Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 9

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 16:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2011 Atlantic hurricane season

This article provides no useful information. Hurricane name lists are reused every six years. This, this year's (2005) will be reused in this year (2011), except for retired names. Since everyone knows that there will be retired names, no one will know this year's list until spring, 2006. Therefore, this article is a waste of space and there is nothing whatsoever that can be put in it to make it useful.

• Nominate and vote for deletion Michelle T 22:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I think the rule regarding these articles should be if the NHC has storm names for them, otherwise how do you know which names there will be? [1] --Revolución (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is specifically mentioned in WP:NOT, number 2. --CastAStone 01:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It is mentioned, CastAStone, as something that should be deleted, I think? Xoloz 03:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No, actually it is specifically mentioned as something encyclopedic. Look again. "Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical storm Alex, 2010" is not" --CastAStone 14:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, but this list of names is admittedly and obviously incorrect. We don't yet know what names will replace Katrina et al. Xoloz 14:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • As of now, this also has no names in it. Xoloz 14:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Xoloz 03:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, yes it is specifically mentioned. As something not encyclopedic. Jkelly 04:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a gratuitous policy violation. It should probably be protected from re-creation for a few years. --Apyule 07:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 2011 is just a wee bit too far in the future. Either block this article from being created again or just speedy delete it every time it pops up again (no vote needed). Masterhatch 10:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Its so far in the future the Earth may not even be here!!! - Bwfc 23:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 16:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alanis Morissette: The Collection

First, it's a greatest-hits record, and thus explictly excluded as notable or deserving an article in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Secondly, it hasn't yet been released, so doesn't exist (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (or redirect to Alanis Morisette). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable album with verifiable information to be released shortly. Further, the guidelines referred to by Mel Etitis make no mention of any notability guides for albums. There seems to be no mention that I could find on Wikiproject Albums of this guideline. I have heard reference to such a guideline but it would be useful to see it confirmed. Capitalistroadster 01:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Guideline is here:

You can link to normal studio albums as much as you want. Caveat 1: Unless there's extenuating circumstances, greatest hits and compilation albums don't need an article. Jkelly 02:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, verifiable, of interest to Alanis fans, and has a new track. Kappa 01:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge any useful information to Alanis Morisette. Jkelly 02:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: it seems odd to have an article for every album, and even singles, a well known artist has produced, except for a greatest hits album. They usually only have one or two greatist hits, so it wouldn't mean a whole lot of new articles. Plus, an article would let you know which tracks are included on the album. I won't go against policy though, at least not for Alanis Morisette. -- Kjkolb 08:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Rogerd 12:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It seems that this is 'the' official GH collection as opposed to one of many patchwork collections, therefore indicating extenuating circumstance. Also, album will be released soon enough to negate 'crystal ball' arguement. Youngamerican 18:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: the cited guideline is for a wikiproject, not Wikipedia as a whole, and regardless, I disagree with it. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 14:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Jkelly. Zhatt 20:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• I note that there are already hundreds of Wikipedia articles on artists' greatest hits albums. I also note that in many cases -- including, to all appearances, this one -- a greatest hits album often contains at least one or two songs that have never appeared on a studio album. And I note that a greatest hits album is often one of the biggest-selling (and thereby inherently notable) albums of an artist's career. And "not a crystal ball" is a pretty pointless argument to make for an album whose release is only a month away, and whose advance publicity and advertising has already gone out. (It's also a rather silly argument to make when we already have an article about Kate Bush's Aerial, and we've had an article about the just-released-last-week Broken Social Scene since February.) Finally, I note that "studio albums vs. greatest hits" seems a pretty absurd distinction to draw, and an unenforceable one -- if there isn't an article about this, somebody will create another one, and another one, and another one. All in all, I just don't see a convincing argument for deletion here. Keep. Bearcat 05:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One albumbox colour is reserved for "greatest hits, box sets and other compilations", so they are allowed here. Also, there is enough reliable information about this album available. -Hapsiainen 16:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's no reason not to. M.C. Brown Shoes 13:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. just to respond to some of the points. First, it's not that articles on compilations aren't allowed, only that they're discouraged unless there's some special reason (I don't see one here). Secondly, I don't understand why it's so outrageous to suggest that people wait until an album exists before creating an article; we're not some newspaper desperately trying to scoop the opposition. Thirdly, that there are thousands of other articles on non-notable (and not-yet released) albums and singles isn't a good reason for adding another. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This album exists. Release has been confirmed by the official website and they've even released cover art and track listing. It'll be out in roughly a month. How much more do you need for it to be real? It's also a notable release because it contains her new single, a cover of a Seal song, multiple new remixes, and is also her first ever compilation. M.C. Brown Shoes 06:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus (2 keeps to 1 merge), but no delete votes were cast so relisting isn't necessary, so keep. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alice-Blue (color)

The following was created on October 5, but was not listed on AfD. -Nameneko 21:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no useful information on this article and the colour shown is nothing like the "Alice Blue" shown in the Alice Roosevelt Longworth article. Zhatt 18:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment the ***colour*** in this article is as quoted on http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/reference/colors/colors.asp The Alice Roosevelt Longworth article seems not to quote any source at all for its version of this ***colour***. Tonywalton  | Talk 01:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn colour Dlyons493 Talk 22:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'd never heard of this song - no objection to a Merge Dlyons493 Talk 02:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• 'Merge' to List of colors. The colour is notable as mentioned in a song dating from 1919 (with which my granny used to sing me to sleep. Ahhhh). Tonywalton  | Talk 01:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You can not merge to the list of colours. The list only lists colours that have aticles, so if you merge it, there is no more artivle to list. Zhatt 03:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Good point. Keep, then. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This color name was certainly notable in the late teens and twenties and has become one of the standard "named colors" used in web browsers. The difference between the color shown in the Alice Roosevelt Longworth article and the standard HTML (F0F8FF) given in this article is understandable. There was never a "precise definition" of the color, generally known as a light blue-gray, until it was used within a system such as HTML. Fabric dyers of the early 20th century probably just used whatever could pass for light blue-gray. Dystopos 17:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It should probably be renamed Alice Blue after the AfD, though. Dystopos 17:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I've done some cleanup. Those who may have voted to delete because of the state of the article might want to take a second look. Dystopos 17:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I still don't understand why this Alice Blue is not the same as this Alice Blue. Zhatt 23:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
        • There's no reason they should be exactly the same. There's also no reason they should be different. Alice didn't provide the CMYK values of her gowns and so any light blue-gray is properly called "Alice Blue", except in the context of X11/HTML. Dystopos 23:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Alice Roosevelt Longworth and remove this image as per Tonywalton's source. Zhatt 23:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure that's appropriate, to be honest. As Dystopos says, prior to X11, HTML, and standardisation of all things, "Alice Blue" wouldn't have been anything defined to the one-in-sixteen-millionth part as it is now. Perhaps the Alice Longworth article (or rather the caption to the image) shouldn't state quite so categorically that this is "Alice Blue", is all. I'd ask my granny which one she thought was more "Alice Blue", but she passed away twenty-odd years ago. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The way I see it, we need to figure out if this is a real color or not. If it isn't, delete the article and reword the Alice Longworth article as not to hint that it is. If it is a color, than all information can be in the Alice Longworth article with the List of colors pointing there. Either way, this article does not need to be here. Zhatt 23:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by a "real" colour. "Alice Blue" is certainly a "real" colour, per

• the Longworth article,
• its having been chosen as a colour name for browsers,
• the early 20th century song,
• my late granny.

Note however that the Microsoft reference I cited also names "official" colours like "linen", "blanched almond", "ghost white", "misty rose" and "brown". I'd defy anyone to say "those boots are not brown because they are not RGB #A52A2A", "that rose is not sufficiently misty according to the W3C colour definitions". or to find a ghost for comparison. There are two things here, really - a "real" (as in "named as such by browser suppliers") colour called "aliceblue" and a range of colours into which both these grey-blue colours fall. Perhaps the Longworth article shouldn't state categorically that "this is Alice Blue", but the issue we're voting on is whether or not to delete the Alice-Blue (color) article. My vote is above. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Hum. You make a good point. I can admit when I'm wrong. Keep than. There was a rash of fake colors a while ago and I guess I was still on delete-colors-mode. Zhatt 23:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• At risk of further obfuscation, I recently did a comparison of four different ways that "Union Flag (Royal) Blue" is defined per "The Flag Institute" and a similar exercise regarding the specifications for "Crimson" used by Harvard University and the University of Alabama. In the big picture, there's no way to put up an image on Wikipedia and say "This is the color _____". Definitions vary by medium and use. Displays vary. Perceptions vary. What we DO know, is that "Alice Blue" is a notable concept, and was once much more notable than "Bondi blue" or "UPS brown". Dystopos 00:12, 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect Tally Reasoning on Talk Page Karmafist 08:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American nationalism

• Anonymous vote Somebody's POV rant. Has no place on Wikipedia.
• Keep I created this article, and I vote keep because it is a notable topic. Many other countries have articles like Countryname nationalism, so I don't see how America would be an exception. --Revolución (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There might well be a place for a non-POV article on this subject. This isn't one. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC) (not, by the way, an American, politically or geographically)
• Delete. I hate Republicans too, but that is no excuse for a poorly written, biased, inflamatory article that doesn't actually say anything at all about American nationalism. linas 23:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or we'll have to create similar articles for national movements in all countries of the world, each of them consisting of a mere list of political parties... Alensha 23:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV rant and redirect to Nationalism in the United States (which needs work btw) Gazpacho 00:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Gazpacho with no need for a merge. ESkog 01:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Gazpacho. There is nothing to merge because the article under discussion is a POV rant. --Metropolitan90 01:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect, agree with Gazpacho. TomTheHand 02:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Gaspacho. --Deadsalmon 03:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Gazpacho. Jkelly 04:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Gazpacho. NickBush24 05:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per Gazpacho, looking through the history more closely I don't see why it needs to be deleted. --Apyule 07:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Good topic. Bad article. Logophile 15:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I was away from Wikipedia for a while so I didn't have the chance to revert any vandalism. I come back and check the history and vandals were putting all sorts of nonsense on it. This is an encyclopedic topic. Maybe my POV was too biased, but I was willing to make the article better. I would suggest the next time somebody has a problem with the POV to just discuss it on the talk page, something which wasn't done so people need to follow the procedure next time. I didn't even know there was already an article for it, so just redirect it there. --Revolución (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't forget to strikeout your prior vote. Deadsalmon 04:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Revolución and Apyule.--Kewp (t) 06:58, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 16:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amino Software

Ad for nn company - close to speedy. Note Googling throws up hits for the unrelated company Amino Communications Dlyons493 Talk 15:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn, and no assertion of notability CLW 15:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Alhutch 22:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. linas 00:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 00:36, 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 Redirect -- (drini's page|☎) 20:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An Entrepreneur

Merged with Entrepreneur and is now extraneous keepsleeping say what 23:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect then. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• speedy redirect as normal to Entrepreneur to save history. — brighterorange (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Well pointed out. That's what I mant. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:13, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 21:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Angel Arena

Non-notable cruft, and judging from the edit history, plenty of vanity. — ceejayoz ^★ 15:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Could be added as an external link in Warcraft III, but doesn't seem to deserve much more than that. — ceejayoz ^★ 15:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete per nom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.57.22 (talk • contribs) 3:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC) Please do not delete this... Since the official website has been taken down, a record is necessary.

Comment: But Wikipedia is not a webhost space provider -- (drini's page|☎) 21:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was RENAME to Asamushi Onsen and KEEP. — JIP | Talk 16:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asamushi-Onsen

This article is the same as Asamushi-Onsen Station except for the Station part. The same IP address created both pages, so this one should be removed (the one with Station follows the Japan rail naming convention). A redirect would work, except the new page already exists, and an article for Asamushi-Onsen (not the station) may be desired in the future. Neier 13:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per what I said above. - Neier 13:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename and keep. Fg2's update (good work) makes this afd mostly pointless. Neier 22:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Asamushi Onsen. Kappa 15:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as Kappa said, and of course then keep. I've added material to distinguish it from the article on the train station. Fg2 09:45, 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 speedied under the new CSD. --fvw* 03:40, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avnish

Non-notable. Also, it looks like the page has been vandalized. Cheese Sandwich 03:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 21:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Babblio

I believe this is a hoax. Google does not have any evidence for this (<10 distinct, <20 total, none relevant except here). The reference to Ghandi and the Beatles seem spurious. The rules are incomplete. Given the historical claims made, google should find evidence. RJFJR 22:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Apyule 07:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:23, 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. -Splash^talk 23:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Babukishan

Krishnendu das aka Babukishan, an Bangladeshi Indian Bengali musician. Originally posted by User:Krishnendu das so clearly self-promotion. Is he notable? (Ignore the copyvio aspect - I am satisfied it is posted by the original author or with his approval.) -- RHaworth 08:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this {{PotentialVanity}} ? Ian Cairns 10:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Does this help to show notability? -- RHaworth 19:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Delete: A google search revealed an article in Times of India on the person, but other than that, I found only self promotional material. I'd suggest a delete of the article, unless other proofs of notability have been put forward. --Ragib 02:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as blatant copyvio from [2] and [3]. utcursch | talk 11:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I said please ignore the copyvio aspect. He has posted this or similar all over the web. It is of course an insult to Wikipedia (which should be introduced as a speedy criterion) to post crude copy and pastes from elsewhere. But first, can we please have a judgement on his notability. -- RHaworth 08:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral, I've never heard of him, but all the same it would be better to ask user:Ragib User:Nichalp/sg 18:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I've done that already. See Ragib's vote above. Tintin 18:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • aargh... didn't see. Thanks Tintin. User:Nichalp/sg 18:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • As I said in my talk page, I haven't heard of him before, but that may be because he is from West Bengal,India. At least in Bangladesh, he is totally unknown/non notable. The Times of India article is the only neutral claim to notability, other than his quite active self-promotion in different websites. Thanks. --Ragib 21:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 23:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bella Goth

This afd accompanies List of Pre-Made Characters in The Sims and The Langrabb Family as non-notable fancruft; a proper search using Google produces only 941 results. However, this character is considered by the Sims community as a notable topic of interest, therefore I abstain from voting for the time being. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 18:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC) ╫

• Merge with List of Pre-Made Characters in The Sims. Hedley 18:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is too large to merge. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It isn't any less fancruft than an article on a mod in Warcraft or a weapon in Gundam. --Idont Havaname 04:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Hedley. If it's too much, to merbe, just be brutal in cutting it down. Saberwyn 05:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Bella Goth is a figure with a special history and a special relationship to simfans and game. --Simmemann 07:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of Pre-Made Characters in The Sims. Half of this article is fan speculation or fanon to reconcile two different characters who have the same name (in a series without an actual continuity anyway), and once you cut that away, viola! It fits into the list nicely. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, then Redirect as per Man in Black. Jkelly 01:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Relevant page for well known Sim character.Rhetoricalwater 23:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you demonstrate any notability outside of the Sims community? I've only ever heard of Bella Goth in the context of really hard-core fans of the Sims, which seems to indicate that it's a clear-cut merge case. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Why cant we simfans have this if WoW fans can have articles on fictional citys and races? --Simmemann 12:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, when I find those, I'll make sure to merge or AFD those too, as appropriate. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Easy, check like Ironforge, on the bottom there is even a list of other citys.--Simmemann 18:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge --Optichan 13:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE AlistairMcMillan 15:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BeOS Workstation

This article, along with LinOS and KoGee Computing is part of a series of incoherent articles about non-existant projects and/or companies. None of them are true, none of them have any encyclopedic merit. It should be noted that the Robert Wheeler in question does not have a great reputation, despite the claims of the company being 'known' for something. Kiand 14:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. BeOS is a real OS, but this article is pure crud. linas 23:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Apyule 04:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 00:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per non AlistairMcMillan 08:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom — Wackymacs 18:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black & White 2 tweaking

Violates no original research policy --Yamla 21:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

RE: The No original research policy represents a different type of data. First of all, this information is not researched. It is simply a very intuitive guide on how to very specifically manipulate a certain data file. It is verafiable, and has no POV whatsoever. The page has nothing to do with original research. It is not scientific or academic, but rather technical in nature. Therefore, this is not a valid application of the no original research policy. -- Unsigned comment from User:IronLion45 at 21:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the no original research policy. Your work creates a primary source. It is uncited. No exemption seems to exist for technical research as opposed to scientific. Regardless, we'll see how the votes go. I suppose it could be a long-standing tradition for the Wikipedia to allow technical guides here but I have not seen any other such article. I believe this would be more appropriate on a site like Planet Black & White. --Yamla 21:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I See your point, and concede. Delete away, as far as I'm concerned. User:Ironlion45

• speedy as requested by author, or delete as non-encyclopedic. Thanks for contributing, Ironlion45, but Wikipedia doesn't collect HOWTOs like this (see WP:NOT for more information). — brighterorange (talk) 00:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. This should be located at a place like gamefaqs or similar. bjelleklang 00:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: could this be moved to IronLion45's user page? -- Kjkolb 08:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR --Rogerd 12:20, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 21:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blast-o-Matic

Reads more like a game guide than an article also nn Gamecruft Delete --JAranda | yeah 04:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. Banes 10:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. User:Colin99 12:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--Rogerd 21:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Donkey Kong 64 --Revolución (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge agree with Revolucion that article can be edited down and merged, not necessarily completely deleted. Some information of value here. (el_amante) 19:04, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 16:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BLOGHORREA

Delete this protologism, please. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. neologism. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this ain't Urban Dictionary. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 23:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. linas 23:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:18, 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 Keep -- (drini's page|☎) 21:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caffeinism

This page barely survived a VfD on no concensus, and now that the articles overly protective author (who spammed the entire wiki with his website) no longer seems to be editing, I'm listing it again

The article is neologistic, and uses a term not used outside the Wikipedia for the use it pertains to be (it is used for caffeine addiction but not poisoning). The article was originally written to promote a website, which is no longer linked from that page. Kiand 21:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to the caffeine addiction page. Jtmichcock 23:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean the section of the main Caffeine article I have behind that piped redirect? Caffeine addiction links the article this AfD is on, oddly enough - going to re-redirect it, as its the wrong content. --Kiand 23:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep I disagree; "caffeinism" appears in the American Heritage Dictionary [4] as the toxic condition. Maybe there is some merging to be done, but this is a decent and sourced article with no violation of the deletion policy. — brighterorange (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Brighteroerange. Good article with verifiable references on notable condition. Capitalistroadster 01:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Brighterorange. The term also shows up in Medline in at least six article titles, and the summaries of at least three of those seem to be referring to a toxic condition. (e.g. people with paranoid delusions, cardiac arrhythmia, etc. Crypticfirefly 05:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article has problems and should never have survived the original VFD. First, it's weasely: "Caffeinism has been defined as the poisoning resulting from excessive intake of caffeine". Yeah, OK, who defines it that way? Second, this section is a red herring: "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) states: "The 4 caffeine-induced psychiatric disorders include caffeine intoxication, caffeine-induced anxiety disorder, caffeine-induced sleep disorder, and caffeine-related disorder not otherwise specified (NOS)." Notice that DSM-IV doesn't ever use the term caffeinism. Third, the single online reference given never uses the term caffeinism either. It's not wikipedia's job to push neologistic original research. Quale 06:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as it seems to be real and used outside Wikipedia and its mirrors, even if it isn't widely used by medical professionals. Cleanup if necessary. -- Kjkolb 08:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The term is used. But for something -completely different-. Which is something nobody on this or the previous VfD seemed to notice. Its not used for what this article claims it is, this article is utterly neologistic. --Kiand 09:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If someone could point me to one of these "other uses", I'll rewrite the article around it. --Carnildo 19:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The only time this term is ever used is in a neologistic sense for caffeine addiction, not what the article content implies. It should not be rewritten, possibly redirected to the same section of caffeine as caffeine addiction currently is - or have that spun off into a seperate article, rather than leaving a trail of pseudoscience behind it. --Kiand 19:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep what a stupid nomination, strong keep. --Mateusc 00:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? --Kiand 11:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah [5] --Mateusc 17:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see your name there. I also see a VfD full of barracking from the articles author, and a bare no-concensus result, based on the fact that a new meaning for a pre-existing word was invented by the article, and with many keep voters having done nothing more than a Google Test without actually examining the results. --Kiand 17:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and edit as necessary. Kwertii 00:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is a biased article in contradiction with modern studies. This flies in the face of imformation available from scientific studies such as those at the Harvard School of Public Health. Vassyana
• Keep/expand. Exploding Boy 02:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keeep/Rewrite well sourced and documented article. Cool3 23:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The sources refer to either a different use of the term, or do not use the term, at all. We can't have articles using neologisms, even if the content is verifiable....

Actually, this article wouldn't need deletion if it just had a proper name.... which I'll go and do now.... --Kiand 23:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'll wait till the VfD is closed, which it could have been 4 days ago. --Kiand 23:27, 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 MERGE into main Classface article. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CF Underground

Non-notable. Article even says it has "several members." — ceejayoz ^★ 02:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ^★ 02:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Note: I've moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/CF Underground.
• Delete --Rogerd 21:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Starbase89 19:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • user has 6 edits, 1 to main namespace.
• Strong Keep getcrunk 19:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • user has 81 edits.
    • and they're all great.
• Strong delete - the forum has less than 650 post & 39 registered users Renata3 15:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

650 posts..6 and a half days up..that's over 100 per day.. more than Classface is getting now :P.. getcrunk 23:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not notable at all.  Grue  18:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Forums do usually start out small. They grow. Give this one a chance. Maybe hold off on deletion for a month? If little growth has occured in that time, delete. Ghostknife 21:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • user has 2 edits, 0 to main namespace
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep* - The article was made a day after the forum was up. You need to give it time to grow, then judge. --Tristan1301 23:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • user has 7 edits
• Merge - Into main Classface article AndrewMack 00:09, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citynoise

It's either a neologism and therefore wiktionary-fodder or just non-notable, or it's an advert for a website - I can't wrok out which one just at this moment. Delete Francs2000 23:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• That's because according to the article it means many things to many people. Delete until they come up with something encyclopædic. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete as website promotion. — brighterorange (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advert and attempted (self-admitted) neologism. MCB 00:51, 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. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Mertz

This page was up for deletion once before but I decided to list it again. The article seem to be a total vanity article. When discussing whether or not to delete the article before, the subject of the article, who is User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters was asked to refrain from editing the article. He has been unable to do so and has made almost weekly edits to it changing wordings, listing himself as in categories (such as philosopher) which he may or may not actually be qualified as. He did seem to appear in a few Google searches, but that's not very hard to do. I myself have published books, have taught classes, and have many of the same qualifications as this man seems to have, but I don't feel the need to glorify myself or make a completely vanity-like article. The fact that this user himself is the one who's done most of the workl on the article, and has made the majority of the edits, especially after being asked not to do so, is troubling to me and puts the reputation of wikipedia at stake. {See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Mertz/Archive for the previous deletion vote) --ScottyBoy900Q 15:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I would urge editors to read Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies, which reads in part: Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more. (Note also that ScottyBoy900Q has recently nominated himself for administratorship: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScottyBoy900Q).

My book on Addison-Wesley has sold about 3500 printed copies to-date (but has just gone to second printing in the last week), but has been downloaded approximately 70,000 times in its electronic version. The website gnosis.cx is essentially exclusively for archival publications of my articles first published in other places. It has received visits from approximately 750k distinct IP addresses (which only loosely correlates with eyeballs, of course). However, the original publishers, chiefly IBM developerWorks, O'Reilly ONLamp[6], and Intel's (now terribly unorganized) developer site, certainly receive more readers on first publication (of my articles specifically) than does my archival site. So in other words, my readership is approximately two orders of magnitude beyond the (admittedly minimal) recomendation WP provides for notability.

I took a look at Google Scholar for my name. It's a cool tool; I haven't really used it before. There seems to be a "DB Mertz" who is an ethologist, and is not me. But looking through the 67 basic hits, I see that 38 of them are really about me. Fewer than half of those concern any work for IBM. It appears that I have a number of citations and acknowledgement related to my philosophy work that I had not been aware of. Cool! See: [7]

Also of interest—at least to me—is Google Print. See: [8]. Interestingly, all of the 11 books that contain my name in their text are genuinely references to me. It's delightful to me (for vanity reasons) that books as diverse as Women's Health Solutions, Understandings of Russian Foreign Policy, Philosophy of Science and Its Discontents, Python Cookbook: 2nd Edition, Fear, Truth, Writing: From Paper Village to Electronic Community, and Sexual Investigations all mention me. Mostly just by way of brief acknowledgments or citations of a single paper; I'm certainly not claiming that any of those are significantly about me.

The basic "Google test" shows about 85k hits on my name, about 95% are to me rather than someone else sharing my name. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Google Scholar turns up some half-dozen hits (admittedly in IBM publications) so I don't feel it's total vanity although it is somewhat self-promotional. I too am disturbed by the edit pattern, but it did fairly clearly survive the previous Afd and the request there by Smoddy (Rabbit and pork)that Lulu not edit the page further can hardly be taken as binding. Dlyons493 Talk 16:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It's popssible though people voted to keep under the assumption that request for him to not edit would be followed. --ScottyBoy900Q 16:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't think so - all the votes were cast before that last-minute request went in. Just to be be clear though Slac did enourage no edits and finally Smoddy requested no edits! Dlyons493 Talk 17:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete If Mertz was not a wikipedia contributor this would be a slam-dunk delete, there's no reason to come to a different conclusion because he is a wikipedian, jguk 16:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with jguk. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ^★ 18:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete did nothing of note.  Grue  19:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This is just absurd (again). Yeah I'm the guy the article is about, and I've done a number of small edits on it, but the substantial content was written by our fine admin SlimVirgin (and contributions by other top-notch editors). But either way, "David Mertz" is both meaningfully discussed in a bunch of Wikipedia articles (on computer programming-ish topics), and read by hundreds of thousands of readers (a magnitude more than watch the minor porn actors with articles, or ever attended some high school with an article). I mean, 85,700 google results on "David Mertz" isn't an accident (about 95% are the right david mertz). Nor is the high Alexa rating on the site gnosis.cx where my articles get archived. Contrary to my "sworn enemy" Jguk, my contributions to Wikipedia are completely non-notable in this article, and that's why they are not mentioned. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Just the fact that you're so dedicated to making sure the article stays seems to justify my claim that its for vanity. I have a degree in history...does that mean I should list myself amongst the most notable 20th century historians and create an article about myself...no! You just don't seem significant enough to warrant having your own article. The very idea that you edit it and keep editing it to me indicates its just for self promotion. If we made a page for every minor person who works in every occupation, we'd have so many rubbish articles. Where do we draw the line? --ScottyBoy900Q 17:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I am too much biased to actually put forth my opinion on this matter, but I say, as an administrator, that this is by no means a speedy keep. I cannot see any way in which it is in bad faith. [[Sam Korn]] 17:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, let the voting run its course. --ScottyBoy900Q 17:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep clearly meets the criteria for notability and verifiability. Fawcett5 20:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: Although this may sound fan-boyish and David has pointed the AfD request out to me, but I do find David Mertz to be notable, especially in programmer circles (3 hits on Slashdot on his name is notable in my book). He is a widely read, widely cited, widely published author. Then there is the Open Voting Consortium; David is the CTO and was recently nominated for the Open Source for Elections panel of the State of California, together with Bruce Perens. Now, if Bruce Perens came over to make some edits on his bio page, should we boot that article as well? --MJ^(☎|@|C) 20:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC).

• Keep. I don't think that articles on people should have to jump hrdles set higher than video-game characters, American villages, or pop singles; this article would in fact jump hurdles much higher than any of those, and (as Fawcett5 and others have commented) clearly meets the normal criteria for notability and verifiability. jguk says: "If Mertz was not a wikipedia contributor this would be a slam-dunk delete"; I don't actually understand the refernce (I think that it's to basketball, but that's the best I can do), though I understand its general meaning — and it's surely the other way round: if the subject weren't a Wikipedia contributor no-one would have thought to delete the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. He's published by a reputable publisher, among other things. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, passes the Cyrus Farivar test. Kappa 02:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Mel Ettis. Xoloz 02:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - do you see how many citations there are on that? go try to find an article of similar length with that number of references. SECProto 03:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - change of vote from the last debate, for a few reasons - firstly, the points raised by nominator I by and large concur with, and secondly, I can affirm that I had a definite expectation (even if I did not phrase it as such) that Lulu would not edit the article. The fact that he has is, frankly, disappointing, and such practices are fairly clearly discouraged throughout Wikipedia. Jimbo manages to refrain from it, despite being professedly disappointed with the state of his article. In terms of notability, I last time was of the view that the balance of evidence brought to light favours it, but I'm less convinced given that there only seems to be work within an IBM context. Slac speak up! 03:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah well, votes is votes. But the guideline at Wikipedia:Autobiography is just: If you do so, please only add verifiable information and be especially careful to respect the neutral point of view. Noting objections or corrections on the talk page may be appropriate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• NULL Jeff says this person is not notable. margit mueller merkey 03:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC) (Not a sockpuppet of merkey, was my wife, and she can vote). Gadugi 16:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC) I talked to my wife and she says withdraw her vote since I told her how to vote, so it probably should not count. Gadugi 22:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  To nuance this vote: Jeff Merkey is in dispute over the contents of his biography with the editors of the article, of whom Lulu is one (and so am I). He escalated this to a Request For Arbitration (now rejected, link is to a past version) and this vote is most likely retaliation. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 09:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC).

• Delete, even the 5k boundary is ridiculously low. --fvw* 13:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. paul klenk ^talk 16:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Google Scholar hits, sales and him being highly cited and referenced outside (and to a certain degree within) Wikipedia (also see reasoning of other keep voters). If his editing his own article is a problem you could try getting a binding decision on it, but published authors like him are quite notable enough for an entry. Disclosure: Lulu contacted me, but I don't remember any prior contact with him, so I think I'm still objective in the matter. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Mel Etitis, MacGyverMagic, and established Google Scholar hits. Hall Monitor 18:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article seems neutral and verifable enough. Disk space is cheap. Bryce 20:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vivian Darkbloom 21:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC) (account created Oct 10, all edits on that date were votes on AfD)
• Keep per Mel Etitis and others. Neier 22:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable author; to my mind, meets WP:BIO, and any POV or vanity issue can be dealt with. MCB 00:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Particularly per SECProto. 172 | Talk 09:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: the subject is clearly a sufficiently interesting character that not having an article on him might prove embarrassing later. On a purely personal basis, noting the style of opposition on the talk page, I'm not inclined to give in to non-verifiable slurs. If a certain user can justify their problem with the article (not with David/Lulu himself) with rather more substance and less whining I might be inclined to take it more seriously. —Phil | Talk 14:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are you draggin' me into this as a deletionist? If the article can be cleaned-up, devanitized, and uncensored, I'd probably want to keep it. Davey's only cliam to notability is as a political activist, and it's censorship to keep removing references to his unsavory sociopolitical comments about Jews and Israel. Tanya! Ravine 19:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• keep factual and verifiable. Trollderella 15:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this person is notable and we need to stop this systemic bias now Yuckfoo 15:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that if he weren't a Wikipedia editor, this article would unquestionably be kept. Also, voting "delete because I don't like the edits he's made" makes very little sense. AfD isn't the place to dispute the content of an article. Go edit the article or its talk page. RSpeer 18:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep - sufficiently notable to justify inclusion--User:AYArktos | Talk 21:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have no reason to doubt that this AfD was brought in good faith. However, while I had personally never heard of David Mertz, there is sufficient evidence of notability, through google searches, and online bookshop searches, etc. His book "usually ships within 24 hours" at Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk. (The more obscure titles have "usually ships within two months, but may not be available at all".) The book seems to be popular and to sell well. Obviously, it was against Wikipedia policy for Lulu to have started the article, but he explained in the first AfD that he was unaware of that policy at the time. If there are POV problems or factual errors, the article can be edited. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 22:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. David Mertz, how can you see you have only added "minor" edits to the page when not only did you start the page but continued adding until half the history is your edits? --Fir0002 07:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Fir0002, do you have a rationale to delete the article? If you object to the content that David added to the article, take it to the talk page or edit the article. RSpeer 19:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I thought my question was pretty self explanatory, but to put it formally, I vote to delete because I belive it is a vanity article. --Fir0002 08:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

As is noted in the article talk page (and the prior failed VfD), I did not write the article. I copies it from a bio at another wiki that discusses various computer people. Yeah, I performed the cut-and-paste, but not the composition. In any case, take a look at the edits: I made pretty many, but they're stuff like typos and wikification, overwhelmingly... nothing that even comes close to NPOV issues. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well I certainly don't think that it should have been you who copyed the text to make an article on yourself. --Fir0002 08:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

How is this comment even remotely relevant to the notability of the article subject? If an editor edited improperly, the proper mechanism is RfC. Of course, there is no prohition on autobiography editing if it meets NPOV; so the case is tenuous anyway. But even if true, it's irrelevant to an AfD. 71.208.214.195 20:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep based on substantiated non-trivial (though not major) notability. Edit pattern isn't directly relevant to whether we should keep the article. Merkey controversy isn't relevant to whether we should keep the article. Tanya R's conflict over things the subject said or wrote outside his area of notability isn't relevant to whether we should keep the article. Barno 19:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Whaddya mean, "outside his area of notability"? He doesn't meet the criteria as an above-average academic or as an author. (That 70000 number he claims doesn't count; no-name bands have given away 250000 free downloads of albums that they couldn't sell 250 of.) If Lulu's notable, it's for his politics, and it's wrong to see the article get consored in that area. Tanya! Ravine 20:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons I just said. There are more important committees in California then the one he's supposed to be appt'd to but their members don't get articles. Tanya! Ravine 20:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting that Tany Ravine argues that all these utterly non-notable things about my alleged political beliefs (nothing I really believe, of course) ought to be in the article; but then argues the article should be deleted because those non-notable things might be included. (david mertz)

• Keep based on the qualifying publishing information and minor notability. The difference between Wikipedia and other encyclopedias is that we are not constrained by space and thus can include minor notables if they meet some basic criteria. This was on the fence of keep/weak keep for me, but ultimately I think it should stay. (el_amante) 19:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The subject and the article cannot be judged separately, and in this case, the article is clear self-promotion. I believe that the only reason we do not have a specific policy against editors working on their own articles is the clear unenforceability of such a policy. Chick Bowen 02:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

How does this even remotely make sense?! If you think David Mertz is a bad person, add the text "David Mertz is an asshole" to the article (if you think such can meet WP:NPOV and WP:V). If you think Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is a bad editor, create an RfC or the like. But how can either thing being even slightly relevant to the obvious notability of the article subject? 71.208.214.195 19:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Minor notability established. El_C 03:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. More google hits for David Mertz than many articles/bios on wikipedia. IMO, Lulu editing the article is, however, not ideal. Banes 10:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete If not a wikipedian, this article would not even exist here. Fails 5K test. Gadugi 16:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC) Please don't call my wife a sockpuppet. In addition to being incorrect, it's also disrespectful. Gadugi 22:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The comment made above, that this vote is a retaliation against Lulu over a disputed biography, still stands. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 12:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC).

I see that Jeff's "wife" withdrew hisher vote above. So it looks perfectly proper now for Jeff to cast one delete vote; it's not for us to proclaim motives (as obvious as they are in this case). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I SEE that this self-serving article is the result of WP:AB all over the place. It's the ultimate in hipocrosy to revert edits in other articles under claims of WP:AB when this popinjay article dressed in the plumage of a peacock is paraded around on WP. This article is an eyesore on the internet and should be deleted. 67.137.28.187 19:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I ordered several of this authors books from Amazon and ohter sources, and they are so rife with credits to the work of others, I would suggest that only 10% of their content is by the author. The remaining 90% of their content appears to be blatant plagaurism from the work of others. Note Notable. Delete stands, and not on the basis of retaliation. 67.137.28.187 19:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Alas, I've only published on book that can be obtained from Amazon. So I guess Jeff bought several copies of the same title just to make sure they all contained the same "plagurism [sic]". :-) (david mertz)

• Delete violation of WP:AB, vanity. First edit written by Lulu. More than half the edits are additional entries by Lulu and few of those to revert erroneous information.--MONGO 05:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete. Autobiography. I'm surprise that a person, with PhD training, think that it is okay to write an article of himself in wikipedia. It is clear violation of independence and nature of encyclopedia, and filled with conflict of interest. Keeping this article is an extreme risk to the credibility of wikipedia. So, the reviews we get will be "In wikipedia, some biography articles were written by the subjects themselves". Do you guys want this to happen? This is a speedy delete because the whole wikipedia project is at stake. Please read Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great. --Vsion 06:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dawgie Outlaw

nn 14 distinct Googles Dlyons493 Talk 16:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. Xoloz 02:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:12, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 21:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DCOM Gallery

Gallery of posters for Disney Channel movies; a category somewhere in Category:Wikipedia images would be more appropriate. tregoweth 07:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. tregoweth 07:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Bad name too - I thought it was about distributed COM.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Collections of images should be in wikimedia, anyway, not wikipedia. linas 23:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Rogerd 01:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the Commons won't take copyrighted images and Wikipedia articles aren't image galleries. Fair use can only be asserted for use in film articles and perhaps on articles about the actors, not for a gallery. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete after adding each image to Category:Disney Channel original movies. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Don't Delete just fix it up a bit. It's not fair anyway. The Disney Channel page on wikipedia is becoming a mess and so are the movie pages people have been working on hard.

It's been how it was for months until somebody had to go and mess up the information.I scan most of the posters so you will get a look at the original. It's very complicated process. User:Allenk893 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don Tacos

Another Japanese snack food not notable enough to have its own article in the Japanese Wikipedia.

• Delete or merge. Dforest 06:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Did they fail an AFD? Kappa 15:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If not in Japanese wikipedia, cant be that notable. Banes 10:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • How much do you know about the Japanese wikipedia? Kappa 15:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • That they have 146,849 articles, and yet somehow managed to overlook this particular snack food. I wonder why? --Calton | Talk 05:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
      • They also didn't have an article for Kyabetsu Taro until yesterday. After I translated it into Japanese it was put on a list of "new food-related articles". Maybe I'll do "Don Tacos" next. Another one today, Japanese map symbols, was not on Japanese wikipedia either, it was a red link on one of their pages, and I translated that into Japanese (it's since been heavily added to by another editor). If you'll look on my user page under "Japanese Wikipedia" you'll find two more examples of articles about Japanese language which didn't exist there until I translated them. As a matter of fact, several of the articles on Japanese language here in the English wikipedia are a lot more comprehensive than theirs. So, it seems, strange but true, Japanese Wikipedia is not yet the fount of all human knowledge. But anyway, thankyou for your comments. --DannyWilde 06:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Why look, THAT article is up for deletion also. And the fact that you added it to the Japanese Wikipedia means nothing -- hell, it means less than nothing; having to gin up a rationale doesn't exactly help your case. --Calton | Talk 06:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
          • • I'm very sorry, but which article are you referring to? I have just checked the Japanese version of kyabetsu taro, the Japanese map symbols article, and the English map symbols article, and none of them have notices saying they are being put up for deletion. Is there something I'm not aware of? --DannyWilde 02:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Without putting words in DannyWilde's mouth, I think the point he was making is that using the presence of an article in the Japanese Wikipedia as a litmus test for cultural validity in Japan is not foolproof. Otherwise, we have to say that Pikachu is not culturally significant in Japan, since it doesn't have a page of its own in Japanese (but it does in several other languages -- are you planning an AFD for those too?). In Japanese, it is relegated to a catalog list of other pokemon characters ja:ポケモン一覧 from a redirect. I'm not against merging the snack foods in a similar way (or, the plethora of pokeon characters that populate the en wikipedia), but I am against deleting an article with >30k google hits. - Neier 08:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Yes, exactly. For example, "edomoji", a type of Japanese lettering used in sumo, kabuki, and other Japanese arts like rakugo, was not in the Japanese wikipedia until I translated it. There were just some red links. Edomoji are undoubtedly culturally significant by any standards, and they just weren't there at all. Absolutely nothing existed in the Japanese wikipedia until I made that article. Whether it's in the Japanese wikipedia or not means nothing, really, since there is no guarantee that the Japanese wikipedia is comprehensive. I suppose Dforest would suggest deleting the edomoji article from the English wikipedia too, if he can't find enough links about edomoji in English on Google. --DannyWilde 02:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 31,600 Google hits in Japanese makes it a notable snack. Fg2 10:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sure it's a stub, but it has potential for expansion. Many snack foods have an article in Wikipedia. CES 12:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • But do some deserve to be here? --JAranda | yeah 16:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete snackcruft. I cannot imagine how this could be expanded except by adding the most trivial of details. They're just Japanese tortilla chips, basically. --Calton | Talk 13:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep until I see an afd for Pringles and Doritos - Neier 13:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a step towards our goal of universal access to the sum of human knowledge. Kappa 15:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I dont think human knowledge wants to know about this nn snack food --JAranda | yeah 16:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Am I not human? Do I not suffer when knowledge is taken away from me? Kappa 17:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Im not saying that your not a human I dont know where u got that from . But this is not knowledge basically. Do you want to know what kind of flavors this chip has if it has a nice history to it i will keep but this practicly has no useful learning info. --JAranda | yeah 17:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I want to know what people in Japan eat, yes including what flavors their tacos have. Why shouldn't I be able to find that out?Kappa 17:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
        • The flavors are not particularly notable - cheese, and mexican chile (aka salsa). It's a Doritos clone. It doesn't need its own article. Dforest 04:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
          • So I shouldn't be able to find out what Japanese people eat? Kappa 04:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
            • If you think reading a substub about an off-brand knock-off snack will teach you a thing about Japan, you have a very peculiar definition of knowledge. --Calton | Talk 05:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
          • You, and others, might find out better if stubs like this one were moved to an article about Japanese snack food. Which is better: hundreds of sub-paragraph stubs or a comprehensive article? Dforest 05:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
            • I agree that an article on Japanese snack foods would be a good idea (if it doesn't exist somewhere already), but how can you advocate either deleting stubs that have information of interest or merging the information with an article that doesn't exist? How can you merge one thing with nothing? Sounds the same as deleting it to me. If you're so concerned about the creation of an article on Japanese snack foods, why don't you create one yourself? That would be more productive than holding these votes where there is an obvious interest in the articles, as the vote count suggests. CES 11:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
              • The idea in listing it here is to judge its interest. Personally, I can't imagine why this Doritos clone is more noteworthy than all the other thousands of Doritos clones out there. Dforest 01:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Neier - helps to address regional bias CLW 15:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn snack food --JAranda | yeah 16:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep and please try to reverse our systemic bias here 32 thousand hits is a lot so why is this non notable that does not make sense Yuckfoo 17:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I count 225 unique hits. Where did this "32,000" number come from? --Calton | Talk 05:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you google for English or Japanese? I got 30,500 just now. Neier 08:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No comment on Dforest's motives will be made. --DannyWilde 22:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • My motive is to move these stubs to a more useful and comprehensive article on Japanese snack food. There are literally thousands of Japanese snacks that could be mentioned here, and in my opinion they do not all deserve their own articles. Dforest 01:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • So why is it here in AFD? Kappa 01:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Because as of yet, there is no suitable place to merge them. Dforest 01:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Than create a place to merge it to and don't try to delete it. Deleted articles can't be merged. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Right now there is very little to merge. Perhaps you could suggest a place? There are certainly Japanese snack foods worth having their own articles, but I can't imagine this being more than a stub, so I listed it here. Can you suggest a better place to discuss merging Japanese snack stubs? Dforest 10:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable Japanese snack. Capitalistroadster 23:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 32 thousand hits. Stubby, but certainly notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • 225 unique hits, according to Google. --Calton | Talk 05:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into a larger article on Japanese snack foods. Logophile 15:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge We definitely need an article on Japanese snack foods, but do we really need a bunch of individual stub articles? I don't think so. A redirect to a larger and more comprehensive article on Japanese snack foods would serve just as well until someone is both able and willing to write an full article on this particular snack food and its culrutal signifcance in Japan. Caerwine 22:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I live in Tokyo, and, to be blunt, I find this whole discussion bordering on the insane -- There is no cultural significance to this particular snack food, any more so than Belgian or Dutch Doritos knock-offs (and yes, they exist and I've seen those). Pocky Sticks, yes; Calpis, yes; Taco rice, yes; Don Tacos, no. (forgot to sign: --Calton | Talk 06:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC))

I have no idea whether Don Tacos are culturally significant. If you are going to delete or merge articles based on their "lack of cultural significance", good luck, you only have about 700,000 articles on Wikipedia to delete until you are finished. Let's hope no one makes anymore articles about snacks in the meantime, otherwise you certainly will have your hands full. --DannyWilde 06:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Buh? That was the biggest load of non-sequitor I've seen all month. To quote Wolfgang Pauli, "That's not right; that's not even wrong." So your false dichotomy is EVERYTHING is culturally significant or NOTHING is culturally significant? Because that's the only meaning that makes even the tiniest shred of sense in that context. --Calton | Talk 06:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact it was my poor attempt at humour. I'm sorry you don't like the article and feel it is not useful to you, but I think that this information could be useful for other people. It would be a shame if the information were deleted, I think. It could be merged into a larger article, perhaps, but I don't see what harm it is doing as a small article in its own right. Quite often, merged articles end up being rather unreadable and unfocused. Take a look at Planet of the Apes, where the article tries to extensively describe a novel and a rather different film in the same page, with rather poor consequences for readability and focus. As for significance, Wikipedia contains things like individual articles for every single episode of the Simpsons cartoons, individual articles on particular trees, and individual articles on streets and roads in cities. I don't see why it can't tolerate a few dozen articles on the snack foods eaten by a country with a population of 120 million people. Most of the Japanese snacks don't have particularly much in common with each other anyway. The wagashi article already deals with traditional Japanese sweets, and then there are individual pages for most of the wagashi anyway. The List of Japanese snack foods could be extended into a longer article if there is some common point in all of these snacks which needs to be dealt with together I suppose. Anyway I say to people who are interested in doing that, why not go and edit the relevant pages, instead of discussing doing it here? Actions speak louder etc. --DannyWilde 02:10, 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 17:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DubbleStuff

149 Google count], many results are wiki mirrors. delete because band is not popular enough to be verified.

lots of issues | leave me a message 01:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Deltabeignet 02:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, band vanity CLW 16:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 21:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 21:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Egerhaben

• seems to be nonsense 84.191.166.24 10:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The only web links that I can find are Wikipedia mirrors, so unverifiable. --Apyule 04:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even if verified it is not encyclopedic. Pavel Vozenilek 00:37, 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 Redirect to Endorphin -- (drini's page|☎) 21:13, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enkephaline

hoax... user created a few fake neurotransmitters Qaz ^(talk) 12:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Is there anyone here who knows enough about (bio)chemistry to back this claim up? I found it being 'quickdeleted' but it is not obviously a pack of nonsense. If it turns out to be a hoax, I`ll vote 'delete(of course) --Isolani 12:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • btw isnt Enkephaline just another spelling (german / dutch) for EnCephaline (which acc. to google is a neurtransmitter.. wouldn`t a 'redirect' do? , my 2 cents --Isolani 12:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I would think so to if the author had not also tried to pass off Gencer and Cigdem too. Look at the edit history of user 144.122.113.14. Qaz ^(talk) 13:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
      • hmm, I see. best make it a delete , can`t be an accident ! --Isolani 14:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
      • The motivation of the person who created the page is unknown and irrelevant. "Enkephaline" is found by the PubMed Search Engine in about 80 published articles; ten of them have "Enkephaline" in the title such as: "The effects of met-enkephaline, leu-enkephaline and tuftsine on guinea pig peritoneal granulocyte functions in vitro". Simply turn the page into a redirect to Endorphin. --JWSchmidt 14:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• The spelling I recall is enkephalin, which is already a redir. Redirect as above. --Trovatore 14:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• It's not a 'fake neurotransmitter'. Enkephaline can be found under Endorphin and Neurotransmitter. It's also in basic Biology 30 brain study. -- comment added by User:24.71.223.140

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 21:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Finncrisp

Advertisement Dlyons493 Talk 21:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Alhutch 22:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Crisp bread —Wahoofive (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:20, 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 16:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Form excludes the content

delete original research --Trovatore 14:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete OR as per nom. Puffs of smoke are insufficiently complex to express ideas on the nature of existence - patently untrue! Dlyons493 Talk 15:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as total crap. --Apyule 04:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete junk --Rogerd 12:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic and unsalvageable. MCB 00:36, 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 Keep -- (drini's page|☎) 21:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Franz-Benno Delonge

Substub article. Subject has about 23,100 hits on Google, which seems impressive but for the fact that only about 530 of those are unique pages [9]. Also, most of those pages are passing references ([10]) or lists of board games and their designers ([11]). The German-style board games article's list of designers has more than half of them as red links, so I don't see what there is about Mr. Delonge that makes him more worthy of an article than the others. An example of a more notable designer might be Reiner Knizia, because of his listing on the Internet Top 100 Games List. Quicksandish τκ 17:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Could you just redirect it to German-style board games, spesifically the part of it that has his name? --Rayc 17:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — as game designers go, I think he's notable enough to keep this article. I added in a few more details. — RJH 18:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Klaus Teuber is a stub too, but it'd be silly to delete that one. Same applies here, I think. (preceding unsigned comment by Wlievens (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --Celestianpower ^hablamé 14:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GameShowNewsNet.com

This article is just an advertisement for a non-notable website. -- Kjkolb 02:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ^★ 03:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Banes 10:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. — [[User:Colin99 12:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)]]
• Delete per nom--Rogerd 21:35, 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.  Denelson83  05:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Google OS

Hoax, information with a speculative nature Mateusc 19:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• ANNIHILATE!, now we're going to have articles that are pure speculation on what Google might or might not do? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 19:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ashibaka (tock) 19:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete cohesion | talk 19:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I still believe this is a completely random rumor and wishful thinking, even with the Chinese article (It loses credibility in the first sentence, claiming that the OS uses both Linux and the GNU Hurd). But,
  • It is very widespread as a rumor.
  • Google does make a hacked-up Linux for its servers that could be the origin of the rumors. Gazpacho 21:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's the source of the Chinese page linked in the article. Ashibaka (tock) 23:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:ISNOT a crystal ball. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can zoom in to almost lifesize on the Google complex using Google Earth and found no evidence of this OS. :) ESkog 01:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pure speculation. The idea of a Hurd based system from Google is kinda neat though. --Apyule 05:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:ISNOT a rumor database. MCB 00:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wow! How obvious of a fake rumor it is! Rhetoricalwater 18:22, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Graham Stud

This "person" appears to be a fantasy horse rancher player on the http://virtualhorseranch.com website. See http://virtualhorseranch.com/viewranch.php?ranch=41381. No more notable than somebody's D&D character. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --Metropolitan90 01:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:23, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Growlcomic

Webcomic, according to List of webcomics has been around for, what, under 2 weeks? - Hahnchen 18:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN. -- SCZenz 22:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious delete. -Sean Curtin 05:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete TerraFrost 04:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear-cut case. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:22, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gutterslut

Non notable term, Google gives 599 hits [12] -- ReyBrujo 15:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

As an old-time Dysfunctional Family Circus fan, I still have to say delete. DS 15:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as a dicdef. --Apyule 04:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:06, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 21:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How the pathology of schizophrenia relates to symptoms

Blank article. Information should be in Schizophrenia anyway. Edwardian 06:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge anything useful (from the talk page since the article itself is empty) to Schizophrenia and leave a redirect to preserve the history. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep for the moment as poor basis for deletion content moved to talk page, by another person is not the same as blank topic. --Mysidia (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• I reverted the page to the unblanked version while keeping the AfD tag, so people can see it (the talk page is a mess). Someone knowledgeable about schizophrenia should take a look and see if there's anything useful that can be merged with the schizophrenia article. If there is, merge and redirect. If not, delete. -- Kjkolb 10:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Schizophrenia exists. Pilatus 16:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pilatus --Rogerd 01:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Everything should be in schizophrenia. If not, improve that article instead of keeping this one. No one will use this article name as a search term anyway. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:45, 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 Speedied Wikibofh 15:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Humanitarium Universe Theory

OR if there was any evidence of the R bit of "OR". Not meeting "patent nonsense" criteria, not empty enough to be {{empty}}. Delete as, to be charitable, hoax Tonywalton  | Talk 22:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Part of a larger campaign of vandalism by User:84.13.74.48 and User:86.136.154.57. Pburka 22:55, 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. -Splash^talk 23:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inner Circle (rap group)

• Weak Keep Perhaps it needs to be rewritten from the NPOV? Banes 10:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 03:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- (drini's page|☎) 21:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE and inform the unsigned users of the procedure of the AfD process. Only speedy deletes get deleted on the same day as they are listed. — JIP | Talk 16:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IRRP

I asked for reliable references/citations on Talk:IRRP but none were forthcoming; not known if this group even exists Demiurge 18:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nomination. Demiurge 18:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This page was originally at IWRA; the main author of the IWRA page moved it to IRRP with the comment "IWRA moved to IRRP: IWRA does not exist" [13]. So I'm extremely dubious about the veracity of this article. Demiurge 18:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Somebody is supposedly proposing a template on the Discussion page for "deletion". I only just wrote it. Really. Somebody is obviously just following me around, to erase my stuff. On the Discussion page?! The editors ("censors") are really getting out-of-hand. (comment by 129.24.95.222)
  • Comment: article was created 8/14/05. -- Kjkolb 08:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as it seems to meet the WP is not a crystal ball criteria. Come back (or edit the article before it's deleted) when there's more than an unknown number of members, when the information which 'will be forthcoming in time... is forthcoming, and when the The Reformation Acts which are as yet not ready for general public release are actually encyclopædic. (all italics quoted from the article) Tonywalton  | Talk 00:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete

Fine, delete it. When I am authorized to contribute more information I will re-write it. Apologies for any inconvenience, - User:Wolfsangel, and User:General Heydrich

• Comment: Are you guys going to delete this page or what? What's the holdup? i made several mistakes, I realise I rushed the article, and I wasn't forthcoming about my sources, so can WE JUST DELETE IT, and I can write it again at some other point?

• Delete. "It is extremely small, with an unknown number of members." That seems to be a sufficient reason, barring any other signs of notability. -Willmcw 22:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Italian sauce

Non-notable and confusing entry for a single recipe in a single book from the early 1900's. The article even mentions that it is unknown in Italy, and I have never heard of this version of "Italian Sauce" otherwise. Additionally, this page gets no links. Perhaps this page would be better served by forwarding to Italian cuisine. AKeen 16:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per request AKeen 16:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as already transwikied to the cookbook. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete then redirect as per nom. Xoloz 02:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:13, 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 Speedied Wikibofh 15:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jet Black Existance

The band recently changed its name, which is why it did not come up in a Google search - please take a look at our site: http://www.freewebs.com/new_invention

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 16:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kalamaki

Article claims this is a food (and appears to attack someone for not liking it); Google indicates that it's a non-notable resort. DS 18:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn; keep as a dab page. Nice work, people. DS 11:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Kalamiki is an island in Greece, not a food. It appears to be notable, so somebody should write an article on it. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This is unusual reasoning. Imagine an article saying "Brandham Regis are chips with curry gravy, and Tony Blair is daft for not touching them with a ten-foot pole" and keeping it until someone gets around to write "Brandham Regis is a fictional village in L.P. Hartley's novel The Go-Between" Pilatus 21:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, patent nonsense. Pilatus 21:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewritten version. Pilatus 14:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This article appears to be correct in that it is a dish: however, whether a person likes it is of limited interest. However, What Links Here indicates that it is both a dish apparently served on skewers and towns or villages in Greece. I think that a disambiguation page is the best solution for this article but it would be good if we had a Greek person give their opinion.Capitalistroadster 23:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Besides the name of a beach resort, it seems to be a less-used synonym for souvlaki, i.e. cubes of grilled meat on a skewer. (Note to self: do research before voting) Pilatus 23:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• In that case, we should look at delinking the cuisine dishes that point here as in most cases they also refer to souvlaki. Looking at the Times Atlas, there are at least two Greek towns or villages of that name: a small town in Thessalia and a town in Zakynthos which has become a resort. A disambiguation page referring to the dish and these towns or villages would be appropriate. Capitalistroadster 00:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Rogerd 12:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• I have changed this into a disambiguation page so keep. I have plans to sort out the what links here which are discussed on the article's talk page. Capitalistroadster 19:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as dab. MCB

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaleidoscopic fractal

The term "kaleidoscopic fractal" appears to be a neologism with no precise definition, and the current loose definition is difficult to apply. All fractals have symmetry, and can be drawn with rich color. Use of the term "kaleidoscope" seems to imply that the fractal has a point symmetry group, but no examples are given. In google, almost all of the hits seem to be to this WP page, or its copies in places like answer.com, etc. linas 23:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: do any of these search results help? I modified it to exclude most of the mirrors. It seems to be used as "Kaleidoscopic fractal art" on several pages. Here's a definition from one of the results: A design that can be described in two words as kaleidoscopic, "a constantly changing set of colors, shapes, phases or events", and fractal, "a non-linear geometric figure sensitive to it's initial conditions." Is this any better? If not, delete as per linas. -- Kjkolb 08:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I didn't find anything usable there. linas 00:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Term is very loosely defined (so probably not encyclopaedic) and seems to be only used by Willow Hemphill (so probably original research). Best reference I could find is http://www.kaleido.us/coloring/coloringbook.pdf (9 MB), which is very similar to the definition cited by Kjkolb. Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as nonverifiable. Paul August ☎ 03:26, 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 09:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keeths karate

Non-notable. Almost no results found in google. A bit of vanity also involved Olorin28 12:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. For pity's sake -- if they want to advertise themselves, they could at least learn to write English properly. Deb 13:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 15:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn Icarus 23:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 04:10, 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. AlistairMcMillan 15:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KoGee Computing

This article, along with LinOS and BeOS Workstation is part of a series of incoherent articles about non-existant projects and/or companies. None of them are true, none of them have any encyclopedic merit. It should be noted that the Robert Wheeler in question does not have a great reputation, despite the claims of the company being 'known' for something. Kiand 14:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Oh pleez, the company's president works at another computer store, and is known for hacks, cracks, and reverse engineering? Bzzzt. linas 23:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Apyule 04:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom AlistairMcMillan 08:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom — Wackymacs 18:03, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kyabetsu Taro

Non-notable Japanese snack food. Googling "Kyabetsu Taro" or "Kyabetsu Tarou" shows no English references to this food. Also, it is not notable enough to have its own article in the Japanese Wikipedia.

• Delete or merge to a new article on Japanese snack food. Dforest 06:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, IMO. Banes 10:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Google gives 19,500 hits for it in Japanese. Fg2 10:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Something tells me that if this was an American or English snack we wouldn't be having this conversation ... CES 12:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Something" is wrong. --Calton | Talk 13:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable snack food. --Calton | Talk 13:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, of interest to users. This is what wikipedia is paid for. Kappa 16:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What interest? --JAranda | yeah 16:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --JAranda | yeah 16:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good little stub about popular Japanese snack. Capitalistroadster 18:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable snack food - sold EVERYWHERE in Japan. Is a children's snack, only known in Japan, hardly surprising that it doesn't show up on English Google. Actually, astonishingly famous - try asking any Japanese person about it. Should not be deleted any more than Momoe Yamaguchi should be - if you haven't heard of Momoe, it is hardly surprising. If you can find a single Japanese person who HASN'T heard of her - even more astonishing. Same goes for "cabbage taro". --DannyWilde 22:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The issue is whether it is notable enough to have its own article in the English Wikipedia. Regardless if they are popular, are all snack foods inherently notable? The absence of English Google stats is relevant here. Dforest 09:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • So what you're arguing is that if it doesn't already appear in English, it isn't worth mentioning about. --DannyWilde 10:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What I am arguing is that it is a regional snack food that is rarely exported outside Japan. Searching Google in English (or romaji) seems to be a good way to judge international interest in the food, which in this case appears to be virtually non-existent. I don't think all regional snack foods deserve their own articles, or we would have thousands of stubs on Japanese snack foods alone. Even in Japanese, I don't think an article on Kyabetsu Taro has much potential for being more than a stub. Dforest 00:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Compare Cheez-It or a dozen others. Chick Bowen 22:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Cheez-it" returns 80,000 Google hits and "Kyabetsu Taro" returns 9, none of which refer directly to the food. Dforest 09:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • You'd have to search with Japanese characters to get an accurate Google count. Chick Bowen 13:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Please note my 11 October comment above. Dforest 14:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep and please stop trying to erase famous snack foods kappa is right Yuckfoo 22:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep' though it really needs a clean up , a nice illustration of this snack would be nice. --Isolani 23:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, you can't rely on English language Google to judge a Japanese snack food. Keep per Japanese Google results and Danny's comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge We definitely need an article on Japanese snack foods, but do we really need a bunch of individual stub articles? I don't think so. A redirect to a larger and more comprehensive article on Japanese snack foods would serve just as well until someone is both able and willing to write an full atricle on this particular snack food and its culrutal signifcance in Japan. Caerwine 22:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge per Caerwine, and similar comments here and in Don Tacos Neier 11:53, 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 Keep. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lieutenant Randy Disher

Non-notable GTBacchus 10:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep character on hit show. Looking at the edit history, it appears the original speedy tag (nn real person), and the AFD nom (who tagged it as a "us-bio-stub"), were both based on the assumption this was a real person, who's job as "lieutenant" didn't make them notable. Since, it's a fictional character on a hit show, it probably qualifies for an article, although, it needs work. While I want a keep, I would be ok with a *temporary* re-dir to the show while the article is brought up to better standards (if it's not fixed by the end of the AFD) --rob 11:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per rob. -- Kjkolb 11:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep from original nom: now that I know it's a fictional character on a hit show, it seems a lot less wanton to have it in Wikipedia. I guess that's what I get for not watching TV. GTBacchus 03:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I created a stub article to the actor, Jason Gray-Stanford --Rogerd 03:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this article on Wikipedia. While this article is in need of editing, I don't believe it's necessary to delete the article, considering that many of the other fictional characters of the show, also have their own articles as well, and a summary of each character. I feel that by deleting this article, there is a bias toward who should and shouldn't have an article. which is unfair.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 AlistairMcMillan 15:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LinOS

This article, along with BeOS Workstation and KoGee Computing is part of a series of incoherent articles about non-existant projects and/or companies. None of them are true, none of them have any encyclopedic merit. It should be noted that the Robert Wheeler in question does not have a great reputation, despite the claims of the company being 'known' for something. Kiand 14:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — Wackymacs 16:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Utterly non-notable non-hack. linas 23:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Apyule 04:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom AlistairMcMillan 08:35, 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. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pre-Made Characters in The Sims

This afd accompanies The Langrabb Family and Bella Goth as non-notable fancruft. I find it absurd to list all pre-made chracters for The Sims and SimCity 4, famous or otherwise to only the Sims community. Delete I have now shifted to abstaining from voting. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 18:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC) ╫

• Keep because we have lists of characters for other 'series', be it on television or a computer game. That, and Bob Newbie is my idol. Hedley 18:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, these are popular games which many people know and love. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as we have lists of Star Wars and Star Trek characters, only to name a few. Carioca 22:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Sims series has sold very well, and we have articles on individual mods and individual levels in other games (see Warcraft, Halo, ...). This article is no less encyclopedic than those. --Idont Havaname 04:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, Explains characters on one page. Good informant. Rhetoricalwater 22:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC) 22:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. This is solidly informative. If more experienced minds than mine feel it doesn't merit a stand-alone entry, than I recommend identifying the appropriate article to merge with. (el_amante) 19:06, 12 October (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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^(?!?) 23:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Puerto Rico numbered highways

Obviously, with all these redlinks the list is most likely unencyclopedic, not to mention the highways of Puerto Rico aren't really that notable.

• Unless somebody will actually bring any of these PR highway articles to life, delete. --SuperDude 00:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. List, no new info.Shelburne Kismaayo 00:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. All state highways or the equivalent are "notable". --SPUI (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a start. CalJW 07:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- If highways in other countries are notable, then certainly highways in Puerto Rico are, there should eventually be articles for them, and making the list, is at least a point to start from. --Mysidia (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Mysidia. When all the redlinks are filled in, consider making a category to replace this list however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above but should be categorized later. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per RN and Sjakkalle Better to be catagorized --JAranda | yeah 16:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above --Rogerd 21:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, real highways in a real place. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 22:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please these are very important and help reverse our systemic bias Yuckfoo 22:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Revolución (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. I'm not enthusiastic about this type of article, but Wikipedia does have List of California numbered highways, List of Texas numbered highways, List of Florida numbered highways, and probably others. I recommend improving this article to the quality of the California one. --Metropolitan90 01:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. We have articles on nearly every highway in the continental US. Deleting a list of highways for Puerto Rico, which is outside the continental US, just furthers systemic bias. --Idont Havaname 05:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Puerto Rican Highways are just as notable as US ones, so deleting this would add to the existing systemic bias. That said, if none of the articles are created within a month, I'd support deletion of the ground it lacks content and is just an external link platform. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep I have supported the project on West Virginia roads project and I support this one: I don't want to be a hipocrit or encourage systemic bias. Youngamerican 17:59, 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 Keep. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of ZIP Codes in New Jersey

This list contains nothing beyond the ZIP codes for towns in New Jersey. We already have an article on the ZIP code, and Wikipiedia is not a repository for original data or a mirror for the United States Postal Service. Pilatus 16:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, helps users find articles. Kappa 17:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator's comments. There are search engines for this (and who wants to track new zips that the post office may issue?) Jtmichcock 23:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or move to Wikisource Useful non-copyrightable information. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 00:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - there is a large enough base of these articles that it seems there is precedent for them being here. I also agree with Kappa that it is a nontrivial way of indexing geographic articles. ESkog 01:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per ESkog. --Apyule 05:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there's been a lot of trivial lists on AfD lately, but this one could be useful. -- Kjkolb 08:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm inclined to agree with above. As long as we keep it to states this could be useful. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • There are also four of five such lists sorted by first two digits. What's the feeling on those? Pilatus 14:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Rogerd 12:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vivian Darkbloom 21:44, 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 16:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Luke Swenson

Tagged as speedy, but smewhat questionable. This is what User:Comics said in nomination "Patent nonsense. This is not a real person as far as I can tell. The current director of CSIS is Jim Judd, and the user that created this page has contributed to several related vandalisms." to which an anon added "SEE THE NAME ON THE UNIFORM, AND YOU WILL KNOW THAT THIS ARTICLE IS A HOAX." I'm inclined to agree, but think a bit more scrutiny would be proper. R. fiend 14:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete don't know if it contains some nuggets of fact but it's largely a hoax. Dlyons493 Talk 15:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete hoax. Note also that the ISBN numbers are not correct. Something rotton indeed. --Austrian 17:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I am a political science major here in Canada and can say that at least 90% of this is a hoax. Here are some facts:
  • The current director of CSIS is Jim Judd, not Luke Swenson
  • The current deputy defense minister is Ward Elcock, not Luke Swenson.
  • The article indicates that Luke Swenson flew the majority of his missions in stealth bombers. Canada has none.
  • The user who created this page vandalized many others on the same day in order to try and legitimize these changes, including CSIS and CIA. He also vandalized several other pages with garbage.
  • The information on this person's supposed appointment over the Hans Island dispute is incorrect.
  • None of the additional works and books cited actually exist. Noam Chomsky has never written a book on the subject. Jacques Derrida is dead, he could not have written a book on this. etc. ---Comics 17:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax --Rogerd 12:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• "The Prime Minister felt that having a CSIS director of Scandinavian descent would have two benefits: firstly, a Scandinavian clearly has a formidable resistance to the cold, and near invulnerability to anesthetics of all kinds; and secondly, would ease tensions with Denmark, thus allowing Canada to seize the near-gorgeous Hans Island without Danish or United Nations intervention." Um, no. Speedy. Bearcat 06:13, 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 09:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magyar claims (2)

In a previous nomination of an article with this title (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magyar claims), I called it an "unsalvageable [Hungarian] nationalist rant". Now we have something which is basically an anti-Hungarian-nationalist rant, polemicizing against the previously deleted article. I am sure an article could be written about Hungarian nationalist claims after WWI, but the earlier article wasn't it, and neither is this. Uppland 10:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV rant. Nothing in article to salvage. The history of Hungary belongs in the logically named History of Hungary article. --rob 11:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per rob Olorin28 12:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This approaches the criteria of an attack-page speedy. NatusRoma 22:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. linas 23:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Rogerd 04:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per rob. --Apyule 04:25, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 21:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manuel Tarifa

Contains incorrect statements and unverifiable facts. Google only returns wikipedia mirrors of the search "manuel tarifa" bullfighter, none of"El Niño de Fernán-Caballero city" and he doesn't appear in the list of bullfighters. Also, the song "tengo un tractor amarillo" was composed by a band called "Zapato veloz" (and it didn't have any member called Manuel Tarifa),and it didn't have any english version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomateix (talk • contribs) 17:00, 9 October 2005

• Seconded. Xoloz 14:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

*Speedy Keep without prejudice. Nominator did not sign nomination. Defective process. Xoloz 03:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Having examined the article, I will resolve the defective process by seconding the nomination. Delete, unverifiable. Xoloz 14:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable and a possible hoax. I don't think that a small lapse in process should get in the way. --Apyule 05:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:13, 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 --Celestianpower ^hablamé 14:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marigold cafe

This is an entry of a random restaurant in Colorado Springs without any assertion of notability. Pilatus 01:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --JAranda | yeah 04:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Most cafes are not valid encyclopedic topics, and while Marigold seems to be somewhat luxurious, it does not appear to be encyclopedically significant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not that notable. Banes 10:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: NN --Bhadani 13:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. Advert (includes phone number)? CLW 15:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN--Rogerd 21:35, 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 --Celestianpower ^hablamé 13:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marjolein Hoekstra

Little assertion of notability; I ask fellow editors to help determine this. Half the info in this stub seems a bit vanity-oriented -- her life with husband and dogs, and love of music and helping newbies. If she is notable, it should be better established. paul klenk ^talk 00:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete 96 unique google hits -- fairly typical for a blogger. Pburka 01:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — ceejayoz ^★ 02:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above --CastAStone 05:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete blogger, even in the websites linked in the article she's not notable. Garion96 11:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity CLW 16:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN vanity --Rogerd 20:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MC Futech

Gives an amazing 1 Google - which says coming soon! May just be nn. Advertising Dlyons493 Talk 15:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. — ceejayoz ^★ 15:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:08, 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 17:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Pinol

Article is unverifiable and seems rather improbable. Quite possibly nonsense. αγδεε (ε τ c) 08:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. αγδεε (ε τ c) 08:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless verified Qaz ^(talk) 09:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete improbable, quite possibly a hoax. Basically, per nominator. Banes 10:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Neier 12:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - CLW 15:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Alhutch 16:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 01:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very funny hoax. Logophile 15:09, 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. This is already on BJAODN as Michael Jockson, so there is no need to re-BJAODN it. — JIP | Talk 17:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michel Jockson

I've fixed this nomination. Uncle G 04:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

First attempt at logging something for deletion, so apologies if incorrect use of policy. Obvious hoax/nonsense Doktorbuk 2005-10-09 04:08:28 UTC

I added the {{subst:afd}} tag for you. Bushytails 05:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Obvious nonsense. Bushytails 05:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious nonsense but look at the Mad Skillz with photoshop! Qaz ^(talk) 06:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- joke page --Mysidia (talk) 07:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and BJAODN. Capitalistroadster 08:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense, yet vaguely amusing. Banes 10:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete should be a quick deletion, not really a VfD type page. --Isolani 12:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax CLW 15:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN Made me laugh --JAranda | yeah 16:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Joke. [[User:Colin99 12:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)]]
• Delete --Rogerd 21:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per nomination Manik Raina 10:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Maybe a joke, but not a funny one. Logophile 14:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A6. This is an attack page which serves no other purpose than to humiliate and disparage another person. Hall Monitor 17:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. There is nothing here of informational value, as detailed above el_amante 19:01, 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 keep (redirects for deletion belong at WP:RFD) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mikhael Gorbachev

Incorrect transliteration of "Mikhael" from Russian. Article under correct title "Mikhail Gorbachev" already exists. Delete. unsigned vote by 81.109.252.129

• The purpose of the redirect is to point people who may not know the correct spelling of "Mikhail" to the correct article. Speedy keep, and in the future redirects should be listed over at RfD. Quicksandish τκ 14:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, and this isn't RfD anyway. --Kiand 15:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Quicksandish. — ceejayoz ^★ 15:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as useful redirect and Redirects for Deletion should be listed elsewhere anyway. Capitalistroadster 18:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Even the nominator has used the spelling "Mikhael" in their nomination. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Wrong forum; ergo improper nomination. Xoloz 02:52, 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. As an aside, the final unsigned comment is wrong since the site does not need to assert copyright for it to exist. -Splash^talk 23:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mlm legal issues

Article says it is "extracted" from site it notes on itself. possible copyvio but I am not sure. Qaz ^(talk) 08:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to multi-level marketing. This new article says nothing new. -- RHaworth 09:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Bad name, shouldn't it be "MLM legal issues"?

There is no copyright issues because the author of the extracted site did not specify any copyrights at the footer or any part of the page. There is no need to delete if the name is wrong. Just change it. After all, its just the capitalisation!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Brain-computer interface as content was merged there during the course of this debate. Rx StrangeLove 04:40, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monkey controls a robotic arm

Not an encyclopedic article. Delete, maybe transwiki to WikiNews (but its's rather old news). --Pjacobi 17:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - move content to BCI or wikinews. — Omegatron 18:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Brain-computer interface. I believe the GDFL requires that if content is moved a redirect be created to preserve the history--correct me if I'm wrong. Chick Bowen 18:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per User:Chick Bowen. As to preserving the history, if the content page is renamed but no merge is made, the redirect made can be deleted as the history is moved to the new page. However, if the content is merged, either a redirect must be kept or the page history (but not the contributions themselves) must be copied to the new page's talk page as is often done through the Interwiki process. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

GFDL issues: The contributors of the merged-in article must be mentioned in the edit summary of the merges. Createion of a redirect is optional and no substitute for naming the contributors. Anyway, Monkey controls a robotic arm has only one contributor and that one was anonymous. Anonymous contributors can be named summarily. --Pjacobi 19:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree with deletion As far as I know, the article about the monkey controlling the robot was downloaded by far much more than any other article published in PLoS Biology. Thus, it contributed significantly to the journal's acceptance and popularity not to mention the impact on the brain-computer interface field. Instead of deleting articles from this list, I would suggest adding more. This way, the scope and impact of PLoS Biology will be more clear. (Unsigned comment by 24.163.65.156 - CB)
  • The content is useful, 24.163; that's why I proposed a merge rather than delete. Articles are generally not written on single experiments unless they're, say, the oil-drop experiment. Chick Bowen 01:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and keep redirect The phrase is a little unwieldy, but I knew exactly which experiment it meant, so it is a possible search term. Xoloz 03:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: I agree with 24.163.65.156, this is a very famous study that not only impacted and sparked major research into a new field but also highly impacted the success and respectibility of the PLoS journals. I do not feel User:Chick Bowen appropriately addressed 24.163.65.156's comments. There are plenty of articles written about specific experiments, but few experiments have so impacted a specific journal such as this one. The article needs to be renamed, and more about its PLoS impacts need to be added. semiconscious (talk · home) 04:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• EVERYTHING IS FIXED: I've blended the article with Brain-computer interface (please check how it looks now) and changed the reference from the PLoS Biology page. Hopefully this will be satisfactory. Please delete Monkey controls a robotic arm. I do not know how to execute deletion. (Unsigned comment by 24.163.65.156 — CB)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied Wikibofh 15:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muchius Bitchius

Obviously a hoax page from some lovelorn swain. This doesn't meet any speedy deletion criterion as far as I can see (though {{db-twaddle}} would surely be applicable if it did exist). Delete Tonywalton  | Talk 22:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Part of a vandalism campaign. Pburka 22:58, 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 09:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mumstache

Neologism cohesion | talk 03:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Hirsutism. Pburka 03:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Urbandictionary not wikipedia. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 04:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as protologism/neologism.. --Mysidia (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete junk--Rogerd 21:30, 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 Merge Karmafist 17:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC) Explanation on Talk Page

[edit] Nintendo Gamecube G.O.T.Y 2004

Tagged as a speedy, but it is not, needs either deleting or merging somewhere. --Doc (?) 22:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Game of the Year. --Revolución (talk) 23:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as well. Also, PS2 G.O.T.Y 2004, Microsoft XBOX G.O.T.Y 2004, and PC G.O.T.Y 2004 should be merged also. Thunderbrand 01:08, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OpenIT

The language is bad, and I can't find anything that seems relevant on Google. — mæstro ^t/c 10:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unadulterated crud. linas 23:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Rogerd 04:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. --Apyule 04:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: there's a mystery here. There is at least one very well-known open source software package called OpenIT; its details are here: [14]. There is also OpenIT described here: [15] which may be the same thing. Google search "OpenIT" gives 250,000 raw hits, but many are about other things, including a commercial s/w package "OpenIt". The article appears to refer to #1 or #2, but is badly written, perhaps by someone who does not understand it. The OpenIT described in #1 would, I think, be sufficiently notable and widely used and known to deserve an article. Can anyone in the field shed some light on this? MCB 00:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first, so I began cleaning up the article. Then I realised this article had nothing to do with that. Also, I can't find any mention of OpenIT or OpenTracker in the context of Tiger (assuming we are talking about the MacOS), and OpenTracker is generally a reference to the opensource versions of the BeOS tools (as in the Wikipedia article). Anyone who could write a better version is encouraged to, but until then it's not a great idea to have this page around. — mæstro ^t/c4 09:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Good call. Count my vote as delete. MCB 22:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable. mikka (t) 23:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pecnut

It is not clear to me why this person is notable; because he writes forum contributions, or because his website is sometimes up, sometimes down?--Austrian 13:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn CLW 15:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. linas 23:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 12:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn forumcruft. MCB 00:18, 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 Delete(See Tally Reasoning on Talk Page) Karmafist 08:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ragga metal

This word looks like yet another instance of the "$GENRE metal" genre and has some 500 Google hits when searching for English pages. When asking Google to omit the name of the pioneer band Skindred this goes down to 175 hits. Pilatus 01:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, 26,800 hits. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of the English language. Kappa 05:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Only 233 of those 26,800 hits are unique. Pilatus 13:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete imaginary music genres. —Wahoofive (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. In some peoples opinion they (Skindred) are the founders of a new genre ragga metal. Punkmorten 16:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR --Rogerd 21:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Quale 06:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep what the hell? Skindred is notable, and so is the genre of music they play.  Grue  18:26, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 Registry. — JIP | Talk 16:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Registy

The title is a typo and content already exists at Breed_registry. Delete or redirect zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or merge, redundant.Shelburne Kismaayo 00:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Registry. Common misspelling (751 unique google hits for registy). Pburka 01:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a common enough typo to create a redirect. Bushytails 05:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect by Pburka. Martg76 10:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Pburka CLW 16:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Change to a Disambiguation page, to go to Breed registry, Windows registry, possibly others. --Rogerd 20:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - There already is such a disambiguation page at Registry. Chick Bowen 21:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Pburka (I didn't notice the misspelling - Thanks Chick) --Rogerd 23:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Pburka. --Metropolitan90 01:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Pburka. --Apyule 03:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Bushytails. No reason for a redirect for a simple and uncommon misspelling. MCB 22:44, 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 as COPYVIO. Give the debate here, the deletion in no way prejudices the writing of a non-copyrighted article. -Splash^talk 23:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sanal Edamaruku

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 07:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Copyvio from [16]. There's clearly an article there though if someone is prepared to rewrite. Dlyons493 Talk 10:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Maybe deleted if the new copyvio policy advises that, but the person is very notable. Tintin 13:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and remove copyrighted material make the article just a stub --Rogerd 03:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Remove: The article seems to have been written by the Sanal Edamaruku himself. It is confirmed by the fact that my comment to that effect in its talk page was removed by the same user. Have a look at this link: [[17]]. Can be replaced by a new better written article.WORDSMITH 08:48, 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 17:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sassy Mae Jones

No hits on google, spoof article? Zotel - the Stub Maker 02:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Movies dont exist either. Should have been speedy as nonsense. CambridgeBayWeather 02:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Delete hoax. "Nonsense" is not a speedy criterion. —Cryptic (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Kjkolb 10:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - reads like a hoax to me; can't find anything on Google to back it up; if true, probably vanity (lives in xxx with her dogs...) CLW 15:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy or Delete per nom. Stu 20:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, speedily if possible. --Metropolitan90 01:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Rogerd 03:27, 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 KEEP. -Splash^talk 23:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Jacobite Party

Scottish Jacobite Party is a hoax started by one of the regular commenters at Politicalbetting.com blog. The commenter in question is the in-house "joker" of the community. No such party has been registered with the Electoral Commission, and at the website (which is used as his link by the commenter at Politicalbetting.com) the "people" page is blank, and the registration with the Electoral Commission is "pending".--Mais oui! 23:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC),Keep Thanks to Big Jim for finding that registration: I had searched, and have re-searched the EC website, and I STILL cannot find that Registration page with any combination of search terms. I still think that more should be added to the article about the comedic nature of the party, lest the gullible be deceived. Bloomin expensive joke though, but then so was the Monster Raving Looney Party.--Mais oui! 17:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, for some reason the search function doesn't seem to scan the registers, but you can find it through [18] > Regulatory Issues > Registers > Register of political parties, then pick it from the list, then press search. Very odd. Anyway, it's definitely there. sjorford #£@%&$?! 19:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete; even though the lead claims that the article is about the hoax, the rest of the article describes it as if it were real. —Cryptic (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems to be a work of political dada. linas 23:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Rogerd 03:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep According to this website 1 they are in fact a registered party with the Electoral Commission. Can you state for certain that they aren't when this would evidence that they are. If it is the case that they are in fact registered (as it would appear they are) there is nothing in the article text that is inaccurate thus no justification for deleting the article! Whether they are a serious party or not is indeed up for question, but if we include the Official Monster Raving Loony Party then why not this mob? Big Jim Fae Scotland 12:42, 10 October 2005

• Keep - it looks as if they are indeed registered with the Electoral Commission, which is a big effort to make for a pure hoax. sjorford #£@%&$?! 12:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - as per Big Jim Fae Scotland Keresaspa 13:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - have heard of them vaguely but didn't know they were a hoax.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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; identical to Scott Peachman, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Peachman. Lupo 07:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scotty peachman

• delete, original research. Citizen Premier 05:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete unless referenced, which seems pretty unlikely. —Cryptic (talk) 07:49, 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 Keep. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shepton High School

Delete: Shepton High school is a non-notable high school in Plano, Texas. Unless the school can be found to have significance, such as Allen High School's case following their AfD, I vote for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scm83x (talk • contribs) 04:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, originally I voted to delete this article, as I was the one who did AfD, but apparently someone improved it greatly, even though it really isn't too notable. I will try to dig up the information about all of the heroin/suicides in the 1990s that occured in Plano's west side schools. Also steroids recently.-Scm83x 01:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Keep schools, and I'm very very sorry to inflict this afd on you all. —Cryptic (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep high schools. --rob 11:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ditto. Joaquin Murietta 14:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yellow pages. Pilatus 15:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, good article, and per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 15:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep high schools CLW 15:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup not a school stub nor a elementary or middle school --JAranda | yeah 16:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this is a nice article and it is over three pages long not something we could ever find in the yellow pages it is much more Yuckfoo 17:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep High Schools — RJH 18:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Whoops - a school--Nicodemus75 18:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Vsion 20:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep , non-notability not established --Isolani 23:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, High schools play an important role in society that should not be belittled. linas 23:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, schools are notable. -Greg Asche (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all real high schools; for my reasoning see this. Xoloz 02:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete blah blah. Gazpacho 04:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Aranda56. (For my further reasoning: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Schools#Response by Idont Havaname, User:Idont havaname/Wikiphilosophies#Schools) --Idont Havaname 05:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A nice solid keep decision this time. Osomec 07:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Nomination does not conform with deletion criteria. Keep. --Centauri 08:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. Barely encyclopedic, but the most jarring is the yellow pages-like contact details. Please remove them. Anyone wanting to contact the school, should make the effort to go to their website. And please start evaluating articles on their individual merits instead of the general category they belong to. Schools can be worth an article if something useful can be said about them, but the rules that apply to people, bands and websites should also apply to schools. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Please don't assume wikipedia users all have internet access. Kappa 12:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, it's very reasonable to assume all viewers of a web page have internet access (any dreams of mass paper distribution are not going to be realized). A wiki-article is to inform the reader, about the school. The location and web address are essential to do that. The phone number is not. Also, people are often viewing an old version of a wiki article, where the number could be expired (or vandalized), and we could be causing some poor person to be getting wrong numbers from around the world, with no way of stopping it. --rob 13:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Although the chance that a reader of Wikipedia has internet access is likely now, we cannot assume that will be the case in the future. For example, the German Wikipedia is now in its second pressing on DVD, is one of the best sellers on the Amazon store in Germany [19], and does not require any sort of internet connection at all. Hopefully the same dream can be realized one day for the English language version of Wikipedia. Silensor 17:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this were a band, we'd speedy it. If it were a company, it would be a unanimous delete. Schools aren't intrinsically special. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Um, under what CSD could we possibly speedy such an article about a band? Oh, and keep. JYolkowski // talk 00:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Damn you for being correct. About CSD, not about keeping the school. ^_^ - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Time value disk not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per brenneman --redstucco 08:10, 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. Even though the nominator withdrew the nomination, the consensus is clearly "delete". — JIP | Talk 09:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sherry Boudreau

Delete originally, but some work has gone into reverting the page to a definite attempt at non-vanity, with NPOV. So, maybe it's now Leave. Budgiekiller 17:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Speedy keep, since nominator seems to have changed his mind before even finishing the afd (!). —Cryptic (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There's no actual claim to notability in the article and the autobiog mentioned is crystal ball, so I would have completed this Afd myself if I had found it. Agree it's no longer a clear vanity article. Dlyons493 Talk 10:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The article obviously does make a claim of notability, and a quick google seems to confirm it. It started off as vanity, but isn't any more. It still needs to state what she's accomplished in the first sentence (instead of later), and it needs more specifics (which are easily found in Google), but any problems the article has are fixable. --rob 11:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I must be missing something - what's the claim to notability? Dlyons493 Talk 12:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I actually misread the article. It doesn't make the claim I "read". But, googling her, indicates she has had some recognition in bodybuilding, or more accurately bodybuilding modeling. But, I haven't spent the time to evaluate it yet. p.s. There's few things more annoying than making a mistake, and trying to fix it, only to find wikipedia is down, yet again. --rob 12:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Agree she has recognition in bodybuilding modeling and would be hesitant to vote delete in her presence. Yup, wiki is barely alive at present. Dlyons493 Talk 14:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless some notablity is established.. No titles or are stated. For now NN --Rogerd 03:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Lots of people are wannabe bobybuilders and are clients of more notable coaches, and are in the process of writing their as yet upublished memoirs. MCB 23:58, 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, and I was surprised no one was particularly offended at the pictures used. — JIP | Talk 18:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Siflige

• Delete. This is some kind of ad for some obscure offensive server on NWN. This belongs in Bioware's forums, not Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.189.4 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. non--notable--Kewp 16:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, remarkably untasteful ad for non-notable online game server. —Cryptic (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Per all of the above. Banes 10:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Shameful. linas 23:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Rogerd 03:38, 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 Keep. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simson Garfinkel

There are plenty of journalist graduates from Columbia and MIT. If there is something important about this person, please add it, else Delete. Nationalparks 22:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This article is referenced in others and the person is notable enough. Bryce 04:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, he appears to be notable, although you wouldn't know it looking at the article. -- Kjkolb 10:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep He wrote the standard book for Internet Security (http://www.simson.net/bio.php), one of the first books on NeXT-Step programming, and many more. Article could use some more info, but the subject is valid. Neier 13:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Garfinkel is a major contributor to Wired and Popular Science as well as publications. Jtmichcock 23:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete notability is not established by this article, article is of very poor quality --Isolani 23:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, the article quite clearly establishes that the subject satisfies the published author notability criterion of our Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies. Uncle G 02:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now that it has content. Nationalparks 01:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, whatlinkshere establishes its notability. Fixing the article should be easy. No need to delete it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. What the heck is the bias against writers and academics. A porn actor or indy band with 1/100th the influence gets kept, while important (semi-)academics get AfD'd. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The bias is not against writers and academics. We have large numbers of properly written articles about writers and academics that editors would not even consider nominating for deletion. The bias is against articles that tell us practically nothing of importance about the subject. I suggest a look at the state of this article at the time of nomination. For all that the article told readers, Garfinkel could have been just some random web logger. The way to avoid nomination for articles about book authors is to have at least the beginnings of a bibliography in the article (and indeed to mention that they are authors in the first place). Uncle G 12:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess. But I wouldn't put an article on AfD without at least a basic investigation of whether the subject itself was notable, even if the article failed to show it yet. A basic google test would show a huge number of hits for Garfinkel (myself, I knew well of him without even doing that; but sure some folks would not). But even for an area where I knew nothing, I wouldn't just assume the lack of current content meant lack of worthwhile possible content. (but it's for people that are minimally indicated as academics/writers where nominators ignore even the google test; for an indy band or porn actor, they at least do that basic test). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 13:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
      • They do the research because the articles on such subjects that come up for deletion generally do tell us about the subjects, unlike this one, and thus the initial question of who the article is even talking about, and thus a context for any Google searches, is firmly established. An article about a pornographic actress that told us as little about its subject as this one told us about Garfinkel (e.g. "Jane Doe is an actress who got a Ph.D. from Ohio State University in 2004.") would very probably receive the same treatment as this article did. Once again: The claim that there is bias against writers and academics has no basis in reality. The bias is against bad biography articles that say almost nothing of importance about their subjects. Uncle G 15:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as this figure is quite notable. [20] This biography is incomplete; as I recall, he also used to write for the pioneering and now defunct Internet Underground magazine until they were bought out by Ziff Davis in mid 1996 and subsequently cancelled. Hall Monitor 17:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though I don't quite see enough bad faith to warrant speedy keep. Notable tech journalist and writer. Haikupoet 00:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please because this journalist/writer is notable in technology Yuckfoo 03:58, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 21:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skyline/Photos

Wikipedia isn't an image gallery. This page would be appropriate on the Commons, but not here. dbenbenn | talk 04:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia articles should not be image galleries. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 21:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Commons welcomes galleries of photos. Fg2 02:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete', articles aren't galleries, but link some to articles on relevant cities and skyline first. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete having added images to a suitable category (Category:Skyline photographs?) —Phil | Talk 14:08, 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 18:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Something's Awful

• Delete, a defunct parody of a website is not wikipedia material. Citizen Premier 02:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, website vanity. —Cryptic (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Doesnt belong here. Banes 10:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopediac--Sean Jelly Baby? 02:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete junk --Rogerd 03:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: it's dead, so there's no easy way to find out if it was ever worth an article. If evidence emerges, try again. Phil | Talk 11:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Might be worth a Redirect to Something Awful with no merge, just to avoid potential confusion. User: Colin Kimbrell 21:07, 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 18:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sonic Wall Filter

Biased writing by a youngster; the topic may be notable. Listing here as it was invalidly tagged with {{nonsense}} which it is not. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Disclosure: I was the one who marked it as {{nonsense}}. While this topic may exist (and may even be notable), the current contents are nothing but a rant, and in its current form this is as likely to grow into a real article as it is to be re-created by a serious editor if it didn't exist. Owen× ☎ 02:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It's called either a content manager or firewall. -x42bn6 Talk 02:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I have never had so much fun packed into a Wikipedia article since I read Santaism. Elapsed 16:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, POV rant. —Cryptic (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete junk --Rogerd 03:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)--Rogerd 03:45, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 21:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sony AK Knowledge Center

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion, other than to note that it has been vfd'd and deleted before, and that its founder has a substub, too. —Cryptic (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rewrite Reads like an ad at present but sufficiently notable I feel to be kept if NPOV'd. Has quite a history! Dlyons493 Talk 10:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless re-written into something passable. linas 23:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising and non-notable. Furthermore, the website proudly announced its entry at Wikipedia (www.sony-ak.com/news/sony-ak_at_wikipedia.php). *drew 17:37, 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 Result was speedy delete as copyvio. DS 14:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source Four

Blatant advertising Dlyons493 Talk 20:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete obviously advertising.--Alhutch 22:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speedy delete, dare I say. linas 00:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Meets new {{db-copyvio}} criteria. Tagged. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• ....and it's gone. (Now, how do I close this thing?) DS 14:17, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 09:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] South China Church

Wikipedia should not be used to push propaganda. It is tragic if what is happening is verifiable but Wikipedia is a grounds for propaganda152.163.100.10

• Delete for above reasons 152.163.100.10
• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Abstrakt 21:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Change to a redirect to Gong Shengliang. -- ran (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A religious group with 50,000 members (see external link) would have been considered notable if it had been centered in Ohio. It is just as notable when it happens to be active in China. Se also this page on the website of Freedom House. Uppland 10:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep This seems to be in least somewhat noteworthy and there are apparently credible sources verifying it. Even adjusting for population size 50,000 is fairly good sized. Although I think it needs more references and some clarity. Other possibility is merge it with whatever article we have on Christians being persecuted in China--T. Anthony 13:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comments only, no vote: the contents require elaboration. I think presenting facts are not propoganda.--Bhadani 14:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Uppland, real religious movement. Contents are not propaganda. Kappa 15:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please how is this propaganda that does not even make sense Yuckfoo 17:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep expand and cleanup. Notable church in China. If there are NPOV problems with the article, which I fail to see btw, there are other ways to address this other than deletion. This is yet another nomination by an unregistered editor. It would be interesting to see where 152.163.100.10 is from and whether it has any connection with the Chinese Government. I think it is time for a rethink of allowing non-registered users to nominate articles for deletion. Capitalistroadster 18:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • 152.163.100.10 is an AOL proxy. —Cryptic (talk) 18:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable church in the PRC.--Nicodemus75 18:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. But in need of a re-write and some research. [[User:Colin99 11:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)]]
• Keep Per Uppland --Rogerd 03:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand --Kewp (t) 06:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand, and improve. There is no propaganda. Logophile 15:22, 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 REDIRECTED by Saberwyn to Dates in Star Wars. Robert 21:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars Universe History

Delete. Non-notable. Not worth keeping. Poorly researched, uninformative, and superceded by Dates in Star Wars. --Maru (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It shouldn't be a seperate article, and isn't even correct to boot. --WyldStallionRyder 14:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Redirect Dates in Star Wars. —Cryptic (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Dates in Star Wars. --JAranda | yeah 16:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect per JAranda --Revolución (talk) 23:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as above. Saberwyn 23:48, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect --Rogerd 03:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• There's nothing to merge. I'm going to Be Bold! and create a redirect to Dates in Star Wars. Saberwyn 09:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Still existing

non-notable Brit band. Issue is a bit muddled by their name being a common phrase, but Google turns up less than ten hits for "still existing"+"patrick sanders" (their lead singer), and barely twice that for "still existing"+"kevin sanders", most of which are his page on Soundclick. DS 16:23, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete band vanity. Xoloz 02:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:12, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Streetracer

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 09:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unverifiable [21] has almost nothing except Wiki. Even if someone can verify it's only worth a merge. Dlyons493 Talk 10:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - poor dicdef at best CLW 15:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Rogerd 03:49, 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. Rx StrangeLove 04:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Super Mario 64 2

Would like to speedy delete but need to consider if it is indeed notable.--Jondel 02:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete--Jondel 02:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• I smell a hoax. Delete. - Lucky 6.9 03:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Note: Before voting, check out it's google results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.127.115 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• [22] Speedy keep. Legitimate game that was cancelled. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Super Mario 64 under sub-category "Sequels". PRueda29 02:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per PRueda29. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There's plenty of information that can be acquired about this game that would make the Sequels section far too bulky. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep and please expand on this topic it is not a hoax Yuckfoo 17:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and expand, as per A Link to the Past. Carioca 22:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a cancelled game is NN --Rogerd 03:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Not if there was sufficient hype and press coverage about its development. We actually have an entire list of cancelled video games. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Super Mario 64 2. It can concievably be split again if it turns out this section grows too long, but since there's very little verifiable information about it, I doubt that will be a problem. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - If we put every bit of vapourware on Wikipedia we'd have a lot of useless information. James Pinnell 02:48, 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 Speedy delete as incomplete sentence with total lack of content

[edit] Supersonic heater

Borderline speedy. Little to no context. Delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. I'd have tagged it as a speedy, A1. —Cryptic (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Total content: Take-out weight thrown by Randy Dutiaume. Buh-bye. - Lucky 6.9 09:31, 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 09:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SuperSunday

What is this? A wrestling match? Why is it important? Nothing to do with Super Sunday, obviously. Aleph4 18:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable event Paul 06:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. A redirect to Super Sunday seems harmless enough. —Cryptic (talk) 09:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete existing article and create redirect as per Cryptic CLW 15:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete linas 23:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 03:52, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 21:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terahedron effect

Original research, neologism cohesion | talk 19:50, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. linas 23:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:19, 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 MERGE to The Far Side. I don't fully understand the final comment. This page has no sections. -Splash^talk 23:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Far Side Uncertainty Principle

Possibly made-up term. Zero Google hits. JW1805 03:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Kinda funny, but probably original research. Why did the chicken delete the road?--inks^T 04:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• I've heard of the concept, but not by this name. Delete, and drop a line in joke explaining the concept.  BD2412 ^talk 06:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with The Far Side. I like it, but it would be better off as a section. --Billpg 10:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with The Far Side. Agreed.Banes 10:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with The Far Side. Agreed. User:Colin99 12:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with The Far Side--Rogerd 21:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Irishpunktom\^talk 13:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not just move it two lines up on the same page so tha it falls into the 'attributed to' section and attribute it to Gary Larson?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 17:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Ill Street Boys

This article seems to lack relevance.

• Note: Article added by 84.191.87.148

• Delete nn gang --JAranda | yeah 16:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 21:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. --Apyule 03:16, 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 MERGE to List of Pre-Made Characters in The Sims. -Splash^talk 23:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Langrabb Family

This afd accompanies List of Pre-Made Characters in The Sims and Bella Goth as non-notable fancruft; proper searches using Google produces only double digit numbers of results [23] [24]. Delete I have now shifted to abstaining from voting. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 18:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC) ╫

• Merge with List of Pre-Made Characters in The Sims — short enough to merge, unlike Bella Goth. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Andrew pmk. --Idont Havaname 04:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Saberwyn 05:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Jkelly 01:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, agreed with all of the above.Rhetoricalwater 22:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Preaky 07:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge --Optichan 13:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect. Rx StrangeLove 05:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thoth-amon

Looks like a merge and redirect to me, but i thought it was worth checking here first/ Grutness...wha? 05:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. The Thoth-amon character features in multiple Conan stories and has appeared, AFAIK, in every version of Conan adapted to other mediums. He's typically identified as Conan's nemesis. The article needs expansion. It's 2 AM local time, but I'm going to tag the page and take a look at it in the near future to do some expansion on it. Justin Bacon 07:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Thoth-Amon. — RJH 18:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Thoth-Amon as per RJH and nom. Capitalistroadster 23:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Thoth-Amon as per nom --Rogerd 00:18, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 21:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tommy (drinking game)

Looks like patent nonsense or hoax to me. paul klenk ^talk 14:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - looks to me like a game some group of friends have made up - doesn't warrant an encyclopedia entry IMO. CLW
• Delete unverifiable. Sounds like i would get you hammered though. --Apyule 04:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Rogerd 12:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It is certainly not a hoax, having been party to this game myself several times. However, I am not sure of the game's origins - I have only heard of it through one source, so to speak, so it may not be in the same class as 'Centurion' or '21' as a universal drinking game. From the person I first heard of it from, it could possibly have a military origin. Not quite sure how one would show that it is verifiable according to the Wikipedia definition, although I do have photographic evidence which would suggest it is...! I get the impression from Catergory:Drinking Games that this category could be used as a source for people to explore if they want to try a new drinking game. I am sure this is not the only game on this list that has just been made up by a group of friends, if Tommy does indeed fall under this banner. For this reason, I think it should stay. I note that some other pages in this category do not verify their content with explicit sources, but such is the nature of the subject matter. -- Rmbyoung 00:02, 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 redirect to the author John Rojas, Jr.. After looking at the article, I saw that there was very little content so I see no need to merge any of it. The consensus seems to be that the book is worthy of being mentioned, but that it does not merit a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trees of Chula Vista

Non-notable book about trees in Chula Vista -- Kjkolb 12:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, the trees were notable enough for someone to write a book about them. The book is listed at Barnes and Noble [25] . Kappa 15:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, too incoherent. Pilatus 16:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I tweaked the article just now. The author was a remarkable local historian and `the book is unique and notable. PS, it was a pleasure to learn more about John Rojas, Jr. Joaquin Murietta 20:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • • see my comments below, Joaquin Murietta 16:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • At the moment, the article says nothing beyond the fact that the book exists. The book itself is mentioned in the article of the author, so redirect to the author, unless the article expands to tell what is actually in the book. Pilatus 20:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even close. A local historian writes a local-interest (at best) book (Amazon sales ranking: None) about a southern California suburb's trees? This is a worth an encyclopedia article? Wikipedia is not a San Diego library catalog. --Calton | Talk 00:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 04:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The book is already mentioned in John Rojas, Jr.. This page is zero-content. "A book exists" and "this guy wrote it" is not an encyclopedia article. Quale 06:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to author's page, which wasn't created until after I nominated the book for deletion. -- Kjkolb 11:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Redirect to author's article -- John Rojas, Jr. Joaquin Murietta 16:13, 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 Merge and redirect. Rx StrangeLove 05:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tsotha-lanti

Looks like a merge and redirect to me, but i thought it was worth checking here first. Grutness...wha? 05:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to The Scarlet Citadel --Rogerd 00:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with M&R Renata3 15:56, 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 16:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Universidad de Corinthians

This article is about a soccer club, but it makes no assertions of notability and the only Google results are Wikipedia mirrors. If someone can prove notability, fine, otherwise delete. -- Kjkolb 12:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unable to verify the clubs existence. Probably an amateur team taking their name from Universidad de Chile and Corinthians. --GraemeL ^(talk) 13:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - as per above CLW 15:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 04:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Universidad de Corinthian is one of two clubs that partake in the Albany Cup. The Cup is noted on a national level due to its eclectic mix of players. Many involved are artists, writers, succesful business people or part of the fringe scene in Ireland (even a body builder). The tournament get s varied coverage at national level and much at regional - Dublin & Wexford/Waterford. I urge that this page not be deleted. Coleman Liam Hudson, Chairman UdC (preceding unsigned comment by 195.7.55.34 (talk · contribs) )

• If they are notable, please add verifiable sources for these claims. Until then, delete. --fvw* 16:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I left a note on the IPs talk page asking for some links to press coverage. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - seems non-notable, per User:GraemeL. If this is kept though, I demand an article for Dukla Pumpherston be allowed to stand. =:-) --Cactus.man ✍ 18:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

For those not in the know, Dukla Pumpherston is an ironic amalgamation of the name of football team Dukla Prague, who competed in regular European football competition in the 1970's, and the village of Pumpherston in Scotland. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:24, 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 Speedied Wikibofh 15:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Victor Hector

No assertion of notability, and I'm not convinced this guy exists. The page was created by User:Sand-Bar, who was blocked by User:Grue as a vandal. Chick Bowen 22:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a cut/paste about Damon Denys from http://www.rationalart.com/d_bio.htm -- tagged as db-copyvio. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Good catch--thanks. Chick Bowen 23:02, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 21:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Villein FM

non-notable website/promotional in nature Stbalbach 15:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's run by students at a school: "The Treacherous Trio, Jonathan, Alex and Andrew. We rule!" and "Thanks to Mr McCoy, our history teacher" - Stbalbach 15:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A great homework assignment, but wikipedia is not for high-school homework assignments. linas 23:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 12:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is not the assignment - the website is. And if Wikipedia is supposed to be the "sum of all human knowledge", and some humans know that there is a website called Villein FM, then I don't see why Villein FM shouldn't stay.--Codenamecuckoo 18:16, 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 -- (drini's page|☎) 21:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] W. Mark Felt/Temp

Inactive "temporary version" of W. Mark Felt article. Alai 04:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Was any of it incorporated into the main article? Gazpacho
• Delete - There have been no edits to article (except making the categories inactive and this AfD) since June 22. I am sure that its purpose has been served --Rogerd 00:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete, nothing but category inactivation. No need to retain. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 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 16:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wade McInerney

Non-notable founder of a student group. -- Kjkolb 12:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nn, probably vanity (who else would have saved the newspaper clipping referred to?) CLW 15:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity.--Alhutch 16:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 12:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. - Gimboid13 11:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Graham 00:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I doubt it's vanity - he's one of the most notoriously corrupt student politicians in the country, and has made the national news quite a few times. But then again, he's a student politician. Ambi 08:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete All of the above and a very biased opinion of him. I should know, I used to live with the guy. He think's he's a big gun but clearly isn't. Nothing but a renegade right wing nutjob playing bush league student politics. Just thought I'd add a few truths about this guy incase the page stays (seeing as he wants everyone to know how cool he is). Inspirational and admired? Hardly. If the page stays, the whole "Wade story" should be told. Including his notorious past at Macquarie University (from which he was also expelled from for electoral misconduct).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 17:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Waun-a-bowl

Non-notable bowling alley.

• Delete. Gazpacho 05:17, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Banes 10:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. Removing the sentences with NPOV issues leaves, uh, pretty much nothing CLW 15:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per CLW nn --JAranda | yeah 16:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 00:27, 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 Content Merged, Article Redirected Karmafist 17:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC) Explanation on Talk Page

[edit] Yara

And another one, like Thoth-amon and Tsotha-lanti. Merge/redirect? Grutness...wha? 06:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to the company Yara International, which is often called just "Yara". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to a disambig line at the top of Yara International. —Cryptic (talk) 07:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect or Merge as above. Rd232 16:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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