. Xoloz 10:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Xoloz 13:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

        • It was sarcastic a bit but it was certainly not an insult (far from it). The whole point of it is a criticism of your and other arguments that are arguments about the type of article it is rather then the article itself. I apoligize if you were offended though :). Again, the above arguments are about the type of article it is, rather then the article itself, which I do not believe is a valid argument for keeping a specific article :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 13:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
It's true that this is an argument by type. However, for school-supporters, schools are like real towns (which have become notable ipso facto based on an argument by type.) I know that this is controversial, and I don't even know whether or not I agree with it. However, it is, in my view, a reasonable argument to make, and I am slightly frustrated with school-opponents, who I do feel sometimes unduly belittle these arguments from others.
The reason I will always vote keep for any real high school is that I recognize at least ~30% of our committed editors enjoy these articles, and embrace a reasonable position to explain their notability. In such a circumstance, with WP operating as a consensus forum, I believe any attempt to delete real high schools is less than useful. It doesn't mean anyone is wrong to so nominate; it doesn't mean their arguments are wrong either. But, in a consensus forum, when a static position of "Let's-agree-to-disagree" is reached, the default is (and should be) to keep. I believe we have reached such a stasis, and I will continue to vote, by type, a default keep on real high schools as a method of conveying my belief in this stasis and the relatively low utility of further dispute. Xoloz 13:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that those arguments could be applied to any local fast-food place for example - and those kind of articles get purged here easily. Having seperate school articles is a lot like having a seperate article for each mcdonalds outlet - sure a lot of people have worked there - maybe even shaped their lives, so to speak - they have served thousands of people, I'm sure. It sure isn't encyclopedic though, much like most of these school articles. As I've said before there are hundreds of these substubs - all the same, just citing the year and principal of the school - nothing worthwhile about most of them. No parent is going to go here for school information because it will at the very least always be outdated and inaccurate, especially now due to the proliferation of these substubs. More morbidly, if you were to make an article about a teacher at one of these schools it would get speedied quite quickly. Deleting a school is good because it encourages someone to write a better article - as if someone was really to rewrite this they would not use any of the current content most likely. Finally, I can almost garuntee you no one "enjoys" articles like this because there is no real information here - plus its just a line... a line :). Giving an opinion of a carte blanche keep based on type of these kind of articles is doing much more harm than good because its discouraging useful debate (heated as it may be), giving people the OK sign to write substubs of just about anything with no real information, and in general encourages article creation without any real encyclopedic content. Of course, I could be wrong on all this :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 14:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
If one could get ~30%+ of committed WPians (after extended debate like we've had on schools for a long time) to agree in general that every McD's is notable, or that Xoloz' nosehair is notable, it would be worthy of inclusion here under my argument (notwithstanding even my own assessment of my nosehair as useless). WPians decide what belongs in WP, and the system exists with a (admirable, IMO) bias that anything with substantial support stays. That is a consequence of the non-majoritarian nature of the process. It is also a geneal guideline not to delete, but to expand when an article on a noteworthy topic is poorly written. I see no reason this guideline is inapplicable to schools, although they be numerous. And lastly, it is, in my view, unknown whether a poor stub or a blank page is more like to motivate a visitor to write a quality article. Some less experienced WPians simply have a "page-creation phobia," but are not afraid to cleanup and expand; I know I was once one of these newbies. :) Xoloz 15:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but is it verifiable? We would need proof of this alleged nose hair, and we cannot allow you to take a photo of it yourself as that is original research! :) GarrettTalk 15:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but if you go over and take a picture of said alleged nosehair, then it's fine! *headdesk* (and Delete). nae'blis (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand not delete. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Expand it then. You have the link to the website. If you feel this can be expanded usefully, then please do so rather than just saying it would be nice if it was. If you add useful info and it is still merged - well, the useful info will be merged with it. Average Earthman 13:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
      • You expand it. I think it's fine as is. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Newport, Maine, in the current substubby state of the article, this amounts to giving it a mention and making a redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. If a section about the school begins to overpower the new parent page, why we'll let it split out again. Until then a click through to a single line article is a waste of all our visitors' time. But really, gosh, not this crap again. I've been partly staying away from Vfds Afds because of this annoying bickering. Please discuss THIS ARTICLE, not schools' worthiness!!! I have no time to move it myself, but please shift all this crap to this lonely-looking redlink where you can yell at each other until the sun turns into a hunk of coal. Thank you, and goodnight! GarrettTalk 15:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Hey there, nobody yelled, and it was a pleasant enough debate, albeit on an old topic. AfD's are a place for discussion after all, not just vote tallying. And, thanks to the beauty of wikis, today's one line is tomorrow's FAC. :) Xoloz 18:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete public schools. Gazpacho 16:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as this is an inherently notable public high school. Additional rational for why this article can and should be included is provided at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 18:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete there is no indication that this particular school is in fact notable. DES (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete not notable.Dudtz 10/7/05 2:58 PM EST

  • keep please this school is notable too but it is strange how an album selling 33 copies is and people think this is not but really both are Yuckfoo 19:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge Another High School Stub --JAranda | yeah 20:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because it's an okay stub, but with a Comment: if you think that a certain utterly unrelated record album is NN, why not start an AfD for it directly, rather than confusing the issue here? Steve Summit (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notable? For what, existing? Oh, wait, schools are inherently notable, just like I am inherently unique.--inksT 21:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Any school has the potential to become notable, for one reason or another. The school is iconic of the small American town, and even an attempt at a comprehensive list is well worthy of the minimalist amount of space it would take up. Makenji-san 22:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Potential to become notable doesn't qualify, something has to be notable now to warrant an article. The question I have is where is the minimalist space best filled - by a separate article, which requires time to load and repetition of format and information, or within the article on the community which the school serves? Average Earthman 13:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete , but get rid of that article on the album which sold 33 copies first. Denni☯ 00:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This constant bickering over school articles is pointless. There is clearly a bloc of Wikipedia contributors who feel that school articles should not be deleted, and this bloc clearly has the votes to stop deletions from happening. Constantly nominating school articles in the vain hope that apathy will set in and you'll manage to sneak one or two articles past this bloc is simply unproductive. Justin Bacon 01:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Keeping Wikipedia free of non-notable articles is a very productive activity. In contrast, voting keep for every little school stub, just because it's a school, is not productive at all.--inksT 02:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sure that your short statement has convinced the entire Wikipedia community of the virtue of your position. From this day forward, I suspect that no school article shall go undeleted, due to the poignant and insightful argument you have presented. Justin Bacon 03:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
      • No need to get all sarcastic on me simply because you are overwhelmed by the incredible work of breathtaking genious (sp?) that is my two line response to your misguided understanding of why some school articles are nominated for deletion. How about you discuss the issue instead? :) --inksT 03:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep, school articles will be expanded eventually. --Vsion 04:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is not the appropriate page to discuss whats in and whats out. Don't you ppl think the AfDs are getting long enough as it is? Continually nominating schools is just trying to make a point, and really unhelpful. As is continually rehashing rehashed and archived arguments. Especially here in AfD. Please stop. </soapbox> Eaglizard 11:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep High Schools — RJH 16:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article could have been written by bot. No claim of notability, and I don't agree that "It's a high school" is a claim of notability unto itself. I'd vote Keep a million times if it could get rid of the needless acrimony these AFDs engender, though. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this clearly notable high school. 85% not deleted in a year equals concensus. Don't nominate articles that will clearly survive the AfD process just to make your point--Nicodemus75 18:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, the lion's share of those articles are kept due to a lack of consensus on Wikipedia, and doesn't include school articles merged without resorting to AFD. (Indeed, I think it counts "Merge" results as keep, as well.) It's not fair to say that there's a firm consensus on what to do with school articles. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
      • For what it's worth, the lion's share of school articles nominated for AfD on the basis of being "non-notable" are not deleted. I could care less that you think the process is anaemic because it doesn't achieve the result you like. Schools don't get deleted on WP on the basis of their being "non-notable". It might not be policy, but it is a fact.--Nicodemus75 00:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Gamaliel 18:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag for clean-up. School articles are accepted per now-established precedent. Dystopos 04:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • What precedent? This is getting kind of silly :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Per the precedent of every other High School article I've seen put up for deletion. Dystopos 05:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
        • You mean the ones that all go to no consensus closings? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
          • If there is routinely no consensus to delete, then there's a precedent to keep. In any event, almost all High Schools I've seen on AfD (and I'm using my own recollection here) have been overwhelmingly kept, often with several "speedy keep" votes and a plea to stop nominating schools until a policy emerges from Wikipedia:Schools. If you don't concede that a precedent exists, then just keep my vote "per the usual reasons". Dystopos 13:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep high schools. -- DS1953 04:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, please attempt to discuss the issue in a civilized forum instead of making your POINT by nominating for Afd. Kappa 05:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Nomination does not conform with deletion criteria. Keep. --Centauri 08:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete there is nothing in the wikipedia entry for this school to indicate to why it should be kept. there are millions of schools in the world. should wikipedia catalog each one? Bwithh 00:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't see why not, if a neutral, factual and verifiable article can be written. Trollderella 00:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
And there in a nutshell is the problem. While these articles may be neutral, and they may contain verifiable information, they are pretty much lacking in facts. Sadly, most of these articles will probably never contain more than a probably fairly soon out-of-date principal's name, and the school colors. Anyone coming to the article for some actual information about the school is likely to go away sorely dissatisfied. Denni☯ 04:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I would venture to say that this is a problem that can be corrected by contribution more effectively than by deletion. Dystopos 04:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there are no facts to add to this (or many other) school articles. Some generic statistics, possible, but no facts. One cannot contribute what doesn't exist. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep appears to be a school. Trollderella 00:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be Yet Another Schoolbot Article about Yet Another Indistinguishable School. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 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. Carbonite | Talk 19:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Nomoreroominhell

Not notable Half-life mod, maybe a redirect to something or merge? feydey 22:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Justin Bacon 01:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Don't see a need to redirect or merge - there's v. little content. Dlyons493 Talk 05:32, 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 REDIRECT to New Kids on the Blecch . -Doc (?) 17:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Party Posse

This is clearly a vanity page. It is non-encyclopedic information. The "article" is nothing more than info copy-and-pasted from the official website. Either Delete or completely rewrite it in a NPOV fashion. TheEvilBlueberryCouncil 22:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Revert - Page was a redirect to The Simpsons episode "New Kids on the Blecch" which featured a fictional band by this name. Revert article to the redirect. MakeRocketGoNow 23:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Plain Vanity. alebed01 17:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 09:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Close AFD as mistaken afd and revert to redirect... Usrnme h8er 10:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Revert to Simpson's reference redirect. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedily re-redirected per above. Friday (talk) 14:55, 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. Carbonite | Talk 19:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul joseph Ferlita

non-notable, should be user's page (I could probably call him, but this is policy). nae'blis (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - nae'blis (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it's nice he's nice, but nice is not enough unfortunately. Dlyons493 Talk 22:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy, just because he's nice to girls. Denni☯ 01:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete; don't know why this wasn't speedied as CSD:A7; no assertion of notability. MCB 06:00, 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. — JIP | Talk 07:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Lu

  • Seems like a vanity page. Don't see anything real notable --Nv8200p (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • strong delete I've been looking at all the VfDs today and this is one of the clearest cases I've seen of nn vanity resume cruft.---CH (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete resumes. —Cryptic (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 11:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, however, I don't think this is as cut and dry as fellow wikipedians are making out. Consider that wikipedia seems to have a policy that it's okay to have whole articles dedicated to individual, seemingly non-notable high schools (mostly just those in the US though). This man is at least a published and accomplished educator / researcher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qirex (talk • contribs) 12:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete yeah I know it sucks about the school things and hopefully over time people will see the light on those issues, but as is this still is not notable. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow! Not only an "...excellent researcher, he is also considered to be an exceptionally fine teacher"! And at a college no less! Here come the Inclusionazis ! Oh, I mean: Delete, per above. Eaglizard 13:38, 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. khaosworks (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Patty

Hoax or fiction. This was tagged for speedy delte, but IMO does not qualify. (Hoaxes are not a speedy criterion). There does seem to be a Paul Pattywho is a political figure in austrialia, If I have read a quick google scan correctly. But this isn't that person, although it may be satire. There are no google hits on "United Immigrants of Australia", and the only ones which are on "Paul Patty" + "United Immigrants" seem to be the sites liste at the end of this articel, all on fre host providers, and all looking very much like hoaxes or jokes. Delete unless reliable adn verifiabel sources are cited that this is a real person. DES (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax... and not even a funny one.--Isotope23 20:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom., also with credentials like ... NYPD, LAPD, PCYC, YMCA,... this must be a hoax. feydey 11:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • As a member of the wikipedia community I find the above statement unnacceptable as it does not pertain to wikipedia's high standard of spelling and grammar. I would move to recommend that the user that submitted the recommendation for deletion proof-read their work thoroughly in the future to avoid such typographical assaults as "speedy delte" and reliable adn verifiabel sources. Also, the above article's arguments are now thoroughly rebutted with the testimony of Hahib further down this page. Finally in response to Mr Feyday's argument The Right Honourable Lord and Despot Hellenic Patriot 'Bane of the Communist Party' 'Scourge of the Working Class' Dr. Prof. Paul 'The Jackal' Patty PhD, AATP, NRMA, HIH, RER, RATP, TAB, SNCF, AC/DC, KFC, ADHD, ADD, RSPCA, USSR, ASIC, CCCP, ACCC, ATSIC, ACGS, PM, MP, ALP, ONP, AMP, JC, JP, DFAT, MoD, UK, OHP, PC, ICUP, QTC, QUT, NKVD, AIS, NYPD, LAPD, PCYC, YMCA, QPAC, QTIX, UQ, QUT, ACU, ADP, GDP, ADF, QLD, INXS- Leader and Founder of the United Immigrants (It must be noted that these credentials are those stated by Patty, most of them are in fact false.)
-- Walker5990 17:25, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. (He says wearily, having seen enough of articles like this and sock-puppeted AfD debates like this.) -- RHaworth 19:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


The above is a most accurate account of the wonderful, exciting, and highly relelvant life of Dr. Patty. Dr. Patty is known as an inspiration to young teens throughout Australia, his deeds and great accomplishments are the reason for this. To even think that this wonderful account of Dr. Patty's life was to be deleted is proposturous. I for one, believe that this recount should not only be kept, but be immortalised for ever.

Habib the Pizzaman's thoughts

As a young boy growing up in Syria, life was very hard for me. From the age of 3 I regularly worked 17 hour days in my father's sweatshop, and I was one of the luckier ones. In 1947, my father sold his sweatshop to pay for an economy air ticket to Australia, which he gave to me on my birthday. Soon after, I left Syria, and I have never seen my parents since (by the way mum and dad if you are reading this, i say "Hello"). I wandered the streets of Melbourne for a year, although I never did come within 13km of the CBD - you must remember that I had no way of travelling from the airport except on foot.

It was with a flame in my heart that I heard of Paul Patty, the man who would later become the great political figure Dr Patty, and his role in the Brisbane Massacre. I began to believe (as did many others in the ethnic community) that I was actually worth something, and that there was someone who was prepared to stand up and fight for our common cause. So it was with cries of "Wogs, Lebs, Chongs, I-ties, Frogs, and anyone else of ethnic origin, let us unite!" that we marched upon Melbourne's CBD, inspired by the great Paul Patty and the Brisbane Massacre. However, from there nothing further happened for many years.

When the great Patty visited Melbourne with his cousins of the same name, he began to sow the seed amongst the marginalised and oppressed. Whilst not an active member of the United Immigrants party, I supported their views, and had decided to vote for them if a member stood for election in my electorate. I had also agreed to make pizzas for them at any party functions if they so desired.

I served as an NCO in Vietnam under Patty, and this further strengthened my conviction that he would one day be the voice of the oppressed ethnic community. After returning from Vietnam, I lost contact with Patty for some years, during which I established my now flourishing Pizza shop (which in fact gave the creators of SBS's 'Pizza' their idea).

In 1976, after the re-establishment of United Immigrants, I became the fourth most senior member of the Victorian branch of the party (after the three Asians Patty's cousin had met in a cab). Now I am an active member of the ethnic community, with such incentive schemes at my pizza shop as "Habib's Pizza - Ethnic Tuesday, all ethnics can buy one get one free" or "Present your ethnic passport for free garlic bread". That somebody accuses Patty of being a hoax is deeply insulting, because he rescued me from a life wandering the streets of Melbourne. It is a slur - a reflection of the cynicism of society today - that my friend and saviour, The Right Honourable Lord and Despot Hellenic Patriot 'Bane of the Communist Party' 'Scourge of the Working Class' Dr. Prof. Paul 'The Jackal' Patty PhD, AATP, NRMA, HIH, RER, RATP, TAB, SNCF, AC/DC, KFC, ADHD, ADD, RSPCA, USSR, ASIC, CCCP, ACCC, ATSIC, ACGS, PM, MP, ALP, ONP, AMP, JC, JP, DFAT, MoD, UK, OHP, PC, ICUP, QTC, QUT, NKVD, AIS, NYPD, LAPD, PCYC, YMCA, QPAC, QTIX, UQ, QUT, ACU, ADP, GDP, ADF, QLD - Leader and Founder of the United Immigrants, could be questioned as to the validity of his life story, because for the most of it, I was there with him.

Habib

By the way don't forget that Tuesdays are Ethnic Tuesdays, and, if you can prove you have read this document, you may have a free pizza to go with a 2L coke.


I think ignorance is the cause of this movement to delete the honourable Paul Patty's page. I am an Australian and know very well the accomplishments, or lack there of, of Paul Patty, co-founder of the United Immigrants Party. This is an outrage, conjured by unintelligent people who obviously have no knowledge of syntax or correct spelling amongst other things, namely Australian history. Paul Patty is an Australian icon, the Che Guevara of Australian time. [Australian Citizen - K. Henderson]

  • BJAODN opening paragraph. 213.35.135.203 16:46, 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 keep. Hermione1980 23:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peaches Geldof

This reads like a bad gossip column. Very little encyclopedic material. My opinion is this article should be deleted unless it is drastically rewritten. --Nv8200p (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. She's an actual person. More information would be usefull, but any is better than none. user:Palinoia
  • Keep. Worthwhile, I'll fix. -- user:zanimum
  • Keep. I think an article about her would be encylopedic. Deskana 19:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Reads like a hoax--- do any of the people mentioned in the article really exist? Why would this alleged affair be notable?---CH (talk) 09:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Improve rather than delete. (Is that a valid vote?) Ann Heneghan (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, very notable. Does need improving 'tho. Oliver Keenan 18:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Keep. —Cryptic (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and {{cleanup}}. Of the four other people mentioned in the article, if you haven't heard of Bob Geldof and Paula Yates, you really need to get out more… Phil | Talk 10:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, with cleanup and more attention to facts / chronology rather than the parroting of cheap gossip columnists. --Qirex 12:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup per Qirex. The article as written would be a delete if there were no other information available about her, but see this review in the Guardian of a television show she hosted for contrast. --Metropolitan90 03:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep based on her being host of a talk show. Otherwise, are the children of celebrities inherently notable? MCB 06:35, 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. — JIP | Talk 07:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Perrotitano

The anonymous author of this thing —204.60.191.215, a vandal?— cared to publicize it by including a link to it in the Spanish cuisine article under the "typical Spanish foods" list (I've removed the link from that article already, check its history section). Well, I, for one, am a Spaniard and I've never heard of this supposed "culinary specialty" of ours in my life. Google doesn't turn out a single hit either. To crown it all, the content of the article is not only extremely biased, it is straight insulting. Uaxuctum 10:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Uaxuctum 10:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is probably a hoax; there is a total lack of evidence for its existence. Sliggy 22:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete under A6 as attempt to disparage Emeril Lagasse and/or the people of Spain; as a second choice, delete per nominator. --Metropolitan90 03:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 06:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as per Metopolitan90. Clearly a simple disparagement page; "extremely absurd," indeed. Eaglizard 14:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as a hoax. If it's really been "coming up in clubs all over Spain", one would at least expect a few Google hits. --Zetawoof 23:22, 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 Keep (3 to 1) Wikibofh 23:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Torry

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Keep and expand ambassadors. —Cryptic (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. While Torry could certainly deserve a decent article, I can't see a great need, nor can I see anyone much being bothered to write one. May as well delete until someone with a specific interest feels compelled to write an article (unlikely, IMO). --Qirex 12:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- WP:DEL seems to say that if it's a "stub (but with potential)", it's a keep. In fact, some might even suggest you take the time to flesh the article out, rather than the time to AfD it. Not me, but some. :) Eaglizard 13:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep very short but legitimate stub. -- DS1953 04:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. -Doc (?) 17:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Tyler

I believe this is a real person, however I am not convinced that this person meets the guidelines of notability. He doesn't seem to meet any of the requirements of WP:MUSIC. Google returns 54 results, no entry on www.allmusic.com -- Malo 06:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, has released no CDs either as solo or ensemble as near as I can make out. Mallocks 16:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, what a great guy! Too bad he's completely NN. Delete. Eaglizard 10:47, 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. Carbonite | Talk 19:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plantanos Joe

Hoax? No Google hits at all for that spelling; nothing relevant for "Platano(s)/Plátano(s) Joe" (Banana Joe) either; someone who "revolutionized the world of blues" should have left some trace somewhere! Flapdragon 23:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 05:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I could not find any reference on Google either.--Bkwillwm 18:22, 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 delete. Woohookitty 11:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pocket Mumias

The term is so non-notable as to merit not a single Google hit; delete. Dvyost 02:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Not only is it nn, it's patently offensive. Delete. For the reference, see Mumia Abu Jamal.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 02:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn, and not clever enough by half.  BD2412 talk 02:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable, not verifiable anyway ("some underground circles" notwithstanding) --W.marsh 03:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • FREE MUMIAS (to be deleted). Non-notable at best, likely unverifiable, possible hoax. Lord Bob 05:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Mumia himself coined this phrase in an effort to get the youth to continue the movement for his release. He said it live on Larry King in December 2001. --Hubris 10:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm going to let my idea of the plausibility of your story slide for a moment, and say simply this. The CNN transcripts page showing Larry King's programs since January 1, 2000 does not mention any such interview. I don't have time to look through the couple dozen transcripts for December 2001 to check this statement out, but if you could point out which day the broadcast occured we could all have a gander and that would be nice and verified. Howzat sound? Lord Bob 14:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Due to the inherently controversial nature of the discussion (and because of the highly sensitive and continuing litigation in the case), the transcripts from December 18, 2001 were destroyed by CNN. User:NoDisassemble 22:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I remember the similar Pocket Tubmans nonsense as well. With that in mind, this could probably be speedied as vandalism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and discussion above Justin Bacon 00:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Amren (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Doyle Brunson used this term on a World Poker Tour tournament in 1999. He was fined and reprimanded by WPT officials. --FatherSkeel 21:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Above user is also a constant vandal; Not entirely convinced FatherSkeel and Hubris are not sock puppets of each other.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 23:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
      • FatherSkeel's claim is a flat-out lie, anyway - I know this because I was in that 1999 World Poker Tour tournament right up to the last round, and I sat next to good ol' Doyle the entire time, and never once did he utter such a thing. Ok, I just made all that up, but it's equally plausible. :-)  BD2412 talk 06:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
        • BD, weren't you the second gunman on the grassy knoll, too? ;)  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 15:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Because it's not acceptable to talk about a poker hand that could possibly be construed as defamatory, but it's perfectly okay to joke about the murder of one of America's great figures. Makes sense. --FatherSkeel 02:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
          • The key difference is that Kennedy's assassination actually happened, unlike the popular usage of this term. Lord Bob 05:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
            • World War II actually happened...does that make it acceptable to joke about it? If you read the definition closely, it talked about the term being used in "underground circies." Nowhere did it say this term was in popular usage. Perhaps you should read things more closely before making such outlandish statements. --FatherSkeel 20:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
              • The article is utterly unverifiable, and the attempts to justify it above have proven to be either a bald-faced lie, or another statement that cannot be verified. If it is in use in underground circles, said circles are so far underground that the term might as well not exist. Lord Bob 01:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Raspustin, to be perfectly honest, im offended by your statement. JFK was a good man and you feel the need to mock the highest elected official in the land? If you take down this article, which is a factual statement of what many people use in Texas Hold'em Philosophy in today's 21st century, you might as well take the pages down for JFK, Lee Harvey Oswold and the entire city of Dallas for which you mock so readily. I hope that you not only get banned from wikipedia for this classless statement, but are banned from whatever ISP gives you access to the information super highway. --Hubris 20:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
              • Now this is starting to sound like that US Miller vs. Bud commerical: "This is a travesty! It's a sham! It's a mockery...it's a...a...a TRAVASHAMOCKERY!" That aside, you want to argue about this with me, take it to my talk page and stop cluttering up an AfD trying to defend a patently unencyclopediac statement. To even try and use a red herring to obscure the arguement is ridiculous.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 01:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
                  • Go to a poker game in Mobile, Alabama and let me know if they don't throw the term around liberally. Then you can say it's utterly unverifiable. FatherSkeel 20:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
                    • See, "having to send a Wikipedian to play poker in that specific Mobile, Alabama underground circle" counts as "functionally unverifiable". Especially when the other attempts at verification are bullshit. Lord Bob 02:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A look at the edit histories of the two pro votes here shows some interesting similarities in contributions. See a rundown at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Man Known as S. --Dvyost 02:23, 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 07:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Po'k

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Delete this and most other articles about specific phonetic misspellings. —Cryptic (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per re-nomination --Qirex 12:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Optichan 22:11, 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 No Consensus between keeping and merging. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pokémon theme music

The "Pokémon theme music" article is shorter than the smaller of stubs and explains a term not worth an own article in an encyplopedia. The content is made by geussing wiki markup and not previewing. See Anti-pokemon also. --Shreddy 20:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC) Merge / redirect. --Lockley 23:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand. This might also be a possible merge candidate if we have an article on Pokemon music in general (including movie soundtracks, etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand. Agreed; this article could be expanded into a full-fledged article discussing Pokémon music. There are several Pokémon theme songs in multiple languages, and I feel that the subject scope of Pokémon music is wide enough to warrant it's own article rather than another section in the Pokémon article.
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Merge, or Redirect can see how this could easily be a full article - however its probably better merged someplace. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 09:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Pokémon (anime) or Pokémon and delete. --GraemeL (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Merge and cleanup. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with and redirect to Pokémon (anime). This is a fine idea (one I've had in the past) but I really, really doubt it merits its own article. Maybe if they released them on a music CD or something. Although knowing Nintendo's overwhoring of the license they probably have. GarrettTalk 15:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to the TV show article. Gazpacho 16:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete PokeCruft if not deleted Merge --JAranda | yeah 20:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Garrett... no reason this merit's its own article.--Isotope23 20:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Pokémon (anime) which discusses the show's music more extensively than this article. --Metropolitan90 03:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Keep and expand - plenty of scope to do so as Starbling pointed out. --Celestianpower hablamé 12:29, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pop hardcore

This is quite a useful article to have, but has been created as an excuse to mock bands that one Wiki user doesn't like. The list of bands at the end is a joke and contains mostly bands that the term doesn’t apply to.

For a start ‘Pop Core’ isn’t a genre as such, it’s an adjective used to tag bands in a similar way to the modern usage of emo. It refers to rock bands that have either been ‘created’ by larger record companies to fill gaps in their portfolios (esp. in the early 00’s such as Lost Prophets) or to bands that had image makeovers to make them look more rock. I’ve heard it used to describe acts that contain former members of pop acts too (such as Charlie from Busted’s new rock band Fightstar).

I’d keep it but overhaul it – I might have a go later on. Nli10 09:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the list of bands at the end needs to be culled. It's quite obvious it was made just to spite bands this article's creator didn't like (I'm not a fan of As I Lay Dying, but they're certainly nothing near "popcore," and they sound nothing like other bands on the list, such as Chevelle, which also shouldn't qualify as popcore). -- User:Sirveaux 11:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • What do you mean record companies "created" Lostprophets?! There was a rumour about them being a manufactured band when they first started making it big, but as someone who lives pretty close to where all the band members grew up, I can vouch that those rumours where complete b.s. Look at the article on the band for more info on all that stuff.

    And I vote Delete. The title's subjective, and this information is covered much more extensively and neutrally in the article on 21st Century Emo. --80.4.224.6 15:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the title is better than 21st century emo, simply because the latter implies that this music is emo, and it isn't. However, the bands listed in pop-hardcore need to be changed.
    Ie: Alkaline Trio is punk (earlier stuff), pop-punk (later stuff)
    Sugarcult, Yellowcard, Simpleplan, AAR, My Chemical Romance, are ALL pop-punk
    Thrice, Thursday are post-hardcore
    Coheed And Cambria are prog rock.
    The bands i agree as being popcore: Hawthrone Heights, Sutterfly --Web250 16:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • ok, so maybe the band list at the bottom isn't the most accurate, and many of these bands fall under other genre names. i would still like to keep this page, and just edit it down heavily to include bands that are directly pop-core.. ie The Movielife, Saves The Day and so on. --68.171.62.215 01:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what a small handful of people feel "emo" is. If the world considers a band to be "emo", then they're "emo", right or wrong. It's not up to us to make the decision, and it's not up to us to create some genre to throw the bands we don't think are "emo". Popular culture decides, and they have. Our job on Wiki is to portray reality, not dictate it. -- ChrisB 07:35, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per nominator ("I’d keep it but overhaul it"). AfD isn't the place for content disputes; this all belonged on the article's talk page. — mendel ☎ 16:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can cite evidence of this term being used for a genre of music or in reference to "emo" bands in credible musical media. Looks to me to be another neologistic "genre" that doesn't exist.--Isotope23 19:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please ppl, we're voting on AfDs here, not discussing musical terminology. Please vote, use comment, or at least abstain. Eaglizard 13:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no such thing.  Grue  18:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 07:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pulier's Law

Non-notable vanity page. Google turns up 642 for Eric Pulier and no results for Pulier's Law. — ceejayoz ★ 18:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ★ 18:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete because of Isotope's Law: You have to do more than spout some silly sayings to be notable.--Isotope23 18:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I strongly advocate an article for Isotope's Law ;-) Justin Bacon 01:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Now that's a law I can support. *g* — ceejayoz ★ 03:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Sadly, although he mentions 'other "eponymous laws"', he fails to state what "Pulier's Law" might actually be. The world is the worse off for it, no doubt. Eaglizard 15:44, 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Doc (?) 16:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radiclib

NN, D. ComCat 01:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Seems like nearly all mentions of this are on Wikipedia or its mirrors. NN, it's a term that never really was used much at all. --W.marsh 03:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. --GraemeL (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I get 95 hits on google groups; ppl do sometimes this word in discussion (on USENET anyways). The term was also featured in the newspapers during the Nixon scandal, and in at least one recent article on MSN. When does an admitted neologism cross the line and have "realistic evidence of existence"? Eaglizard 09:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Used heavily in the political discourse of the late 60s and early 70s in the US. Phrase coined by Spiro Agnew (I think) and pops up in alot of Nixon-related primary sources (his enemy list, for example). Youngamerican 18:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Wikibofh 23:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rawr

Was tagged as a speedy, but IMO does not qualify. A neologism, and not much more than a dictdef, but has some information about origin. A fair number of google hits, but I am not at all sure how many are about this word in this usage, nor how notable this is. Bringing this here for discussion. Abstain pending further comments. DES (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not urban dictionary. Friday (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. Crypticfirefly 05:23, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary - neologism. Bobstay 07:55, 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. -Doc (?) 17:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Richard deCosta

Person is NN, other than that he's working on a Machinima opera which still hasn't come out in years. DooMDrat 07:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - DooMDrat 07:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. His previous opera ("The Temptation of Christ") garners only a single google hit when coupled with his name. Pburka 04:46, 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. — JIP | Talk 07:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rob Petrone

This is a vanity page by and about Rob Petrone. He made 9 guest-strips for the webcomic Casey and Andy. I feel this does not entitle him to a Wiki entry, especially when real webcomic creators and administrators do not get such a privilege. So, I say delete. -- Ritchy 23 September 2005

  • Andy Weir set up a Casey and Andy wikipedia, where that article certainly does belong. It doesn't belong here, though. Delete. DS 19:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per DS.
    • unsigned above is mine...--Isotope23 19:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Web comics are judged much too leniently on AFD, and web comic authors should meet a higher standard for inclusion than the strips. When an article on a webcomic guest-author has absolutely nothing encyclopedic to say about the subject other than "he guest-authored 9 webcomic strips" then that is not sufficient to support an individual bio page. Mention him on the page for the webcomic, and wait until there is something more to say about the author to give him his own bio. It's really pretty stunning--nearly the entire article is about the strip. The only thing it says about Petrone is that he's from Philly. Quale 04:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. For the long version of my views on webcomics, see here. -- SCZenz 17:21, 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. -Doc (?) 10:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Crum

Seems like artist vanity. Googling him gets a lot of hits, but few, if any, seem to neceesarily be him. There appear to be quite a few Robert Crums with some sort of connection to the art world. R. fiend 21:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • ...many of whom will actually be a mis-spelt Robert Crumb, which this should probably redirect to. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete due to lack of verifiability. A Google search for "Robert Crum" did not mention this artist on the first page [22]. It mentioned a Salisbury North Carolina artist of the same name who may or may not be notable enough for an article see [23]. Google also suggested Did you mean Robert Crumb. Capitalistroadster 01:34, 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. -Doc (?) 16:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] .ROX

I had marked this for speedy as an advertisement; an anon removed the tag. Actually there doesn't seem to be any such speedy criterion (why not?) so I brought it here. --Trovatore 05:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete advertisement --Trovatore 05:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (nominator)
  • Delete. non-encyclopedic. Cnwb 06:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. -- Mewcenary 14:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. feydey 11:25, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 to delete the article. User:Nichalp/sg 08:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Santosh

Beside the etymology one-liner, this page seems only to have served as a vehicle for vandalism thoughout the times. -- Egil 18:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as utter nonsense.--Isotope23 18:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bobblewik 19:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Sp Delete Tintin
  • Delete one line is not an article, should be redirected to a list page instead User:Nichalp/sg 08:37, 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. Friday (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scare technique

OR, nn, probably dangerous Dlyons493 Talk 21:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete If this were legit, it would be called "scare therapy" and would get more Google hits than "Find Scare technique at eBay" and "Mistress Katrina's scare technique". This is more properly addressed at aversion therapy. Denni☯ 01:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete need further context and reference. --Vsion 04:45, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schaus

vanity. Not quite nn-bio as I read it, because that says a person, not several. --Trovatore 05:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh, and because it does assert that they're "prestigous". --Trovatore 05:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is a place for serious articles about the etymology of popular surnames (i.e. Smith (surname), but I don't think this is such an article. -Eisnel 06:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The place for article on the etymologies of words, names or otherwise, is Wiktionary, which will take all the etymology that editors have to give. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames. Furthermore: The article at hand includes no etymology, notice. Don't confuse etymology of a family name with the genealogy of the people who have that family name. Uncle G 13:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Clever attempt to circumvent the dictates of speedy removal, but the last line qualifies it surely. Dottore So 11:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Justin Bacon 00:49, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Carbonite | Talk 19:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SiNDADDY

Advertisement, non-notable band/musician, fails WP:Music as far as I can tell W.marsh 03:12, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spiruses

Not notable--MONGO 05:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, neologism, not widely used, would merely be a wiktionary candidate if it was. Average Earthman 08:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Average Earthman. -- Kjkolb 03:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism not in wide use. MCB 06:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably not even a neologism, but a vanity / hoax 'contributed' by the referenced "Computer tech Andre of San Diego [sic]". Eaglizard 10:08, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley Lewis

No assertion of notability — someone who is a former teacher and president of a local club, in my opinion, isn't notable, and cannot be verified. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 14:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - as per nominator. The JPS 15:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator, article does not make any valid assertion of notability. Hall Monitor 17:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. If for some reason not speedy deleted, delete as non-notable. DES (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep the rewrittten diambig page. I have removed the speedy tag. DES (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per nominator. --JoanneB 18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the disambig, don't keep the original subject of the article. There's a former mayor J.E. Stanley Lewis who seems to be called just "Stanley Lewis", at least some of the time. Also there's American artist in List of Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 2005 and here, who's full name is "C. Stanley Lewis" . --rob 00:11, 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 Speedy deleted and marked with {{deletedpage}} Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 03:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Supera45

The article makes no claim of notability.-LtNOWIS 19:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • delete vanity page --Ritchy 7 October 2005
  • Keep but expand useful information --Namworker 7 October 2005

I'm working on it. Hi, I'm the guy that's doing the page. I'm kinda busy, so if you want me to get rid of it and repost it when it is completely done, just post it here. (comment by User: 68.159.86.136; 22:59, 7 October 2005)Eaglizard

  • Speedy delete. nn-bio, nothing else. feydey 23:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete do not repost this page after it is deleted. it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.--Alhutch 00:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but expand useful information --thelistman 7 October 2005
  • Delete I don't know how you can make a case for having an article about an internet troll. That's just what trolls want, attention. Someone explain how this is useful. --Rogerd 01:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and same as Alhutch. feydey 11:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as mostly POV and even original research. To '68.159.86.136: Hi, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, your edits do not fit the guidelines accepted by the community here at Wikipedia. While your work is interesting, and I certainly hope you've saved it somewhere else before it gets deleted here, it just isn't appropriate for this encyclopedia. If you're not sure why, please investigate what Wikipedia is all about, and what it is not. And if your article is deleted, please don't let it stop you from adding other useful content. Wikipedia is merciless, by design, but all contribution is welcomed. Eaglizard 16:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, puppetfest. Xoloz 17:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Uberdelete, with socks! Redwolf24 (talk) 03:33, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tenth Crusade

See previous deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tenth_Crusade/Archive1

  • Delete. Content is not notable enough to have its own article; very few actually refer to a "tenth" crusade. The metaphor of crusades has been used by bin Laden and other extreme Islamists to describe US presence in the Middle East for a long time; it is not a rhetorical device invented by Bush as the article claims. csloat 18:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I said it before, and I say it again, not notagle and is a neologism. The War of Terror isn't even the Tenth conflict, ten was used because of the rhetorical impact. Dominick (TALK) 18:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Critics of Bush can't have their crusade cake and eat their Jewish plot too. Endomion 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
What do accusations of Jewish plots have to do with the continuing existance or otherwise of this page? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Might be justifiable as a larger study of right wing politics and religious conservatism in the United States, if well sourced and well written. Durova 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Tag for cleanup and Keep - 1,250 google hits suggests notability. Plus, as C. Sloat says above, many Muslims do think that Bush is engaged in a crusade. To delete the page because 'we know that he isn't' is reverse political correctness. And with respect, the article does not say that Bush invented the device, only that he used it. If bin Laden was using the term first, the fact should be added to the article but it doesn't present an argument for deleting the page, quite the contrary. I agree that 10th is arbitrary, but the reason for the name is less important than the fact that the name is widely used. Perhaps the concept is misnamed, but it doesn't mean that the page is not correctly named or shouldn't exist. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Correction - many of those references are to Wikipedia; many others are to other uses of the phrase (e.g. the 1983 novel -- some 400+ hits on your results alone -- or the 2001 article about English in Tunisia). A lexis/nexis search of major papers finds three uses of the phrase, listed below, none of which are in the usage here:
1.Dench, Diesel make surprising sci-fi duo, Chicago Sun-Times, July 2, 2004 Friday, North City, WEEKEND PLUS; NEWS; Pg. 25, 721 words, HARRY HAUN
2.Books by Christopher Hyde, The Ottawa Citizen, June 20, 1999, FINAL, 389 words, Shelley Page
3.THE WORLD; A Roundup of Mideast Hostility, The New York Times, May 4, 1986, Sunday, Late City Final Edition, Section 4; Page 2, Column 2; Week in Review Desk, 357 words, By Milt Freudenheim, James F. Clarity and Richard Levine
A search of magazines and journals nets nothing on lexis/nexis. You're looking at a few hundred google hits at best, most of them referring to or just copying the Cockburn and O'Brien articles; those are the only two real voices using this particular phrase in this manner; I would not call it notable, especially given its nonexistence in lexis/nexis, a better gauge of material that is actually published. If the article is kept, it should be radically revamped and its name changed to talk about the "crusades" metaphor as used in general rather than the specious "tenth" crusade, which, as others noted, this is not really the tenth anyway.--csloat 03:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
For the hell of it, I searched the New York Times back to 1857 for this term and found three uses of it; twice in 1904 and once in 1917 referring to the actual Crusades, specifically the battle in Jerusalem. The 1904 references refer to a novel of the era by Frederic Harrison called Theophano.-csloat 03:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
"tenth crusade" bush is 404 hits. -cockburn is still 231 hits, not that I see why cockburn should be excluded. As above, I'm not attached to the title so much as the concept. "bush crusade" gets 37,400 hits. "bush crusade" iraq gets 31,300 hits. There's a real concept here, perhaps the current page is misnamed and a mess, but I think there's something worth keeping? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the concept is notable but the title is a misleading neologism. There already was a tenth crusade, and it wasn't this one. There are no references to this in lexis-nexis, a far better gauge than what is on google.--csloat 04:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Which one is commonly known as "Tenth Crusade"? Standard numbering stops at 9. Yes, there were more, but then even the "Third Crusade" really is not. --Stephan Schulz 21:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we're heading towards agreement that the page should be kept and renamed? But to what? The only think I can think of is Bush Crusade or some variation thereof. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
How about The Crusades (War on terrorism)?-csloat 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I like it better than Bush Crusade, though that's not saying much. I'd prefer to somehow have "The crusade" rather than "The Crusades" because I think the whole War on Whatever is a single thing, even if the connections between the parts are pretty tenuous sometimes. We did for a while have a page called Crusade (modern) which is now a redirect to Tenth Crusade. If we wanted to go that way, I'd prefer Modern crusade. Other options which I also don't like but am going to suggest in case it gives anybody a better idea are Crusade against terror, Crusade against terrorism or War on terrorism as crusade? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as before. It's not particularly important, but it is reasonably notable and (now) well-written and NPOV. Disk space is cheap. I'm kind of appaled by user User:Endomion's statement. The article is not an opinion piece, but a fair description of an event (if you doubt this, improve it). Do you want to purge history of inconvenient facts?--Stephan Schulz 17:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep glad i found this. This is a notable phrase. Lots of google hits. Just because the phrase is POV doesn't mean that the article will inevitably be POV. Some consider the War on Terrorism a POV phrase, but thats a great article. 69.22.42.35 21:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as before. It is important that the US president considers this a religious crusade. This is the most important aspect of our Iraq War. That is why we can't leave Iraq. This conflict has grown in importance because of it's "clash of cultures" oventone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.48.167 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: It is used, and it is reflective of the positions of people in the world, thus it needs to be. Dark Nexus 02:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: It is a viable description of the current events. Perhaps the name should be changed to "Bush Crusade" or "Iraq Crusade" to prevent confusion with the "10th" crusade. --Kdcarver 03:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I had seen "the 10th crusade" mentioned but I didn't know what was meant. Then I found the meaning here at Wikipedia. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.197.253 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Terraforming --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terraformer

NN, D. ComCat 01:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No assertion of notability. -- SCZenz 03:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Unless notability is asserted, redirect to terraforming. DS 03:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per DS--inksT 04:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Good redirect suggestion - make it so.  BD2412 talk 05:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Hopefully an occupation in three or four centuries :). Marskell 20:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Demogroup apparently w/ only one release (not listed in article), Future Crew they weren't. Above suggestions to redirect are incorrect; 'terraformer' might indeed be a groovy job in 3 centuries, but it isn't now. (Unless you have a cite? :) A non-existent profession isn't notable, is it? Eaglizard 09:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Terraforming itself is hypothetical but extensively discussed on. Terraformer seems a plausible redirect. Redirects are cheap—they don't have to be notable in themselves. Marskell 00:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree; yeah, redirects are cheap, but server space is not the cost I worry about when we include what amounts to science fiction. My own (admittedly idiosyncratic) notability test includes: would it appear in World Book or Brittanica?Eaglizard 04:44, 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 DELETE. -Doc (?) 17:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tff (band)

Vanity, just formed, no record contract, etc. CambridgeBayWeather 08:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete fails WP:Music Qaz (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • For a parallel discussion of the very same band, see Tee Eff Eff (AfD discussion). Uncle G 12:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. (ammusing how quickly this article was created and subsequently tagged with AFD haha) --Qirex 13:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (sorry, forgot sig; applied in 2nd edit)
  • Delete as per vote under Tee Eff Eff. Mallocks 16:51, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Awkward Squad Project

According to the results of a Google search, the "Awkward Squad Project" exists only on Wikipedia. It appears to be a politically-motivated project that belongs more properly on a web hosting service. We already have Awkward Squad. Delete. Joel7687 05:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Article is not about anything and claims to in fact be a "diary project". Wikipedia is not a blog. I'm almost tempted to speedy this as "patent nonsense". Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-encyclopedic and open a blogspot account...--Isotope23 15:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 06:26, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Woohookitty 11:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Dirty Wall

Nonsense, vanity, Google does not return anything significant about it. -- ReyBrujo 03:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable vanity (and former attack) article. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete definently non-notable vanity. --W.marsh 03:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, schools are notable and the school would not be complete without this wall (delete). Gazpacho 16:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No one may vote twice; reading Gazpacho's intent from the boldfacing, I strike his first vote. Xoloz 16:44, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep. If schools are inherently notable, aren't pieces of schools also inherently notable as well? Voyager640 20:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable.--inksT 21:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless the school community is so proud of the garbage-covered wall that they want to merge the information into an article about the school itself ... I doubt it. --Metropolitan90 03:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless verified/cited; almost certainly a hoax or vanity. (Facile comments in re: a legitimate debate (schools) are misplaced, and really effing unnecessary, btw.) Eaglizard 09:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As I did before when ol' RickK tried this trick, I ask whether completely sarcastic votes constitute "bad-faith", and if so, whether they may be stricken? Xoloz 16:42, 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 speedy delete. – Rich Farmbrough 15:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The High Rollers Casino

No such film exists, certainly none with the actors implied. No record on IMDB, user has sumbitted other hoax pages recently. Delete Malo 00:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • You know, if a movie won 11 Academy Awards, people would have heard of it. Delete as hoax, speedily if it meets any WP:CSD criteria. --Metropolitan90 01:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax--Rogerd 01:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Agree with the above comments. Sunray 02:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sadly, I don't think hoaxes qualify under WP:CSD. -- SCZenz 02:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless like the articles that tell us about years which have not yet happened, it's a film that has not yet been made, or even written. Avalon 03:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It's certainly not going to be made in the future with the cast listed in the article, four of whom are already deceased. Furthermore, the article is written in the past tense as though the film had already been released and won Oscars. It hasn't. --Metropolitan90 03:39, 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 07:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Listener (album)

Album for non-notable artist Seeno whose article was already deleted: Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Seeno

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The lords

anybody said "another non notable band" ?. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 03:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • OMG I Just love that band and that song of theirs I failed WP:MUSIC Delete song --JAranda | yeah 04:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete... too bad the speedy for failing WP:MUSIC was not accepted.--Isotope23 15:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, but with some of the bands coming up in Afd too close to the line, I'd rather they didn't get a speedy category. Mallocks 16:43, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 07:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Man Known as S

nonnotable movie extra, poss. vanity.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 16:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The article lists him as an extra in one film. The IMDB entry for that film doesn't list him, so this is unverifiable. If this is removed, there is no content at all. Even if it were confirmed, appearing as an extra in a single film is not notable. Not speedy-tagged as this is a claim of notability, at least arguable. DES (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the movie poster in the linked movie is doctored and not the original poster as well.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 23:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as vandalism. Notice that User:FatherSkeel created this article while User:Hubris added it over at In Her Shoes. Not coincidentally both of these editors are vigorously defending another suspected hoax article at Pocket Mumias. User:Dogman1 joined in the fun by changing Cameron Diaz's last name at In Her Shoes to "Mumia." Coincidence? Conspiracy? You decide. --Dvyost 01:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete more vandalsim/hoax. NN even if it was true. And it isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, 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. -Doc (?) 10:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The real edge

vanity, unverifiable, nn, adDlyons493 Talk 20:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete and do the same to The Real Edge Dlyons493 Talk 20:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both as unverifiable vanity. There's a marginal claim for notability, but no evidence presented. Sliggy 21:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I wonder just how much less than 500m are we talking about? 499.999m??? Dlyons493 Talk 21:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment good point, could be £1m + a huge dose of hope/hype. Additionally, we are not told how much he himself trades - even if his firm does have roughly half a gigabuck under management, doesn't mean they trust him with much of it, after all... Sliggy 22:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Justin Bacon 01:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dude. Mr. Edge. (Can I call you The Real?) You walked into the party, Like you were walking onto a yacht. Your hat strategically dipped below one eye, Your scarf it was apricot. You probably think this website's about you, don't you? Don't you? Eaglizard 16:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 05:55, 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. — JIP | Talk 07:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Sign (Ace of Base album)

This is a duplicate article to Happy Nation. I was thinking of making a merge, but who types in "The Sign (Ace of Base album)"? More likely, someone might type in "The Sign", and that page is already a redirect to "Happy Nation". I'm happy to clean up links etc if this gets deleted (eg, there'll be a few links to fix over at Ace of Base

  • Delete per nomination. - (Nominator) Qirex 12:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. - Stu 13:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The Sign qualifies for an article in its own right as a single. It was a number 1 in several nations including six weeks at #1 in the US see [24] Allmusic.com article Capitalistroadster 17:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't know this, but I still consider that this should be deleted. If someone in the future wants to write an article on the single, it would be better if they did that at "The Sign", or at "The Sign (single)" (which does not yet exist). -- (Nominator) Qirex 00:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    We already have The Sign (song).
  • Delete as a superior article exists at Happy Nation and The Sign redirects there. I know redirects are cheap, but who the heck is going to come to wikipedia and type "The Sign (Ace of Base album)" as a search?--Isotope23 19:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- no such album. Jkelly 01:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (without redirecting) as per nomination CLW 14:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Does not merit a separate article nor a redirect. / Peter Isotalo 15:27, 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 07:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of Harry Potter fan fiction

NOTE: original nominator did not list this. The five days should therefore instead start from *clicks save on other page* now. GarrettTalk 14:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any importance in this article. It contains no particular major development in fanfiction as a whole, merely a natural process and it is also one of potentially thousands of similar timelines, if timelines of this sort are allowed. Not only that, but this article appears to be already present in its entirety under Fan Fiction. Made2Fade 12:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, take it away Vi—no, wait, Hagor's still passed out... um, on to you ladies! "Away, away with cruft we must, with cruft we must, with cruft we must! Away, away with cruft we must, the song of the Anticruft Union!" GarrettTalk 14:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete pretty much all fanfiction. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Fancruft.--Isotope23 19:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete my eyes! My eyes! Sabine's Sunbird 23:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but could be put on Harry Potter Wiki -LtNOWIS 02:26, 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 Carbonite | Talk 19:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tómas Michael Reynisson

Ego-page Stalfur 23:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. - Stalfur 23:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN. -- Egil 14:21, 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 No consensus Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tulio_Triviño

Junk page--Irixman 19:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy A1. Dlyons493 Talk 20:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this could be a legit page, as per the stub? Irixman 20:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment stub makes sense so it's no longer a speedy and may be rescuable. Dlyons493 Talk 20:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 31 Minutos --RainR 11:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per RainR. CambridgeBayWeather 11:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc (?) 16:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Valloween

nonsense--Trovatore 06:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • speedy delete as patent nonsense. Author stripped speedy tag. --Trovatore 06:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC) (nominator)
    • As someone pointed out to me, the page probably doesn't really meet the definition of patent nonsense. Unfortunately it says in the definition that bad writing by itself isn't enough. Shouldn't it be, for sufficiently bad writing? Should people really have to try to decipher sentences like
The stood up promqueen with a chainsaw which has tiny candy hearts replacing the cutspurs, the ultimate love horror, the vampire with AIDS that can never die, and always wants more blood and cupid with poison laden arrows and just a few.   ? --Trovatore 15:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Note: see also Dysonberg Confusion Principle, Cosmic ray deflection society--Trovatore 06:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Due to the poor grammar, that quote you present out of context does indeed seem to make no sense, however you should read the sentence immediately preceding it: The holiday [Valloween] makes for great costuming ideas which are explored at parties held twice a year! The following sentence, then, is clearly just a list of some costumes that people might wear, as this is a combination of Halloween and Valentines. It does make sense, it just doesn't express it well. I stand by my vote to merge. --Qirex 22:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I know what it means. I just don't think anyone should have to try to figure it out. The encyclopedia will miss out on very little if we speedy everything written as poorly as that, or every article whose overall organization is as bad as this one's. --Trovatore 02:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vandalism. --Wetman 09:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. To quote CambridgeBayWeather over at related delete nomination, Cosmic ray deflection society, "The group themselves may be spouting nonsense but that is not a reason to delete. I think these people, Heaven's Gate (cult) and Order of the Solar Temple, are also spouting nonsense (and a lot more dangerous) but I would not want to see them deleted. The reason here to delete is non-notability." If you want to vote on deletions, I suggest you read the articles and their links, and you'll see that, strangely enough, it is not a hoax or vandalism et al. However, it shouldn't have it's own article, it should be merged with the Cosmic ray deflection society article. --Qirex 11:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the society isn't notable, so their holiday isn't notable. -- Kjkolb 03:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cruft from nn group. Hilarious cruft, but cruft nontheless. Eaglizard 10:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was happier when I first clicked it and saw someone had already speedy-tagged it... Bushytails 06:23, 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. -Doc (?) 16:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wankerhof

Neologism in an online battle cry generator. Non notable, probably advertising. Zeimusu | Talk page 05:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Neologism. Cnwb 06:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Crycruft. TheMadBaron 07:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete However, it has already succeeded in its sole purpose, to make us all look at it. --Wetman 09:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Please delete this article all the way to Wankerhof. Aecis 17:27, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted, made-up hoax based on a real hoax. Don't agree with my boldness? Bite me. Actually, bite the people at VFU, I think I'm busy tomorrow. And please put a penny in the old Uncle G's hat for knowing the real hoax behind this weasel article. GarrettTalk 15:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Ashbless Drakes Plate

This article is apparently fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelbluejay (talk • contribs) 2005-10-07 11:55:28 UTC

  • William Ashbless describes hoaxers inventing a fictional poet, under whose name they submitted poetry to a magazine. They later incorporated this fictional poet into novels such as The Anubis Gates. This is just the sort of Wikipedia article that would exist if those same hoaxers had turned their hands to writing hoax Wikipedia articles. It describes how this fictional poet used time travel to promote the discovery of a historical artifact. It's possible that this is a plot element from one of the novels, which are about time travel. However, whichever way it is sliced this is outright fiction dressed up as fact. Any exposition of the plots of the novels by these authors belongs in the articles on those novels, not here. Delete. Uncle G 13:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE or SPEEDY This is fanciful and wishful retelling of the hoax involving Drake's Plate of Brass. Stu 13:18, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc (?) 10:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wutzke

WP:ISNOT the Wutzke family bible. DS 21:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. WP is not a family tree. feydey 23:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per feydey. --Alhutch 00:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. And I really hope the particular Wutzke involved has a copy of this saved somewhere, that's a lot of hard, non-Wikipediac work there. Eaglizard 16:24, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yellowikis

Yellowikis was nominated for deletion on 2005-09-02. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior AFD discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellowikis.

NN, D. ComCat 01:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep Not much seems to have changed since the last AfD, and it was on the border of notable then, but not much seems to have changed since the last AfD, and the result of that was Keep. I don't expect anything to change here except perhaps a discussion on bias towards fellow wikis. Many of them are notable, although there are a few(such as Wiki Gonzalez), that are mostly jibberish in Wiki software. Karmafist 02:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - The previous AfD shows that it is: a) spam and b) hardly notable. If it were to become notable, fine, but as it is the founder is on record as saying he put the article there so he could advertise in other articles. Not a good idea, IMO. Sunray 03:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, still not notable. --fvw* 04:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sunray. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree w/Sunray Dottore So 10:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A useful expansion of the wiki movement, and worthy of an article on that basis. Denni☯ 00:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep as per User:Denni Roodog2k (Hello there!) 15:04, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Userfied to user of article's name Ryan Norton T | @ | C 00:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC) This page may just be quite unjust.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] YTMND Forums

Let us consider the notoriety of this topic. Does Wikipedia really need an aricle about a forum? Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 18:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Jaberwocky6669 | ☎ 18:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, the Montreal Forum is notable! This one, however, is not (nor is it that kind of forum). Delete. Lord Bob 19:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Why did I say that? I knew there was a YTMND article. I freakin' knew that. Merge. Lord Bob 23:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Or Do Not Merge If this article wasn't related to the encyclopedic YTMND article then I would agree with you, but since it is I'm voting keep. The forum's influence on YTMND cannot be denied and the forum's history is too detailed to be included in the main article. Further, Wikipedia admins and mods basically said that YTMND forum history and information has no place in the main YTMND article. NOTE #1: I am not a YTMND forums user. NOTE #2: I created the YTMND forums article by culling the admin/mod deleted forum history material from the YTMND article and pasting it there. I don't know enough about the forums to do anything else really besides fight vandalism on that article. I'm just a lone YTMND editor who strongly believes that the YTMND forum users need their own article. Not only does it keep the YTMND article clean, but it also documents an important part of an important pop culture artifact.Celerityfm 19:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The main article has everything it needs about the forums in it already. The whole point of the forums article was/is for stuff that is not appropriate for the main article. Celerityfm 21:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to YTMND. Friday (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep dowgs Because I said so. (69.207.150.112)
  • Delete Non notable and unencyclopedic. Jtkiefer 01:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and please sign your votes. -- Kjkolb 03:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this fairly boring 'article'. Not just because it's nn, but b/c (unless somebody has archives of all the posts) its unverifiable and could even be original research (it appears to be told by a participant). Eaglizard 15:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into parent article. -Sean Curtin 03:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.  Grue  18:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary and unimportant. --Dd42 22:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • merge anything useful into ytmnd.com article.
    • (Note, I added the above vote and here is the tag--- 06:07, 15 October 2005 Youngamerican) Youngamerican 01:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep needs a clean up badly, but would rather it be deleted than merged Macks 19:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete So much stuff happens on the ytmnd forums that most of these 'events' aren't even noticable. The forced fad section should be merged into the YTMND article and the rest deleted Rwed 17:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.