Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 11 September 13 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] September 12

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.Woohookitty 09:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Medmania.com

Advertisement. Article does not demonstrate importance of subject Hurricane111 05:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per GregAsche Dlyons493 05:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Advertisment, nonencyclopedic.Voice of All (talk) 06:30, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with VoiceOfAll --Patio 06:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, advertising, no Alexa rank, and a mere 509 Google hits mentioning it a lot of which aren't even relevant. - Mgm|(talk) 08:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity ≈ jossi ≈ 15:55, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - advertising, needs wikification if it was a legit article anyway, and quotes such as "leading provider of Web educational communication services that enable greater productivity and cost-efficiency across academic studies" are clearly false splintax (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - unless someone replaces all the babble in this article with facts. -- Klafubra 16:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NigSek

Fewer than 400 Google results, most not actually relating to this game. I consider myself an inclusionist but really, we don't need this. I even had to remove the AIM contact details of the creator. Soo 11:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn, wikipedia article is the third google hit. -GregAsche (talk) 01:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Soo. Otherwise merger to RPG Maker Dlyons493 05:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not remarkable enough.Voice of All (talk) 06:54, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Hand-rolled game, neither widely discussed nor used. Advertising. Geogre 10:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. Chick Bowen 23:51, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dark Canuck

  • Delete Paul 00:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This nomination was malformed and never made it to the main VfD page until now. no vote. JYolkowski // talk 15:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Mindmatrix 14:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Dlyons493 05:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense.Voice of All (talk) 06:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, combine an internet nickname with website advertising and you have a very deletable article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not even an original nickname; dollars to donuts he took it from the Tragically Hip song. (Note that I already thought this before visiting his webpage to discover that the first words in the site intro were "Welcome to the All Canadian Surf Club," which proves my point. I'm psychic, I tell you, psychic! And no, the Hip song was not a notable single, so I'm not proposing that the title be repurposed as an article about the song.) Bearcat 22:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ladderhall

vfd not listed by nom - fixing - no vote --Doc (?) 16:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable website vanity. Sdedeo 21:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Need I even explain.Voice of All (talk) 06:56, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Sdedeo. Aquillion 07:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Web vanity and forumanity. Geogre 10:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abandoned toys

Does not meet WP:MUSIC and notability is not established. CHAIRBOY 17:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. CHAIRBOY 17:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Their score for isolationist lovers is one of the best film scores I own.
  • Unsigned vote by User:71.99.165.86
  • keep It was just posted on a music forum that this article was up for deletion, so I
            thought I would voice my opinion on it.  This is a new side project, by the 
            composer for "The synthetic dream foundation", which is one of the most prominent
            electronic music projects in the industrial and dark ambient worlds.  The fact, 
            that this band has the same composer and member as a major, prominent band, makes
            it follow one of the 5 necessary ingredients for inclusion based on the rules 
            regulating the inclusion of bands for Wikipedia.
  • Unsigned vote by User:66.139.73.201
  • keep Sorry bad english. Keep band for popular in Venezuela.
  • Unsigned vote by User:200.75.131.58
  • keep I followed the same link mentioned above, and for the same reasons mentioned above
            this is certainly a notable composer and their work should be represented in
            Wikipedia
  • Second unsigned vote by User:71.99.165.86
  • keep This page needs alot of work, but should definitely be kept to be worked upon. I'm no film score buff, but I own one of the scores by this artist
  • Unsigned vote by User:69.22.75.138, first edit
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Fails to meet WP:MUSIC and Heavy SOCK Infected --Aranda56 02:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability is not established, and hardly even claimed in the article. If fans think the person's done anything notable prior to this, than put that in the article, and cite sources that prove it. -rob 02:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Sock-puppets do not count as establishing notability no matter WHOSE hand may be up their rears making them talk :P Nezu Chiza 02:57, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I get 0 google hits for "isolationist lovers". If someone can demonstrate that they have actually scored a well-known film, I'd change my vote. Nandesuka 03:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:music popularity with sockpuppets notwithstanding. Capitalistroadster 04:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.No socks please. This is just not noteworthy.Voice of All (talk) 06:50, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. - Mgm|(talk) 09:05, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: "New side project" pretty much says it all. Wikipedia is not a place for announcements or ads or breathless fan talk. This is a tertiary source of information, so the group needs to have already established themselves as not only widely known, but important. Geogre 10:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity and using sock puppets! o_O
  • Delete - web link contains almost no content. not notable enough. -- Klafubra 16:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity + sockpuppets = delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and abandon the sockpuppets.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 20:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; doesn't even assert notability. Owen× ☎ 20:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, stop the sockpuppets! Andrew pmk | Talk 22:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who's trying to cheat on AfD? — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Indrajit. Not going to do the move, because I can't verify for myself which is the correct spelling. -Splashtalk 00:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bramhasir

Two Google results, both of which are from this very encyclopedia. Paul 18:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Move to Brahmasira, and/or merge with Indrajit. Pburka 22:10, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Indrajit as per Pburka Dlyons493 05:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if this is a "real" weapon, but merge if it cannot be expanded a little. If it cannot be verified, delete. -- Kjkolb 07:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 20:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pars Monthly

VfD not previously listed - no vote (although I can't verify it either) --Doc (?) 20:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

nn. i searched google for 3 minutes with all combinations of keywords "pars, monthly, australia, persian, magazine" and did not obtain a single relevant hit. but since i am not familiar with australian media, i will Abstain for now. -- Bubbachuck 05:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete Difficult to verify but looks plausible - see e.g. [1]. Pars is a version of Persia, Farsi etc. Dlyons493 23:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This magazine probably exists but the Parsi community in Australia is tiny. The information in the article is minimal so why bother having it. Delete--Porturology 12:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: A fact, not an article. No offer of notability, importance, and no description of its role in the wider world. "Jimmy is a boy" is not an article, and neither is "Pars Monthly is a magazine." Geogre 14:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 17:24, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Outboards

Tagged but not listed by User: 138.89.64.126. Listing now. Joyous (talk) 20:40, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisement Dlyons493 05:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. The claim here is that it is one of the oldest of the GameFAQs spin-offs. I'm not sure the oldest would have sufficient claim to coverage in an encyclopedia, although that would be considerably closer to meeting the bar. Geogre 14:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Ad ≈ jossi ≈ 15:46, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn, Alexa rank 3,543,938. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 17:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Podigla Me Iz Pepela

VfD not previously listed - no vote---Doc (?) 20:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I vote to have the article deleted. It's not a notable song (it doesn't deserve its own article). –Fantastique 14:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Again, User:Splash asked for more discussion when there was only one delete vote, so there is now a clear consensus. — JIP | Talk 20:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raskin

Completing nomination - no vote--Doc (?) 21:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete This article fails the WP:MUSIC test for notability. Icelight July 8, 2005 06:26 (UTC)
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • 'What the hell? It's a disambiguation page into which someone tossed band vanity (rappanity)? Or is it a bandity article into which someone offered to disambiguate two names that need no disambiguation? Both are wrong. The dab is entirely misapplied, since two people with a given last name do not need to be disambiguated, unless they are known only by that last name, and the band vanity is just plain wrong. Delete all the way around. Geogre 16:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the band part at least. Last name disambiguation pages have helped me out, though. People often omit first names and I have no idea who they're talking about when I try to fix it. Delete the disambiguation as well, if it's unnecessary. -- Kjkolb 07:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Move my page. tell me. --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 02:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS but with a suggestion to merge into Girly girl. (2 delete (inc nominator), 1 merge or delete, 1 merge or keep). Thryduulf 12:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boyish boys

This appears to be a neologism and/or dicdef. Googling provides no evidence of this as a term separate from the definitions of its component parts. Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom: Article even admits, "there is little currency for the title." GinaDana 22:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to its more used antonym girly girl, otherwise *Delete Dlyons493 05:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Boyish boys" turns up a few Google results.... Merge to girly girl, otherwise just Keep. TheMadBaron 14:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr numbers

  • Delete nn DJ. Allmusic.com has nothing, and the Google hits on his name are usually other people (or monikers for them). The mixtapes don't turn up anywhere either. Note the Googles for "Assassination Now" are usually just the two words either side of a full stop. -Splash 22:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn and possible hoax---CH (talk) 03:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per CH Dlyons493 05:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: More delusion/hoaxing, and a Geogre's Law violation to boot. Geogre 16:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 20:55, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christian (Smith) Pancorvo

User:WillC put a VfD tag on this article but never completed the nomination. Completing it now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 22:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, could be speedy? Sdedeo 23:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
One of plenty on 3rd September that need more participation for a useful decision. -Splash 00:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyvio of [www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/ Razorlight-Biography/1A303AFFDA41CF3548256EC20027B81A] Dlyons493 05:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I've added the above link to Razorlight, but its information is apparently outdated. Most of the band's other members have original biog pages on wikipedia - Christian (Smith) Pancorvo's page neglects to inform readers that he is no longer the band's drummer. Even if he's sufficiently notable to warrant having his own page, this isn't it. TheMadBaron 10:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Being the drummer, even if he were, would not justify him for a biography. Instead, it would warrant a single line in the article on the band (if that were even warranted). Thus with all rock band members: If there is no notable biography, then a simple redirect to the band is all that's needed. Geogre 16:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no good reason to keep, many good reasons to delete (garbled, non-notable, et al.) Paul 17:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Raster Group

the group is about to publish a book i dont see how its not a legitimate organization. its an international art group, thats been around since 2001, if this site should be deleted then so should 'deviantart'

Not notable organization/group-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 00:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as above and it should have been speedy. CambridgeBayWeather 00:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:59, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Needs majorcleanup, failing that merge to deviantart Dlyons493 05:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, 34 unique Google hits do not notability make. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:15, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete NN ≈ jossi ≈ 15:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Complete trash at this point -- a cut and paste from some FAQ -- and the group gets 34 hits, and this for a group "deeply involved" in digital art? It's one thing if Le Minotaur gets few hits. It's quite another if a computer art club does. Geogre 16:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 07:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this site is awesome you people are morons and aparantly they do get a fair amount of hits, but the info is just lame either needs a better page or scrap it.

INFROMATION IS ALL ABOUT HITS (comment added by anon at IP 220.253.75.168, DSL account at NSW.netspace.net.au, no other edits -- llywrch)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 20:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bunnybrains

Tagged for speedy as "vanity self-insertion" which, whilst sounding unpleasant, isn't among the criteria. Bands are always good AfD-fodder though. Abstain. -Splash 00:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Allmusic has a track listing of one cd, but no bio or other info. So they're real, but I see no evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC criteria. Friday (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Barely even a claim of notability. --rob 02:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep I don't hold with "vanity self-insertion" but Goggle suggests they do it in public. And please edit it to stop shouting Dlyons493 05:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Friday. -- Kjkolb 07:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "'Keep'" They released a 4CD box-set on Narnack records, and vinyl on Matador, which is one of the biggest and most important indie labels that I know of. I cant verify that the information on the page is true, but they are a real band, a pretty good band, and an important enough band to merit inclusion here.
  • Weak Delete as per Friday, but might become a decent article if left as a stub. Nihiltres 16:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The band more than meets WP:MUSIC criteria as has released multiple albums on multiple important indie labels (Narnack, Matador, etc). Epheron 04:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caesar St. Augustine de Buonaparte

Tagged for speedy as nn-bio. Whilst sounding ridiculous, Google certainly implies that this nutcase did do these things. AfD gets to decide if these things are enough for an article. Abstain. -Splash 00:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. I don't think it's serious enough to warrant an article. Also, to even think of considering this person, I would have to see proof he not only tried to run for president, but that he actually got on the ballot in at least one state, so he could actually be called a "candidate". Without that, he's just one of countless insignficant crackpots. --rob 03:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per rob Dlyons493 05:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep in light of this article that proves he did run for the office. There's a mass of other Googleable material on him as well. Vizjim 14:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Please check that link; it indicates only that he was a "candidate" affiliated with "The Good Party", which hasn't established notability enough for a WP article of its own. None of that page's links indicate that he ever made it onto a ballot, and I agree with rob. I have several friends who "declared they were running for President" in postal game zines or other sources of entertainment and/or self-publicity. I haven't dug through the links from the Google search mentioned-but-not-linked above, but I would need something more substantial to vote to keep this. Barno 00:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Given the link of Vizjim and some other google, I change my mind. But it should be rewritten, making it clear it is a prank. Cyclopia 15:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable crackpot. Simply declaring that you're going to run for president isn't good enough; thousands of people do that. You need to actually get your name on the ballot. --Carnildo 23:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. According to the Federal Election Commission's report [2], he didn't get his name on one state's general election ballot, nor a primary ballot, nor even got votes reported as a write-in. User:Vizjim's link proves only that Buonaparte declared himself a candidate, not that he actually made any effort to participate in the election. --Metropolitan90 01:45, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think if notability is asserted solely due to running for public office, the subject has to have made it onto the ballot. MCB 06:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even if he made it onto a ballet, it wouldn't make him notable enough by itself. That he didn't, makes him even less notable. -- Kjkolb 08:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per other delete voters. Quale 01:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 18:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Military history of Germany during World War II

Before you start, don't get me wrong, this is a good page in theory and probably in practice. However, it isn't going anywhere. At the moment, it's a useless fork of European theatre of World War II, where all of this info is already available in much greater detail. And it has been given time to grow and develop. Obviously, it's not going anywhere. In it's present form, there is simply no obvious reason to keep it. I argued this point on the talk page a long time ago, but I've no intention of personally writing the article, as I suggested there. If somebody improves this significantly during the voting period, however, I'd be willing to reconsider.--naryathegreat | (talk) 00:30, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to European theatre of World War II if there's anything new, otherwise Delete Dlyons493 05:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Dlyons493. Owen× ☎ 20:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename. This article is part of the History of Germany-series, and considering how important WW II was in forming modern German history, this deserves its own article. However, it should be moved to history of Germany during World War II (or something similar), since it's not supposed to be on military history. The top level-article here is not World War II, but rather Germany, of which history of Germany is merely a sub-article. / Peter Isotalo 13:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • And such an important part too, seeing as it has had practically no edits for months.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The article has now been moved to the above suggested title. Please add to it, but try not to focus less on the military aspects. We probably have thousands of pages about WW II as it is, and a great majority of that is most likely about Germany. / Peter Isotalo 09:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename as above. Ashmodai 21:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 21:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brooks Laich

Tagged as an A1 speedy "Very short article providing little or no context", but I can just about work out what it means with the help of a quick Google. So it comes here instead; I suspect it just needs cleaning. Abstain. -Splash 00:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep/Cleanup; any sports fans out there interested in cleaning this up? --Alan Au 00:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • speedy delete as nn---CH (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup professional hockey player. Have expanded this article. In doing so, I noted that he has so far played only five NHL games playing mostly in the minor leagues. Is this sufficient to establish notability as an ice hockey player? Capitalistroadster 05:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep/Cleanup as per Alan Au. If not cleaned during vfd Delete Dlyons493 05:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, NHL player. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:17, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep following yet another 'salvage op' by the Capster. Alf melmac 11:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cleaned up. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Despite CR's improvement, I'm voting delete since I don't think a minor-leaguer who got a couple of tastes of the NHL (playing in a total of five games, and both times failing to stick in the majors) is even close to meeting the relevant part of WP:BIO: "Athletes who are widely known, widely acclaimed, or highly successful in their sport." Barno 00:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete He only played in 5 NHL Games. We cant have Every player who ever played a professional game an article unless some else more notable happened. --Aranda56 01:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Barno and Aranda56. -- Kjkolb 08:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep 22-year old prospect. He's not a career minor-leaguer, as last seasons labor dispute forced him into the AHL. Expect him to make the Capitals opening lineup this year. And yes, we can have every professional player- there's exceptionally fewer of them then there are, say, schools.--Scimitar parley 15:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as per Scimitar. Hall Monitor 16:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, of course -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep anyone who's played in a major sports league. JYolkowski // talk 15:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as far as I know we keep anyone who has played in the NHL most hockey players who get drafted never get to the NHL never get to see any ice time. If we applied User:Aranda56 logic we might as well delete all Members of Parliament who did not become Ministers. By the way please see List of every NHL player --Cloveious 04:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seattle_Surrealist_Group

  • Delete, Non-notable, article created by user:Daniel C. Boyer to promote non-notable group here on Wikipedia. The only references on this group is two blogs.Classicjupiter2 00:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete part of a huge wave of similar stuff, much of which was deleted long ago. 8 unique Google hits. It's worse than I thought, really... on closer inspection, it appaears that this group barely even exists. According to their blog, they have 5 members. Completely non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:14, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Though you have a point, or may have a point, with respect to your other arguments, your implication that the membership of the group per se has to do with its notability is questionable. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -GregAsche (talk) 01:29, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Dlyons493 05:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN ≈ jossi ≈ 15:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt the earth: We've been through this before, and through this before, and through this before. It's a clubhouse, not a movement. Geogre 21:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know what your point is as no one ever claimed that the Seattle Surrealist Group is a movement; clearly it is only part thereof. You are using a straw man. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nominator. Not a speedy as re-creation of previously deleted material... but apart from changes in the name of the city and the members, it is essentially similar to many others, all voted for deletion. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This is a total non-argument. There are obviously a number of possibilities: that all these groups are notable, that they are all non-notable, that some are notable and others are not. Making a judgment other than on each on its own merits or the lack thereof is improper. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, sigh; apparently WP policies are one of those bits of reality to which Boyer is trying to avoid conforming. Barno 00:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • To what WP policy does this not conform? I'd challenge you to name it. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article was submitted 11 September of this year; I can't find any trace of this article previously having been submitted. If Boyer is resubmitting content that has been removed thru the usual process, I for one would like to see some evidence. If not, then let's try to be civil about his submissions, whether or not they belong here. -- llywrch 22:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If you're referring to me, I said that it was "Not a speedy as re-creation of previously deleted material..." perhaps I should have put "not" in bold. I said it was, however, essentially similar to many others, all voted for deletion. Perhaps I should have put "similar" in bold. a) A number of articles that were similar to each other were all voted for deletion; b) therefore, a consensus exists that such articles should be deleted; c) this article is similar to those articles; d) therefore, this article should be deleted. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think that you can go as far as you do in "b". In my opinion the most that one can say is "it seems that a consensus exists that such articles should be deleted", but the way that Articles for deletion is currently done (and I would argue for keeping it this way) the consensuses are reached or not reached on individual articles, not vaguely-defined types of articles. In any case, there are some articles on surrealist groups which have been kept, which suggests in any case that you haven't adequately defined what you mean by "such articles". --Daniel C. Boyer 19:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Dpbsmith, I misunderstood. But it would help me (at least) in the future if you linked to this precedent. -- llywrch 19:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. -Sean Curtin 20:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Boyer's arguments. Reading this article, I was struck by the lack of any explanation of notability: in blunt English, this article fails to answer the question, "What have they done?" Have they held any exhibits, performances, published any works? Instead of citing examples of these (which would help convince me -- & hopefully others -- to vote to keep), Boyer responds with explaining his own interpretation of the rules, apparently arguing that if the rules do not forbid it then this article should be kept. Sorry, Boyer: that argument does not persuade me. -- llywrch 19:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I have argued no such thing. I have not said or argued the article should be kept, I have just argued that it should be judged on its own merits, not lumped together with others, and some other points about what people said. There is nothing to be sorry about as I never said that if "the rules do not forbid it then this article should be kept". --Daniel C. Boyer 23:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, please understand what is being asked of you here. It is very simple: Where we can find information on this group, in regards to publications, gallery exhibits, books, films, anything??? All you gave us was a blog. This really is a clubhouse that you are promoting here and it just gets weaker and weaker every time you challenge a delete vote. I would have supported this article if there was suitable material to go on, but as usual, this is all just promotion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote your friends and their websites and blogs. Daniel, please let me give you some good advice: When you create an article on contemporary surrealism, give us something solid to go on. For example: Nobody that is friends with you and an entity that is notable for their creative ouput. Really Daniel, when it comes to Surrealism as an organized movement, everything kind of goes downhill after 1969. Any university professor will tell you that. These friends of your in Seattle, Portland, Houston, Minnesota, Chicago, London, Leeds, etc. need to accomplish something more solid than cheap attempts at notability by getting their friend Daniel C. Boyer to promote them on Wikipedia. Daniel, with all due respect, you really are a great surrealist artist, yet, where do you find the time to create, lately?Classicjupiter2 01:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Nobody in the Seattle Surrealist Group is "friends" with me; I've never met them and have had no contact with any of them whatsoever. I am aware that you have repeatedly defined "friends" to mean those who are my friends, some of my casual correspondents, and some of those who have no connexion to me whatsoever, but have not seen fit to justify this definition in any way whatsoever. Your implication that university professors know more about surrealism than surrealists is in my opinion a questionable position, but it's really a POV and nothing more. This POV could certainly be alluded to in any relevant article(s). The same goes for your opinion that "everything kind of goes downhill after 1969". There are many publications (you're certainly aware of some of these, such as Arsenal, Blue Feathers, &c. -- you may be critical of them, and my bet is, correct me if I'm wrong, you'll express such criticism in your response, but this is once again a POV), exhibitions (you are aware, aren't you, of the 1976 World Surrealist Exhibition?) and other manifestations of surrealism in this period, indeed numerically more than in the pre-1969 period, but any discussion of the quality of those manifestations is, again, POV. An expression of any of these POVs is, again, appropriate in any relevant article(s) so long as (at least in general) the holder(s) are identified. Gratified as I am by your concern about me and whether I am able to create, I am puzzled by its relevance to the article. My bet is that you will not answer any of my concerns here. I challenge you to do so. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Really Daniel, I will answer your, "challenge". First, in regards to Arsenal, that is just another publication that your friend Mr.Rosemont SELLS to us all. Remember, Arsenal comes with a pricetag and REVOLUTION has no price! As for that rag being a legit surrealist publication, that is open for debate. Granted, many of Rosemonts friends (like you) will defend it at all costs, because you all share in this scam on the marvelous. If you were so insistent on Arsenal being a real surrealist publication, then why not provide scans of all the issues and put it on the net. Oh, I forgot, according to, "The Surrealist Movement in the United States" website, it comes with a price. As for, "Blue Feathers", that is a total waste of anyone's time. IF I were to go into any musuem with that rag of Dale's and Barrett's, the security guards would throw me out. That is a clubhouse rag. You are promoting a clubhouse here on Wikipedia, Daniel. Lets really be surrealistically real in the surrealist sense. Daniel, you have not once spoken out about Pierre's lame essay. Comrade Richardson did, why not you???Classicjupiter2 03:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • You haven't even come close to addressing my point. You haven't addressed your bizarre and idiosyncratic (to say the least) definition of "friends" and after that it's just one (weak, in my opinion) POV after another. As I anticipated, you do exactly what I predicted, crticising the quality or aspects of the journals and publications rather than addressing my concerns. By your criteria no surrealist journal (La Revolution Surrealiste, La Surrealisme ASDLR &c.) has ever been authentically surrealist; they were all sold. But it is up to Wikipedians how much attention they will pay to what is in my opinion a thoroughly ridiculous charge. As for your theory that everything is either computerised or should be, and that "real publications" are not such unless they are digitized, it is hardly worth the rebuttal. There are things called libraries, they have things called books and journals, and if you don't feel like paying for a journal go to the library and read it or check it out. Another digital-centric (beyond bizarre, in my opinion) POV. And as for your making museum guards the arbiters of surrealism, if you were "surrealistically real" in any sense you would know better than that. It is exceedingly difficult to come to any other conclusion than that you are an anti-surrealist. Finally, the "lameness" of "Pierre's essay" is a POV, and one that has no discernible connexion whatsoever to this deletion discussion. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Wendy-Ann Antanaitis

married to minor celebrity, non-notable herself NeilN 01:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Her husband easily qualifies for an article. But she doesn't as she hasn't done anything else to be notable. The marriage occurred well after the burst of fame of the Rollers was over. Also, this is probably another copyvio by the same anon editor, who's been copy/pasting bios related to the Bay City Rollers. --rob 04:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per rob Dlyons493 05:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. I wish to give the original contributor a chance to clarify the licensing, fix the content, and explain notability. Multiple Roller-related articles are a "work-in-progress" right now, which is in the process of being cleaned up. There's now more evidence that she become something of a notable person, receiving attention herself. See the article and Talk:Wendy-Ann Antanaitis for reasons. I suggest giving the Roller-related articles some time, and see what happens. --rob
I hope I don't get in trouble for putting this here, please remove it if this is a violation for me to do. I have left a note in the discussion page, please read it before deletion. I am working very hard on everything. Thank you.
I don't get it. Why did you think this person would be worthy of an encyclopedia article? I'll abstain, but I think the first rule of writing is to ask yourself whether you can justify writing whatever you just sat down to write.---CH
Thank you for asking, I tried to be as detailed as possible and with the connection to her husband, who I consider a celebrity, I've found their story very interesting, that was it. I thought I did jusitfy what I wrote. That's my opinion and the opinion of others I have asked, but I can respect yours. And I'm glad this's no Eva Braun, Mr. Hillman, I wouldn't have wasted my time on someone like her. Perhaps Christopher Reeve's wife, Dana. I thank Rob for his help and will do better in the future, I'll choose to delete my research, though I thank those who wanted to give me a chance. I want to join this first before I go on with anymore research, so I can seek advise while researching and what is expected. Again, I'm new at this, I thought I was doing a nice, informative job. Thank you.
(talk) 08:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wife of very non-notable celebrity. This is certainly no Eva Braun. / Peter Isotalo 15:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — The irony is that her article is longer and more detailed than that of her husband, Ian Mitchell. — RJH 15:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Though her main claim to fame is marrying her teenage "idol." Believe it or not, I think I once read an small article about this woman somewhere when she got married-- the kind of short, heartwarming piece you find in "Reader's Digest" or perhaps more accurately "The National Enquirer". Too bad hubby's article isn't better, though.Crypticfirefly 00:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nice, informative job of describing someone who fails WP:BIO. Barno 00:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Cute story, non-notable person. Delete or Merge with Ian Mitchell. --Calton | Talk 05:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn-bio. At most, she should be a sentence or two in the Ian Mitchell article. MCB 06:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article has a "Trivia" section, but there's nothing at all in any part of the article that rises above the level of trivia. Completely unsourced and utterly non-notable even if true. Quale 01:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus - default to keep Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] New Hampshire Route 118

nn road Delete --Aranda56 02:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep We keep all the state highways in the US... evidence that California State Route 259 is a short highway, but it has a nice article. This is the sort of article that NH-118 can become... eventually a WP for NH roads will be started and this article will be improved then, if not before... Also note Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Florida State Road 300 and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ontario provincial highway 140. --Rschen7754 03:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Comment I would love nothing more to make an NH Wiki, but I don't have the time to learn how or to maintain it. Karmafist 02:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded. This is a minor road that links a town of 3000 to a town of 1000.
  • Keep per policy. Karmafist 14:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    What policy? Gazpacho
  • Delete. Non-notable roadcruft. I would never support any kind of convention that calls for automatic keeping of anything, least of all road articles. / Peter Isotalo 15:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Rschen. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:45, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn transport route. The nearby Boston & Maine Railroad and the Warren to Woodstock Carriage Road have some history, but this apparently does not, so a mention in the town articles and in a list is sufficient. FYI I don't think the CA259 article is so great. Gazpacho 16:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless more info is added (history, notable facts...). A mere list of towns and intersections a road traverses does not warrant an article. -- Klafubra 16:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be shown that the road has any more notability than as a path between two points, with a few others in between. Auto-keeping huge classes of articles (I think it's okay to automatically keep any US presidents, for instance, or Kings and Queens of England) is the path to darkness and doom. --Icelight 17:42, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, we keep numbered highways per prior consensus and precedent. Even if this is a bad article it will be expanded eventually as part of a NH highway Wikiproject. Gateman1997 17:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it would be more accurate to say that they are kept through a lack of consensus to delete rather than a consensus to keep. Lord Bob 18:55, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all numbered state, U.S. and Interstate routes as products of substantial state and federal-level governmental action. As long as the consensus here is to keep every school, I believe roads are *at least* as notable, if not more so. FCYTravis 18:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • No vote on this article, but I feel compelled to object to that last remark. It is not true that there is "consensus here to keep every school." This has been demonstrated time and again for at least two years. In fact the (inactive) page WP:WIWO bears no less than three warnings that "There is currently no consensus about inclusion of schools, and adding your signature here is not going to help create one." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Not all roads are notable some schools like Elementary Schools get erased. And most roads are even less notable than that. That is a perfect example.Not ALL numbered roads are notable if we got an article on every road in the world there will be hundreds of millions of articles numbered roads also Probaly a million+ of those out there and We Cant Keep them all. --Aranda56 02:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
        • There are not even close to a million numbered state/provincial roads in the world. If you assumed a rough average of 100 state routes per state, that would be 5,000 articles or so. FCYTravis 03:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, I'd put the number closer to 600 per state, so about 30K articles...but still, that's fewer articles than the geography bots maintain here... -- Grev -- Talk 05:22, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • This is not just a road, this is a state highway. I would never write an article about the street I live on. Also, there are 4,000 people who must use this road... more people than are in a typical elementary school. --Rschen7754 03:07, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
        • Yeah I over estimated the number of state roads. But still 5000 is too high and thats a low estimate knowing that there are many more of those.Some State Highways are still Non Notable. There are at least 30 of them in Miami alone and most of them dont got articles and i will place the vfd on it also because its only a road --Aranda56 03:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
These articles don't do any harm on Wikipedia. They're not vanity. This article will eventually be expanded... so why not just leave it until it is expanded?--Rschen7754 03:54, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Also note that there are probably about 5000 highway articles on Wikipedia... are you prepared to try and get a VFD on all of them? So far there has been no consensus to deleting highway articles. Also note Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Washington State Route 900--Rschen7754 04:07, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
          • Most of those roads are notable a few are of course not but they are not state route and im going to place the vfd on them. A few of them are also state routes that are more nn than this and im going to wait to place the tag on those But still its just a road that people drive in. Still nn Not ALL state Highways are notable and this one is even less notable than the ones nominated for deletion --Aranda56 23:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete roads which are not notable for something other than being a road, this one included. Lord Bob 18:55, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and ban the asshole deletionists. --SPUI (talk) 22:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. SPUI, no personal attacks please. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and ban User:SPUI for personal attacks. --Carnildo 23:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. I've warned User:SPUI about his spiteful conduct. This is completely unjustified and I'll block him if he misbehaves in any way again. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Thanks Tony! Karmafist 02:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, road without the slightest indication of notability provided in the article nor by "keep" voters. There is no consensus, let alone policy, to keep all numbered roads nor even all state highways. Barno 00:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, belongs on a map, not in writing. --maclean25 02:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but consider deleting if it is a really small road. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as shown in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents and noted in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Washington State Route 900, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Florida State Road 300 and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ontario provincial highway 140. Roby Wayne Talk • Hist 04:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment I quote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents: "Highways and interstates are notable". --Rschen7754 04:53, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep all state highways. -- Grev -- Talk 05:22, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: what's the difference between a state route and a state highway? I would have no problem keeping a state highway, but state routes may be a bit much, if they are below the state highway level. -- Kjkolb 08:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Some states call them state highways, some state routes, some state roads. --SPUI (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Oh boy. Here we go... In Illinois all numbered state highways are maintained by the state. These are also state routes. There are also other roads that are state maintained and I argue should not have their own article, but some do anyway. So I think author's discretion should come into play, esp. when it comes to historical value. --Rob 15:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • A route is a set of alignments that includes local roads and long-distance highways. Gazpacho
  • Keep, but note that if someone in Texas were to start doing Farm to Market highways, there would be literally thousands of very small articles. As it is, each primary state highway presumably has a historical precedent to be legislated into existence, and I feel it is this that should be emphasized in such articles. See Illinois State Route 2. The goal is to make these articles more than mere route descriptions. --Rob 11:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Replying to myself, but I forgot to include Illinois State Route 336 as a specific example of the importance of highway infrastructure. --Rob 15:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: This article is useful since it's a part of New Hampshire's State Highway system. I can think of articles on Wikipedia that are of far less notability than this. --K1vsr (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep simply because it is a numbered US state highway; from what I have read above it appears that there are some states that number more roads than the norm, but I don't think I've heard that about New Hampshire anyway. This road is also not short (approx 43.3 miles).
    • For a road in the United States, 43.3 miles is short. From where I sit right now, 43.3 miles will just barely get me to another city. --Carnildo 03:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I disagree. While relative to many areas it may be short (I'm guessing in central US this could be the case), it certianly isn't so everywhere. There are many major roads in my area that are significantly shorter than this one. They are common in connecting suburban areas to cities. --Engleman 04:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless stub.BillyCreamCorn 00:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Quale 01:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Spacement records

Label is not included on WP's List of record labels, one of the two blue links on the page. The other, apparently referring to an artist known as Disconnect, redirects to Disconnection, a Scientology topic. The label's website has an Alexa ranking of 3,373,599. Delete. Joel7687 02:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Record label formed in 2004. None of the bands on its roster are notable. Delete. TheMadBaron 10:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: The label is not significant at this point. That may change, and, when it does, so will the status of an article about the label. Geogre 21:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the TheMadBaron. -- Kjkolb 08:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Lists of flags

Completely redundant with Category:Lists of flags. Not to start a lists vs. categories fight, but *this* list is an unannotated list of existent articles—exactly the job categories were invented for. — Phil Welch 02:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per Nom --Aranda56 04:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Phil Dlyons493 05:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Phil.Voice of All (talk) 07:01, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I love lists, but in this case, there's nothing that can be added to it, and thus caetgories are much more appropriate. - Mgm|(talk) 11:13, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Superfluous list. / Peter Isotalo 15:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Although it could be revived with the work of a diligent Wikipedia Molotov (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There are numerous flag pages, more informative than this one. Also the list is not complete, since it takes no account for historical flags, flags of counties/enclaves/townships etc. Flag lover 00:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Plastic surgery in Venezuela

Unsourced, personal observation/opinion making sweeping generalizations about an entire continent. Deserves the same fate as Helicopter use in Brasil. Do I have to tell you who the author is? paul klenk 02:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete POV opinion and More junk User:Wiki brah has written --Aranda56 02:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • As much as Wiki brah has written a large number of lower-quality articles, there's no need to be unnecessarily disparaging about it. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete if possible. POV, unreferenced, unsourced and the user responsible for this entry has been warned about the no original research policy many, many times before. Others have been speedied. I should point out the user is on an RfC for strange, idiosyncratic behavior and continues to act as if nothing has happened. - Lucky 6.9 02:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, per above. -GregAsche (talk) 02:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: It's been suggested that this not be a speedy delete for benefit of the ArbCom. - Lucky 6.9 02:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as per nom Dlyons493 05:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV O.R.Voice of All (talk) 06:36, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. If a source can be found to support the claim that "Venezuala {sic) has the highest per capita rates of plastic surgery in the world" then it warrants a line or two on the Venezuela page, nothing more. TheMadBaron 10:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, concur with TheMadBaron's sentiments. - Mgm|(talk) 11:21, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Plastic surgergy-cruft with or without POV. / Peter Isotalo 15:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - merge any useful text to Venezuela. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:47, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Like many of this contributor's new articles, this one is on the border between personal opinion and a troll. And--you guessed it--Venezuela is not the leader in plastic surgery per capita or even close to it; it is Switzerland ([3] and other sources). Even Brazil, at number 23, is higher on the list. Owen× ☎ 21:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not suitable title or method of presentation. Molotov (talk) 22:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Should have been speedy. Total rubbish. CambridgeBayWeather 05:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • And now Wiki brah has seen fit to leave love notes on my talk page over this. I am really at the end of my rope over this guy. - Lucky 6.9 02:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
      • It seems this kid enjoys getting chided publicly. How many useful contributions has he provided? A quick look shows lots of User_talk comments, a few new articles of his usual "<Deviant-activity> in <Location>" form, but hardly any legitimate article space edits. Owen× ☎ 03:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, which defaults to KEEP Paul August ☎ 19:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miss Caruso

A Non Notable James Bond Movie Character that was only Shown in One Scene not even well written JamesBondCruft Delete --Aranda56 02:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge to Bond girl as per Zzyzx11 Dlyons493 05:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, no merge. Too minor a character to warrant an article and the format of Bond girl does not allow this sort of merging of information as it's basically a list article. 23skidoo 17:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Far too granular an article -- cruft. Geogre 21:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Madeline Smith (the actress who played the character). Crypticfirefly 04:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Crypticfirefly. Bond girl doesn't really have room to include text on a minor character like that. (she's already listed and that should be enough there.) - Mgm|(talk) 08:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 19:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To the pain

Original research by admission of creator; see Talk:To the pain for more details WCFrancis 02:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or Merge to The Princess Bride since that book and movie is where the source phrase is actually from. In fact, the 'canonical bout' is paraphrased from said sources when Westley bluffs Prince Humperdinck and no mention is made in the article of that fact. Hardly original research when it's plagerism :P Nezu Chiza 03:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as impossibly unencylopedic. This is just a nn catchphrase from a movie, not a cultural/language phenomenon. MCB 06:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as obvious nonsense. TheMadBaron 10:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Princess Bride, for the reasons given by Nezu Chiza. KeithD (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:48, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The redirect doesn't make sense. Yes, it was in the book. No, people who follow a To the pain link somewhere are not going to easily understand why they are looking at a Princess Bride page. Bunchofgrapes 22:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, moviecruft, not notable even among the people who always say "I do not think that word means what you think it means" and other PB lines. Barno 00:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • And no redirect, in agreement with Bunchofgrapes. Searching Google on this phrase in quotation marks, none of the links on the first two pages is relevant to the movie. Barno 00:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MOOT. Article was userfied, now found at User:Furik.

[edit] Furik

band vanity NeilN 03:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE and REDIRECT. Paul August ☎ 19:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roy Fraser Elliott

nn Pure Vanity Being a chairperson of the board in a museum and members in hospitals and golf courses does not make him notable Possible A7 Delete --Aranda56 03:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • copyvio from an obit. --rob 04:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete since copyvio, nn, Wikipedia is not a memorial.---CH (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Re-direct: "Roy Fraser Elliott" was his full name, but he was normally Fraser Elliott, and there is already an article under that name. Ground Zero | t 15:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio and redirect to Fraser Elliott. Hall Monitor 20:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete copyvio and redirect to Fraser Elliott per Ground Zero. --rob 21:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP following rewrite. Thryduulf 12:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate Universes in Archie Comics

This is essentially an interpretation, neither factual nor verifiable. Chick Bowen 04:23, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete essay. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Dlyons493 05:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete. 'An article explaining why Archie Comics don't have strict continuity. Ummmm.... no. DS 14:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Essay, [yawn].Voice of All (talk) 14:13, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as it's POV. And nonsense.Vizjim 14:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR, article lacks citations and lacks sense, not encyclopedic. Barno 17:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed it up to how I wanted it to look in the first place. I hope this changes some minds, but if the decision's already been made to axe it, sorry for wasting your time. (I'm not a sock-puppet, I swear.) 142.161.198.134 02:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, you went to a lot of trouble, and it's very thorough, but I'm afraid the original objection still stands: it's original research. That is, it's a perfectly good idea, but it's your idea, not an established fact such as you'd find in an encylopedia.Chick Bowen 03:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I certainly would have voted Delete pre-rewrite, but now I'm surprising myself by voting to keep. Although a rename to "Non-canonical Archie Storylines" or something similar might be good; that way there's no appearance of an "alternate universe" theory being proposed. To point to the Archie comics as a source and make the obvious observation that some storylines fall outside the main continuity does not strike me as Original Research, as long as you don't theorize on the hows and whys of that being the case. Which only leaves me wondering if the topic is notable or encyclopedic. But with hundreds of Star Wars pages out there, I think there's plenty of room for some well-organized Archie information like this. Bunchofgrapes 03:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how plot summaries fall short of factual. it is easily verifiable to anyone with familiarity of these comics. I say "keep"! (Unsigned comment by 216.80.110.89 at 20:15, 14 September 2005. IP's first Wikipedia edit.)
  • Keep; too long to merge into the main Archie article, and as it stands now, not original research. -Sean Curtin 21:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. After rewrite it now seems ok to me. Could possibly stand to be renamed per Bunchofgrapes. Paul August ☎ 19:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE --Doc (?) 14:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General relativity with conservation of energy

Article is about a new theory inspired by one of Einstein's general relativity theories. Original research. No references currently cited. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom Dlyons493 05:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom --EMS | Talk 14:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Physicscruft. / Peter Isotalo 15:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be shown NOT to be original research (I'll take the word of those knowledgable in this area.) Friday (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Salsb 14:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 19:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irda (Dragonlance)/Temp

The contents of the temp page are already merged in the Irda (Dragonlance) article, and the Temp page should be free if more copyright issues appear. ReyBrujo 04:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom Dlyons493 05:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD G9 (deletion by means of other policies). Andrew pmk | Talk 23:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy per Andrew pmk. No need to archive this in the talk namespace for GFDL issues; the merger was done by the only editor of this temp page. —Cryptic (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE --Doc (?) 14:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moon's time

A poorly written way of saying that because the Moon's gravity is less than Earth's, relativistic time dilation effects will occur. However, the effect is very, very, very small and this is not something that astronauts visiting the Moon need to take into account. In general, this is not a particularly useful or encyclopedic article, and there is no benefit from redirecting it anywhere. -- Curps 04:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not encyclopedaic Dlyons493 05:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. If I was voting from the Moon, would it appear as speedy? -- Last Malthusian 15:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per nominator. No, Malthusian, but I'll bet you it would be made of cheese. / Peter Isotalo 15:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Truism of no practcal or historic importance. -- Klafubra 16:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah. Now I see why you proposed that addition to WP:NOT. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Probably meets CSD, reference to the moon revolving around the moon, among others. I'm going to believe the Time dilation will be negligible and unmeasurable because I don't want to do the math.-WCFrancis 16:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - covered in several other articles, anyway ---Outlander 17:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Klafubra. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just a hair this side of CSD for patent nonsense. MCB 06:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE --Doc (?) 14:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warcraft III strategy

Original research, the author describes on Talk:Warcraft III strategy their goal was to include the Warcraft 3 "strategic and tactical significance of units, spells, and items", "macro strategies employed my professional players", "types of micromanagement", "differences in playing style of the four races". Better suited to Wikibooks or GameFaqs. UnlimitedAccess 04:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete video game strategy isn't usually encyclopedic. I'm also concerned that this article has redlinks to names of individual Warcraft players, suggesting that the author might create articles on them in the future. *Shudder* Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:44, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: What is it that makes people confuse us with GameFAQs? Is our URL similar to theirs? Inappropriate on too many levels for counting. Geogre 21:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wiki is not a how to guide or a FAQ - Hahnchen 23:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --Carnildo 23:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unreferenced gaming strategy is original research. - Mgm|(talk) 08:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
And referenced gaming strategy is unencyclopedic. - UnlimitedAccess 12:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep-It is useful info but needs cleaning up. This article does not have Frequently Asked Questions. Dudtz 9/14/05 4:27 PM EST

You will find most Strategy Guides dont have Frequently Asked Questions even when posted at GameFAQ's. Either way Stategy Guides or any HOW-TO guides whether containing FAQ's or not, arent encyclopedic and dont belong on Wiki. - UnlimitedAccess 03:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator.--nixie 03:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Quale 01:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE --Doc (?) 14:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Griffith

This might be a marginal case of deletion, but Google and Amazon.com tests don't seem to show much. Perhaps when the book mentioned in the article is released this would be notable enough, but for now, it might be deletion material. Paul 00:45, 27 August 2005

Paul 05:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC) Note: I didn't originally use this template but I put it in on 9-12. Also going to relist on the AFD log. Paul 05:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I vote against deletion because I think that the ability to find obscure information on wikipedia is what makes it such a great tool, one that is truly different than encyclopedia britannica or another. Also, perhaps the book will be quite notable. [Anon user] 8 September 2005
    (UTC)
  • delete: Anon, plez read Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball.---CH (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as perCH . If there were a user page, I'd say Userfy until the book comes out and its notability is verifiable - since there's not, maybe the article creator would consider adding the (probably about-to-be-deleted) material again when the book does appear? Dlyons493 09:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Former content, 02:58, 22 December 2002 Maveric149, was a redirect to D. W. Griffith. However, AFAIK D. W. Griffith is never referred to as "David Griffith." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per CH. No evidence of notability presented. Adjunct professors do not meet the "professor test" (which IMHO sets the bar too low, anyway). Books are almost never notable before publication. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 00:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vomitorial Corpulence

I don't think this meets WP:MUSIC guidelines; a google search for the name brings up an angelfire site as the main homepage, along with the Wikipedia article 4th down the list and several lyrics sites. Kertrats 05:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete allmusic has nothing on them. No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unsigned, unreleased band. Geogre 21:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

[edit] Boyd bergeson

Article fails to allege notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:10, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedily delete As per above. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 06:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I grudgingly admit that this barely alleges notability (professorship, addressing a learned society), but only enough to avoid the Speedy tag that Zoe didn't attach, not to actually keep. MCB 06:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Exactly. This is why I didn't speedy delete it, but brought it here. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:08, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
      • Hey, I meant that as a compliment! :-) MCB 06:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I didn't take it badly.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 21:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unfortunately having debt = annual imcome is NN in Academia says I in a heartfelt way (see [4] ). Dlyons493 10:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 00:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Raw

Vanity & false information Delete 144.138.190.11 06:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Unverifiable vanity. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 06:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per BMIComp - possible hoax. Dlyons493 10:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as likely hoax, or if not, nn-bio. MCB 07:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moved to Steven Barron by User:Philip Stevens September 11, 2005; redirect deleted by User:RHaworth September 12, 2005. --Canderson7 00:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wik/Stephen Barron

Page name in misspelled

Speedy delete Article a subpage of 'Wik'? Obvious misspelling. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 06:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE Adam Coopper and KEEP (NO CONSENSUS) Urban Shamanism. Thryduulf 12:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Cooper and Urban Shamanism

A non-notable and his school of thought. But apparently not self-promotion - see Talk:Adam Cooper and Talk:Urban Shamanism. -- RHaworth 03:19:57, 2005-09-01 (UTC)

  • delete as nonnotable---CH (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete 'Adam Cooper Dlyons493 10:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Urban Shamanism as it stands. With a major rewrite there might be an article in there somewhere. Dlyons493 10:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Better to have two vfd's?
      • And fill AfD with more bureaucracy votes? I think people see a connection. Peter Isotalo 15:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Don't combine two votes for deletion, it causes confusion. "Adam Cooper" isn't sufficiently notable. "Urban Shamanism," however, isn't exclusively his school of thought and should be considered in a seperate vote. (For what it is worth, I vote Delete Cooper, Keep urban shamanism.) Crypticfirefly 00:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: That's exactly what I was trying to say - thanks. Dlyons493 08:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per nominator. / Peter Isotalo 15:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, although it's slightly better than the technopaganism article. -- Kjkolb 08:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, typical New Age Bullshit. I wonder if they even know what Shamanism means.--Maprovonsha172 15:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment It is irrelevant whether the proponents of this movement know what "shamanism" means. It is only relevant whether the movement is notable. Crypticfirefly 05:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment if you insist on deleting Urban Shamanism without separate consideration, please consider merging some or all of the content into Psychedelia. (The article itself admits that this "movement" is also known by that name.) Crypticfirefly 06:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Urban shamanism — lots of Google hits. Whether it is "New Age bullshit" is irrelevant. Paul August ☎ 20:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 00:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander-Howden

  • Delete Seems to be a completely valueless article. Possibly some individual writing about themself. DirectorStratton 03:46, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I was searching on here about rare surnames and this is all that came up. Don't delete it - give me a good article about rare surnames, or expand it at least. 81.170.12.52 23:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. An article on rare surnames shouldn't even contain a list of rare surnames. DirectorStratton 00:42, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with an article on rare surnames. I think such an article/list might be of some value, and most readers would want to see a few examples. What does the Guinness book of world records say?---CH (talk) 00:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified nonsense. There is probably a very large number of surnames used only by one person, and anyone can create a new "rare" surname by combining two semi-rare ones. What makes this surname special enough to even be mentioned in an article on rare surnames? And why should we have such an article in the first place? Uppland 07:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with Uppland's reasoning. Dlyons493 10:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uppland. Any combination of two surnames is more unique than its individual constituents. - Mgm|(talk) 11:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Quite obviously not a rare surname. Both Alexander and Howden are common surnames. - Last Malthusian 15:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless needed as disambig for people of that name. Martg76 22:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense, as Uppland said. I am a name geek, but can't see any value in an article on rare surnames, either. There are plenty of surnames with only one or two bearers, and this one, being rare only by virtue of hyphenating two more common names, doesn't even legitimately qualify. ManekiNeko | Talk 03:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 00:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All-range attack

  • Delete No information notable enough. DirectorStratton 03:50, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Fancruft. --Blackcap | talk 03:55, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Newtypes who carry out such attacks. Being fancruft is not a valid reason to delete. - Mgm|(talk) 11:27, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as fancruft. --Carnildo 23:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Kjkolb 08:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 00:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alveraz Ricardez

  • Delete. Probably a vanity page. The external link for this person that is given on the page does not exist. ♠ DanMS 03:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable and probable vanity page.---CH (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 06:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity advert for linked film which doesn't seem to be released yet. - Mgm|(talk) 11:30, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 03:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amanpour

This article was created by an anonymous user whose previous contributions have all been vandalism. It documents a made-up philosphy, and looks to me like just a new form of vandalism. Michael L. Kaufman 17:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 06:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense, and possibly replace with a redirect to Christiane Amanpour. If I'd come across this before it was listed for AFD, I would've just redirected it that way without a second thought. Aquillion 07:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • del. nonverifiable. mikka (t) 08:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Don't see any need to replace with a redirect to Christiane Amanpour. Dlyons493 10:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete in no way is this a new philosophy, it is a poor oversimplification of a very worn track. Alf melmac 11:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Couldn't find a match on this "philosophy" in google. Appears to be original research. — RJH 15:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect. "Amanpour" is a very logical redirect to me. / Peter Isotalo 15:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Maybe create a page on Stoner philosophy and put it there. On second thoughts, maybe not. -- Last Malthusian 15:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and then redirect to Christian Amanpour, as this would be logical and the article now is not. Geogre 21:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; looks like an elaborate hoax. Owen× ☎ 21:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if I am allowed to vote on my own nomination. Michael L. Kaufman 03:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to keep the article. --Canderson7 00:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sensory Integration Dysfunction

  • Article appears to be original research. Delete unless properly cited --Rdos 06:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this article has an edit history dating to 2003, it reads sensibly, maybe an issue with some reverts in the history, but otherwise I can see no problem with this that cannot be sorted out by collective agreement on the articles talk page. Alf melmac 11:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is that they make wild claims about hypersensitivity and hyposensitivity that they cannot backup with evidences. I cannot see anywhere published research that says sensitivity differences would be related to dysfunctions in integration of sensory information. This seems to be a wild guess only. There is no DSM entry either for SID --Rdos 14:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keepThe term is well-known, nearly 80000 Google hits should be sufficient proof. Pilatus 13:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think Google is much of an indication, especially since the individual words are quite commmon. A search on sensory+integration+dysfunction on PublMed gives 4 hits and none of them give evidences for the theory presented in the article.--Rdos 14:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I was searching for the phrase, i.e. "sensory integration dysfunction". Even if it isn't in the DSM and not backed up by science it's at least a popular phrase that is much being thrown around. sensory+integration+autism gave 24 PubMed hits. Besides, for pseudoscience PubMed isn't the best source. Pilatus 14:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
        • If it is pseudoscience, according to original research policy it should be deleted or at least the article should describe it as such. Another problem is the links, that goes to a company selling treatments for autism. Advertising isn't allowed on WP either --Rdos 16:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
          • It's not up to us to condemn the research as bogus, what matters is that it is popular bogus. Our job is not to judge but to report what the arguments on both sides are and who supports the theory and who doesn't. The linkspam must go, of course. Pilatus 18:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP same person pushing the BS Neanderthal theory here that is original research. Pushing some kind of agenda - please stop! This is backed by many, many, many professionals and should never have been listed. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ryan, if this article should be retained, so should the The Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum. Both theories are equally popular in the autistic community, has the same backing up on PublMed (almost none) and has similar hits on Google --Rdos 18:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
      • As mentioned in the Neanderthal VfD this theory has been in many medical journals, while your "theory" has not. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
        • You'd better present it here as well then. AFAIK, what you presented was evidence that the treatment that predated the theory of SID is well established. You certainly have not shown that SID itself has any meaningful backing in the literature. --Rdos 19:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
      • You're arguing that treatment predated the syndrome? What utter rubbish. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Not the syndrome, the formulation of a theory of the syndrome (SID) --Rdos 19:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason to delete with worth-while article. --2mcmGespräch 21:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. Doesn't actually say what the alleged condition is. Mentions what "sensory" means (several times). but never specifies what this neological, sorry, neurological, disorder, manifests as, apart from a sudden leap to autism. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can't vouch for the content but apparently is a well-known term. See, New York Times, "Not All Swings Are Created Equal," Sept. 4, 2005. pg. 14.6 (story about a child with "Sensory Integration Disorder"); "Psychotherapy of a Dissociative 8-Year-Old Boy Burned at Age 3," Bradley C Stolbach. Psychiatric Annals. Thorofare: Aug 2005.Vol.35, Iss. 8; pg. 685 (child had been receiving treatment for, among other things, "sensory integration dysfunction."). Crypticfirefly 05:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with {{not verified}} tag (my edit) as a request for further sourcing and verification. This looks like reasonable biomedical science (to my layman's eye), but if relatively newly identified and accepted in the scientific community, there will be acceptable references, although they might take a while to percolate from the world of journals to the publicly-accessible Web. MCB 07:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are several pubmed hits for "Sensory integration dysfunction" (see, e.g., PMID 14730839 and PMID 2468631) and many more for sensory integration therapy, which I agree seems to be a separate thing. Rdos, please read the no original research policy more carefully, as I am not sure that you understand it yet. If you need help understanding it and have questions, please feel free to drop by my talk page and ask me; I'll be glad to help. Regards, Nandesuka 22:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Much of the information in this Sensory Integration Dysfunction article can be confirmed in a book called "The Out-of-Sync Child Recognizing and Coping with Sensory Integration Dysfunction" by Carol Stock Kranowitz, M.A. Rdos, I am aware that not all people who have autism have Sensory Integration Dysfunction as a co-morbid condition and this article does not imply they do. However many do, including several members of my family as well as myself. It is a good thing to have a thumbnail article about Sensory Integration Dysfunction like this for laymen. Regards, Aspens (newly registered user) 18:50, 14 September 2005
    • The point is not whether your family have the symptoms of SID. The point is that it has not been verified that these symptoms are caused by integration issues in the brain. --Rdos 09:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have SID, so this article's quite important to me. In regards to copyright or advertising, we can clean it up. Sean (talk || edits) 11:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I also have SID. I refer people to this page because it the only convenient summary of SID on the internet. In regards to Tonywalton's comment, this article says exact what it is.
  • Keep. Reservations about the validity of SID can be discussed on the talk page or in an added section in the article, but this is a legitimate topic worthy of an article. There should also be an article about sensory diets, a popular trend in treating Pervasive developmental disorders, and these articles should link to each other. --Woggly 06:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 00:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Hook

  • Delete. This is just another puff piece created by 'Gregory Snow' ie Sean Wright, for promotion of his doubtful wares. John Self 17:20, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Still haven't got a life yet, John old chum, I see, Still floating around on discussion boards, making a fuss. My, my, what a lad. I did however enjoy your john self flcker show. The plant on your head pic suited you, sir. I was hoping the roots would burrow into your brain and perhaps leave a residual of intelligence and moral fibre, but alas it seems not. Keep up the good work, old chum. Your biggest fan. (unsigned comment by Owen Why)
  • Delete. Please restrict discussion on this page to deletion or retention of this Wikipedia article, and sign and datestamp your comments by logging in and typing four tildes. Your comments are in breach of the Wikipedia rules on No_personal_attacks (see in particular example 1, which is specifically breached here). Please edit and remove these comments to avoid the matter being referred for the Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes process. Thank you. John Self 16:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity piece by Sean Wright Connor Wolf 08:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I find this article to be of absolutely no relevance to anyone other than the subject and its author. Dario Piazzoli 15:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable vanity.---CH (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 00:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-pokemon

Anti-Pokemon is an orphan article written about a non existing word/name (Gibberish phrase) which is also misspelled. The content of the article does not explain the term "Anti-Pokemon" and has been made by just guessing wiki markup, for example creating headlines by writing bold text followed by a horizontal line (which users are told to use sparingly) without previewing causing gibberish like "Italic textAntiItalic text". See Pokémon theme music also. --Shreddy 20:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Stupidest article I've ever read. Love, Gold Stur 20:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete Gold Stur has led a sheltered life if that's the stupidest article thy've ever read - wait till I get finished wikifying our corporate strategic plan :-) Dlyons493 10:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I would counter your reasons, Shreddy. When someone goes to Wikipedia, they want to be able to see info on all types of sources. Also, there is an extensive issue on "Pokemon", so everyone would know what that meant. Plus, horizontal lines are used sparingly (just twice). "Use Sparingly" doesn't mean "never use". Finally, Anti-Pokemon is not spelled wrong, and it is not gibberish, either. Sure hope no one makes the grave mistake of deleting this page. --Scyther-Mantis 12:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete What is the point of this article, beside the fact its a hoax? Emphasis on hoax. "Anti-Pokemon" is gibberish as well, not to mention provacative. This should be a candidate for speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.165.27 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's pointless and fannish and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Any valuable information it might have could easily be contained within the Pokemon and/or flaming articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumblingmynah (talk • contribs) 23:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete anything that reaches a certain point of popularity will eventually attract a hate site or two... there's also anti-Harry Potter sites and anti-Star Wars sites. These sites are usually only semi-serious and never really have any impact on anything. At best, this topic might warrant a sentence in the main Pokemon article, but doesn't need one of its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:51, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Because a cartoon and the internet are SERIOUS BUSINESS!" Great, this is so stupid I can't even make fun of it. Wikachu, Delete Attack!. -- Last Malthusian 15:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, which I guess makes me anti-anti-Pokemon. Anyway, a minor article on a minor movement that should be mentioned in the Pokemon article if it were worth mentioning, which it is not. Lord Bob 19:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Pokemon and duck the fireworks delete. --Carnildo 23:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The topic can be discussed in better depth in the Pokémon article - in fact, there is already a section in that article which discusses crticisms of Pokémon. A.K.R. 11:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gibberish. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deltism

Noexistent religion, delete--nixie 07:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, in line with the precepts of Deletism. 17 google hits, not counting similar pages. Aquillion 07:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable, possible hoax. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Followers apparently believe that the end of the world is tomorrow, and therefore won't be too upset by the inevitable decision to delete. TheMadBaron 11:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Draw a triangle on it, put it in your pocket, and delete it tomorrow. Alf melmac 14:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • They believe that "the end of the world is tomorrow." But they didn't form yesterday, so their faith must be as weak as a piece of paper with a triangle drawn on it. Delta, er, delete, not notable, not verifiable. Barno 00:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Belikov

Was listed for speedy deletion on the grounds that it's an article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. But it seems to me the article does attempt to assert this person's importance, for example by saying "In year 2002 he won silver medal at All-Russia Olympiade for Young Physicans where he had shown a great knowledge of mechanics, statical and dynamical electricity and optics", so I'm moving it here. I'm not convinced young Alexander really is important or significant, though, so I'm voting delete. Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I had put the article on VfD. I think he is not notable enough. Delete abakharev 08:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Gamaliel 08:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • del outstanding vanity article. Nonnotable student. mikka (t) 08:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Getting a medal in an All-Russia Olympiade is a notable achievement so not fair to say nonnotable student. I'd certainly support a List of medal winners in Olympiades (if it doesn't already exist) but don't think that justifies individual entries for the medal winners. I'd argue the same for the Olympic Games, but don't expect much support for that position! Dlyons493 10:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy. I wish we could do something about these imbeciles. KNewman 11:10, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds like he's got potential to do notable stuff in the next two or three years, at which point this article can be re-created. For now, delete. DS 14:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, incredible junk. Trapolator 19:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this 18-year-old "outstanding scholar" for unabashed self-promotion. --Ghirlandajo 22:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I study in the same faculty and I never heard his name...  Grue  15:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 00:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kholdeev

  • del. nonnotable. mikka (t) 08:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • del. nonnotable abakharev 08:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • del. Khol-who? KNewman 11:16, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Those terse near-identical votes worry me, but I have to admit that googling (Three whole hits for "Oleg Kholdeev") and looking at the website linked from the article have convinced me that this indeed should be deleted as a non-notable bio. Bunchofgrapes 22:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • del. nonnotable. Er, I mean, article fails to establish notability. Sorry, peer pressure nearly got to me. Lord Bob 00:37, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, vanity - Introvert talk 00:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Ugly Spirit

Was listed for speedy deletion, but doesn't meet the criteria. Seems nonnotable to me, so I vote delete. Angr/tɔk tə mi 08:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete anyway. If this nonsense isn't a speedy, then the criteria are either taken too literally. / Peter Isotalo 15:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Real band but fails WP:music. Certainly not nonsense, speedy criteria are meant to be taken literally. Rx StrangeLove 14:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 00:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Remigius Kanagarajah

Doubts on the factuality of the article Plus, take a look at what I've said on the original article's discussion page. I vote delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parthepan (talk • contribs) 2005-09-12 09:41:04 UTC

  • Delete. Middle-class, white-collar vanity. / Peter Isotalo 15:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I hear this guy's name every day. No wait, that's me gargling Listerine. Suppose it's delete as vanity and possible copyvio, then. -- Last Malthusian 16:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Peter. -- Kjkolb 08:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


The article has reappeared for some reason. Parthepan 13:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 20:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rule 7

Minor internet related saying, no importance for WP. No dicdef eighter. feydey 09:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • According to the deletion policy, that's not a reason to delete. It's rising in usage, and comes not from the internet but from UK festival organisers. (mostly Rugby, New Age and LRP). It also helps clarify the definition of piss by placing a context on it. User:EdFortune 13:31, 12 September 2005 (GMT). (217.35.96.177 2005-09-12 12:28:58 UTC according to edit history. Uncle G 14:37:49, 2005-09-12 (UTC))
  • Delete as neologism. Friday (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. Among one of the groups I hang out with, "Rule #1" is "First pillage, then burn", and the rest of the rules are in that same vein. --Carnildo 23:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So Rule 7 is "don't take the piss"; and the example given is "Help yourself to my food, but don't break rule seven". Among live-action roleplayers, New Agers, and rugby players, is urine likely to get mixed up with food? Is it often stored with food? Delete as lacking significance or sufficiently widespread nontrivial usage. Basically just an in-joke. Barno 01:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • In a Monty Python skit, Rule 7 was "no poofters". Don't look up that slang if you're gay and sensitive. Barno 01:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Patent nonsense --Grcampbell 21:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 20:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nagarajan Perspective

Stunningly important philosophical insights which have unfortunately yet to be shared with the world. Non-notable or hoax. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 10:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • "a common term in contemporary philosophical thought" which fails to garner a single google hit? I don't think so. Delete unless verification can be found. Grutness...wha? 10:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as no such perspective of sufficient notability and currency exists to find a place here. --Bhadani 13:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • More mouthwash, er, hogwash. "The only certainity within the Nagarajan Perspective is that all we do is pointless." Great, presumably that includes this article. Delete due to author's own admission of non-notability. -- Last Malthusian 16:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Nagarajan - a legend in his own mind. Delete. TheMadBaron 21:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm going to start a philosophical schism which amends the tenet to "... all we do except deleting is pointless." Barno 01:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I've heard about this guy before somewhere...in some obscure philosophical magazine. Maybe his "influence on modern philosophy" isn't as widespread as the author of the article claims, but Nagarajan does exist. I suggest someone does the research needed and makes the required edits to the page Keep
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 20:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SchwarzReich

(plus a redirect and two incoming links). Non-notable band. Note that of a mere 89 Google hits most are to the Atlantis article here and in clones, which has been carefully seeded some time ago. -- RHaworth 10:13:59, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. --rob 12:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • allmusic never heard of them, no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Delete quickly before someone claims they're notable as part of the "Chaos Metal Movement". Friday (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey! Chaos Metal is a rising movement which will redefine the music scene! We've got our first album coming out as soon as our bassist's mom buys him the CD-Rs, and ah, who am I kidding, delete. Lord Bob 19:09, September 12, 2005 (UTC) (and a note: I'm not actually in the band).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jonathan Sadko

The article does not explain why Jonathan Sadko is notable. Aleph4 10:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete for no claim of notability of person. --rob 12:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. It was created by a vandal under a multi-user IP, there is no claim of notability of person as rob said, it is not an encyclopedic topic, and it is among a series of misinformation articles created by this vandal, (original of Michael_Frank, a false addition to Charles_Hall, and current Jason_Boivin). Besides the point, this vandal has repeatedly vandalized my user page, and I both know and dislike him in offline life. Nihiltres 20:52, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wiktionary (2 keep, 1 delete or transwiki, 2 Transwiki, 1 Keep or transwiki). Thryduulf 13:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Backhanded compliment

VfD tag added by User:Paul Klenk but nomination never completed; creating now. Keep or transwiki. JYolkowski // talk 15:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Needs more discussion. Relisting on 12 Sep. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki Tonywalton  | Talk 22:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Has no place here...transwiki or whatever, but delete. Paul 17:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Perfectly acceptable entry though the example given is not a good one, or even accurate. Doing some revision. Pacian 07:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I take it back, the entry is accurate, it just went over my head. Still revising though. Pacian 07:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Well, that was confusing. Apparently this was on AfD and VfD simultaneously. Combining the two (or even considering each separately), we have a rough consensus. android79 15:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blogsnob

Please note that this article was renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogsnob.

Wiktionary may be a better location for this. user:Matt.whitby 2005-08-07 20:46:43 UTC

  • Possibly: I entered it here as a cross reference to the main article as it was one of several with a dead link. user:nightingale 2005-08-08 08:38:00 UTC
  • This never made it to the main VfD page; adding now. Transwiki maybe. JYolkowski // talk 15:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete outright. Most Google hits look to be a nn software package, it's definitely a neologism here, and it doesn't look to meet Wiktionary's criteria, either. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 16:59:49, 2005-09-03 (UTC)
  • Delete. Internet slang neologism. This should be included in the CSD as far as I'm concerned. Peter Isotalo 15:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Needs more discussion. Relisting on 12 Sep. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Lomn. -- Kjkolb 09:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep as either a redirect or a disambiguation page. The vote was 5 in favour of redirection or disambiguation with two delete votes, including the nominator. As to whether or to disambiguate or redirect, it was 3:2, so I will (reversibly) turn it into a disambiguation and the discussion can be taken up on the article's talk page. moink 11:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gouging

Dictionary definition; if there were more info, I'd suggest moving it to Wikitionary Bletch 18:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Needs more discussion. Relisting on 12 Sep. --Tony SidawayTalk 11:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Reaffirming my vote above. -- BD2412 talk 04:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation per Meelar and BD2412. - Mgm|(talk) 08:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to gouge, add a note on top about other article. -- Kjkolb 09:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Football World Cup. There's no consensus to delete, but noone wants to retain it as it stands. -Splashtalk 00:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Football World Cup 2022

While this tournament will almost certainly happen, it is not for another 17 years - planning for this tournament is a long way from starting. There is nothing substantive to be said about it at this point in time. Article purely consists of speculation on possible hosts, with nothing to back it up. Delete. Qwghlm 11:15, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per discussion on WikiProject Football. -- Elisson • Talk 12:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. (Plus even the youngest current players are likely to be too old to take part in this event when it occurs). In addition, I think the Football World Cup 2018 article should probably be AfDed too, although there is some discussion about it at the WikiProject Football. KeithD (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per KeithD, although I for one wager fifty quatloos on the Republic of Jesusland when the event rolls around. Lord Bob 19:13, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, while 2018 is still so vaguely defined - anything that can be said about 2022 can also be said about 2018. I'd also support a redirect back to Football World Cup, to prevent it getting continually recreated over the next few years ;) sjorford #£@%&$?! 19:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Football World Cup. We will not have any verifiable information about this event for 10 years at least until such time as a bidding process occurs to host it. Capitalistroadster 23:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, but 2018 should be kept. CalJW 00:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above until preperations have started. - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Sounds

Not notable group per WP:MUSIC, no albums released, see also google: [5]. feydey 11:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Friday (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No attempt to establish notability (or anything else). Only eight words, and I'm about to remove one of them as POV. TheMadBaron 09:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Fujita scale. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] F-5 tornado

This page seems rather unnecessary... for completion we would have to have F-0 tornado, F-1 tornado, etc... and none of those pages are weighty enough to have their own category. Also, reasons for "sudden downturn of F-5 tornadoes" can be listed under "tornado". Rob 11:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Fujita scale. I would also support deletion. -- Plutor 14:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to either Fujita scale or List of F5 tornadoes - it's quite possible people would try and link to this. sjorford #£@%&$?! 19:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Fujita scale, and create the rest of the redirects as well. --Carnildo 23:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Fujita scale which describes the meaning of the term rather than a list of tornadoes. Also make redirects for names without the dashes (like F5 tornado). - Mgm|(talk) 08:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I, (My IP adress is listed) created the page. Delete it if you want. I tried to make a page for my expirimentation, but delete if you must. But it wouldn't be unnecessary to relocate internal information. But another thing I'd like to know is how do you people find this page? Why would you even click on the F-5 tornado link? Do you simply go around looking for imperfections of the smallest bit pages?
    • Comment -- It was listed under Category:Tornadoes if I recall correctly. I was doing some work in that subject. --Rob 14:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Merge/Redirect to Fujita scale. We do need the redirect for GFDL reasons. Titoxd 02:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Fujita scale, though I am not opposed to deletion. -- Evolauxia 00:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE (possibly CSD A5). Thryduulf 13:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paraxial

Has been moved to Wiktionary KeithD (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 22:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magatama (martial art)

It's a misconception that there's a martial art called Magatama in the --King of Fighters-- series - the actual names of the arts used by characters of the Kusanagi family, as well as Iori and Shingo (mostly "Kusanagi style of ancient martial arts") are listed in an official source, the www.kof10th.com website, in the individual character profile pages. The misconception derives from part of the legend that inspired the Orochi plot in the KoF games up to 1997, as there are 3 sacred objects associated with the legend: a sword, a mirror, and a magatama (an object which has its own Wikipedia article, and which shouldn't need to go through a disambiguation page to be reached), which correspond to 3 important characters in that series, respectively Kyo, Chizuru and Iori Loona 11:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Question How common is the misconception? Would an explanation of the misconception be appropriate in, say, the King of Fighters article or another appropriate article? If so, my feeling is that it should be merged not deleted. KeithD (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
It's not that frequent to be worth mentioning in the main KoF article - at most, mentioning the common points (these tend to stick to the some of the special moves they use, and the odd normal attack or two) between the styles used by the characters Kyo Kusanagi, Iori Yagami, Shingo Yabuki and Saishu/Saisyu Kusanagi (Kyo's dad - the spelling of the name tends to change slightly according to the source) in their respective profiles - Kyo's, at least, is in need of some tweaking. In short, the fighting style that does exist (and evolves) in KoF is that of the Kusanagi clan, which the official bios pretty much refer to as "Kusanagi style" - Saishyu passed that on to Kyo (who changed some aspects of it after being beat by Goenitz prior to the KoF96 tournament), while the Yagami had something quite different in many aspects, with only a few similarities that border parody by opposition (this is most noticeable in KoF 95, where both Kyo and Iori - who debuted in that game - have projectiles, but throw them with practically opposite hand movements - Kyo's is up-to-forward, and Iori's is back-to-down; another special has both of them dashing at an opponent, and while Kyo lifts his victim upon hitting him, Iori slams him into the ground - both follow up with an explosion); Shingo is basically a Kyo fanboy who tries to do the same things, but with no formal training (other than bugging Kyo to show him a move, and then proceeding to practice that countless times, so it's said), although Saishyu offers to train him in a KoF2003 ending. In no game or official source is a "Magatama style" mentioned, so it's something not worth focusing on outside the character profiles IMO, especially with a wrong name, and certainly not with a page of its own. Loona 15:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, gamecruft that isn't even valid in the context of the game. Barno 01:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, both because it is gamecruft, and because it will confuse people who hear the word magatama, try to look it up, and read about a martial art that doesn't exist instead of the curved beads whose shape is the visual representation of the human spirit. Nandesuka 04:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Nandesuka. -- Kjkolb 09:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Gay Barbarians and/or the Jaurwars

This band only gets 3 google hits. One of those is Wikipedia, and another is a page written by the author of the article. Pburka 21:41, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment Search on yahoo. The band is completely groundbreaking in everything that they do, why shun them even more? User:misterknowall 16:23, ET.
  • Delete. "Groundbreaking" is one of the oldest POVs in the book. If I had a nickel for every artist that was "groundbreaking", I could finally afford a new cliche to describe things that are common. If it doesn't pass WP:MUSIC, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Sorry, bro. Karmafist 20:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)"
  • I think I am prepared to withdraw my nomination and, instead, suggest that this article be Moved. The band appears to actually be named "The Gay Barbarians". I don't know where the "and/or the Jaurwars" part comes from—the only pages on the Web which use that name have all been contributed by misterknowall. Without the suffix, the band garners a slightly more respectable 59 google hits. Pburka 03:53, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I use the "and/or the Jaurwars" tag on the end due to the name printed on the sleeve and cover of the album. However, I would not oppose the album being headed under the name "The Gay Barbarians" with a redirect from this page.
Seems to me this needs more discussion. Relisting 12 Sep. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Band vanity. / Peter Isotalo 15:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. allmusic has a track listing of one CD, but no bio or other info. No assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC, one record on Charnel notwithstanding. Friday (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment/question Their CD is sold at tower.com. I don't know if they're actually sold at brick and mortar Tower Records stores, but the tower.com sale would seem to indicate some notability. No vote. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:12, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pleuroma

Non-notable band. No page at allmusic.com. Quite a few Google results, but next to none with any actual content. KeithD (talk) 12:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Friday (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete any band that can't get a record deal. TheMadBaron 21:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete these can be speedied now, right? Since it doesn't assert notability (in this case, asserts nothing aside from existence). Tuf-Kat 08:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep · Katefan0(scribble) 22:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Claiomh Solais

Fancruft? I don't now, but it's not encyclopeadic, in anyway. Delete now Differentgravy 17:58, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Claiomh Solais is a sword from Celtic mythology. ? 17:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

  • This nom was never added to a main VfD page. Fixing now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 22:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Quite well-known in Ireland e.g. there used to be a journal of that name. But could be merged to Celtic Mythology or some such. Dlyons493 23:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if it doesn't get expanded to at least a complete sentence telling us the significance of the Claíomh Solais before this AFD is over. If someone can write one or two sentences about it, then merge with Irish mythology. If someone can write one or two paragraphs about it, then keep. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 06:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I've added a little more information and will see what relevant printed material I can find Dlyons493 13:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Needs more discussion. Relisting on Sep 12. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Dlyons493's rewrite. Notable in Irish mythology.Capitalistroadster 23:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mythologycruft. Redirect and mention in Irish mythology only if notable by real world standards, not just Wikipedia standards. E.i. indispensible to the understanding of the core aspects of Irish mythology. / Peter Isotalo 15:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Whatever is done with this should be done for consistency to the linked articles I've now created Spear of Lugh, The Dagda’s Cauldron, Stone of Fal e.g. a merge to Tuatha De Danaan or Irish mythology wouldn't be unreasonable. Note also that Claiomh Solais is now effectively a disambig page with Pearse and a contemporary Irish writer involved - I don't want to do that until we see what the voting outcome is. Also I feel Wikipedia standards are what should be applied since we're on Wikipedia - I wouldn't have bothered creating this article myself, but I've invested some time in cleaning it, so my original Weak Keep is now somewhat stronger. Dlyons493 16:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: I've moved out the unrelated info to a disamb page now. - Mgm|(talk) 09:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, although I am not an authority on Irish mythology. This seems to be worth hanging onto, and if not exactly a major part of their myth at least seems to be a note-worthy part. Although I am willing to accept correction from greater authorities than I. Lord Bob 00:41, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Noteworthy mythological artifact, important mythological system. Crypticfirefly 05:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite. - Mgm|(talk) 09:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've encountered the motive a couple of times in legends - and add information on Gorias and the four other legendary cities. Karol 21:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but older spelling "Claidheamh Soluis" would be preferable (also the name of a significant Irish nationalist magazine) --MacRusgail 16:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Thryduulf 13:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dungeon Craft

Delete Dungeon Cruft. The best part is that it's almost 100% deletable. There is one drawback - the deletion process is not finished yet. Vapourware. -Splash 22:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Not vaporware, since a working version has been released. Still, not inherently notable: merge and redirect to Forgotten Realms Unlimited Adventures. -Sean Curtin 22:49, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Might warrant an article later, after it becomes incredibly popular. Nandesuka 02:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that the article only says it is modelled on FRUA — it is not part of it nor does it appear to have any relation other than similarity to it. This is why I decided not to merge it. -Splash 03:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
      • It was initially created as an updated version of the FRUA game engine. The article should be clearer on that fact. -Sean Curtin 21:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Needs more discussion. Relisted on Sep 12. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just Dungeon Cruft. / Peter Isotalo 15:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete a non-notable program, with no sign of notability as of yet. --Icelight 17:54, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 22:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mischief Masters

Delete: a borderline A1 speedy. IMDb hasn't heard of a movie series by this title, although there is some ulta-obscure Mischief Masters: A New Master for which we don't have an article and IMDb hasn't got 5 votes (IMDb:IS a democracy). Nn something-or-other. -Splash 21:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Needs more discussion. Relisted on Sep 12. --Tony SidawayTalk 12:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if it exists and warrants an article, two POV sentences don't cut it. Delete. TheMadBaron 21:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Having actually looked at the article, I'm surprised it passed through RC patrol. It's got an entry on imdb ([6]) but nobody involved has any history and there is no real indication that it's received any kind of exposure or acquired any following: delete. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Trust me, it very nearly didn't pass through RC patrol, but I couldn't stretch a speedy tag to make it fit. -Splash 03:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If I could, I'd also vote to delete that imdb page, which appears to be the result of some vanity publicity slipping through whatever filters they have. I suppose there's a chance that this is a real Dutch movie series, perhaps not usually translated as "Mischief Makers." I'm willing to take that chance. Bunchofgrapes 22:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong speedy delete. Two falsifiable sentences is really something we shouldn't keep. This is not a big epic like Star Wars. If it was, someone would've heard of it and voted on IMDB. - Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amu Zing

Obvious hoax. However, obvious hoaxes don't qualify for speedy. "Amu zing" is a Sanskrit word, found in the Upanishads, and meaning "agreeable", "jocular", "boffo"? I don't bloody think so. DS 12:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Un-Amu-Zing hoax. Alf melmac 15:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's its own antithesis. TheMadBaron 21:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Could almost speedy as newbie test. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, doesn't exist at all. Budgiekiller 11:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Think house

Probably copyvio, certainly spamZeimusu | Talk page 13:14, 2005 September 12 (UTC)

  • delete. Notability not established; no references. Spam- or ad-like flavor. Appears to be an organization still trying to establish itself rather than one that has had a notable effect. Bunchofgrapes 22:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising spam. - Mgm|(talk) 09:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ray incident

Googling for manchester+coconut, for "manchester school" + coconut, for "manchester grammar school" + coconut, for manchester+coconut+headmaster, for manchester+coconut+racism... gives nothing relevant. Article claims that this happened in June 2005 and led to twelve arrests, in which case it would have gotten substantial media coverage. Hoax? DS 13:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Completely non-notable school incident. / Peter Isotalo 16:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Possibly notable if it happened. Assuming it didn't (and I can't find any evidence of it), Delete. TheMadBaron 21:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taking the piss

WP:NOT a dictionary, slang or otherwise. Paul 13:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete copyvio posted to fictional title. -- RHaworth 18:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regular Grand Lodge of Enland

Possible copyvio - appears to be a cut and paste from www.rgle.org.uk - Demogorgon's Soup-taster 13:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • So copyvio tag it. Where's Enland? Delete this fictional place. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 00:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
(sic)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] By-tor

Article about a character from a Rush song that doesn't even have its own article. Paul 14:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 18:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all -- Joolz 23:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of primary route destinations in English Counties

List of Primary Route Destinations in Avon, List of Primary Route Destinations in Bedfordshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Berkshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Buckinghamshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Cambridgeshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Cornwall, List of Primary Route Destinations in Derbyshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Devon, List of Primary Route Destinations in Dorset, List of Primary Route Destinations in East Sussex, List of Primary Route Destinations in Essex, List of Primary Route Destinations in Gloucestershire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Greater London, List of Primary Route Destinations in Greater Manchester, List of Primary Route Destinations in Hampshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Herefordshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Hertfordshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Kent, List of Primary Route Destinations in Norfolk, List of Primary Route Destinations in Northamptonshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Oxfordshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Shropshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Somerset, List of Primary Route Destinations in Suffolk, List of Primary Route Destinations in Tyne and Wear, List of Primary Route Destinations in Warwickshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in the West Midlands, List of Primary Route Destinations in West Sussex, List of Primary Route Destinations in Wiltshire, List of Primary Route Destinations in Worcestershire

This is a collective AfD for about two dozen Lists of primary route destinations in English counties. The List of Primary Route Destinations in Wiltshire came up for deletion a few days ago.

Each of these lists a couple of towns in the particular county without comment or context. WP:NOT a repository for original data or contextless links. Pilatus 13:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete all. No context. Each entry seems to be little more than a list of major towns, which should be covered by the specific counties' articles. KeithD (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Far from contextless lists, these are lists of primary destinations, the places you'll see on signposts on major roads, and they're grouped by county. They're not all towns, because not all destinations are towns (see List of Primary Route Destinations in Tyne and Wear which includes Tyne Tunnel). I honestly cannot understand what would cause anyone to wish to delete these excellent, useful list articles. As a simple "for instance" example of how they could be extended and improve the organization of information on Wikipedia, the destinations in each list could be annotated with the major roads leading to them, and the articles on these roads in turn could link to the appropriate lists of primary destinations. --Tony SidawayTalk 14:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • In the present state, these lists are absolutely contextless. On their own they are also original data, which does not belong here. One possible outlet for them would be to move the data into the county that they live in. Another would be to put them into a Wikiatlas with the roads that they are linked by. The format of an itinerary (i.e. a road or atlas in words) that you suggest is too clunky to be useful. Even if they were put in the form of an itinerary one would list the cities not by counties but by the road that passes through them. 129.215.195.81 15:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure where you get the idea that this is original research. Primary route destinations are designated by, and published by, the Department of Transport. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Original data, Tony. This falls under 1.5.3 of WP:NOT. Pilatus 17:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
      • C'mon, Tony. This is a scattered travel guide. No one searching for encyclopedic information would look for or in these articles. It can't possibly serve any value to us. / Peter Isotalo 15:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Good god, are we going to start making lists for every "destination"? These places have articles. Or use a map! --Fang Aili 15:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Also, it is not clear as to what, exactly, a "primary route destination" is. If this is kept, I suggest changing the name to something else. --Fang Aili 15:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Primary route destinations are well defined in the UK and are commonly included in atlases, maps and gazetteers (and, you may not be aware, encyclopedias competing with Wikipedia do normally incorporate at the very least an excellent atlas). The designation is useful for, for instance, gauging distances on the English and Scottish mainland. One would expect to find in a good encyclopedia tables of primary route destinations and their distances from one other.
    • I don't buy the proposition that "No one searching for encyclopedic information would look for or in these articles." In fact I find the suggestion simply incredible. Were I looking for information about the political geography and transportation in a county, I'd expect to find a list of the primary destinations of the major roads, and this is precisely function that these really excellent articles provide. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
      • These lists fail at all the points you raise. They are not maps, they are useless for estimating driving distance between major points or any of the points you mention – really, in which regard are they "excellent articles"? Pilatus 19:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. A bunch of arbitrary roadcruft lists. Wikipedia is not a directory. / Peter Isotalo 15:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all as useless, or (and only if someone is willing to do it) merge with their counties - do not keep --Doc (?) 16:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep information meaning, they can be kept (which I admit seems like overkill to have so many articles... or merged into List of Primary Route Destinations in the United Kingdom or Primary route destination, or some article. They likely don't deserve articles... but the information is fine. gren グレン 16:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all I don't see that these context-free articles are useful. Dlyons493 16:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Wikipedia shouldn't need to be a handholding guide for someone trying to follow road signs in England. As written, the information is on it's way to becoming a travel guide, (i.e. "follow these signs, to get to the town you're looking for") which WP:NOT.
  • Delete - Control city primary route destination-cruft. I support a discussion of what control cities and PRDs are and how they're determined, but a big list of them is overkill. FCYTravis 18:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, a list directory, a collection of source material, an indiscriminate collection of information, or any of a dozen categories which this bewildering display falls under. Roads are one thing, but this is insanity. Lord Bob 19:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as they are, but if they were changed into "List of towns in ..." series, I would have no objections. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:16, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all and perhaps put in a pile in one article I guess? Molotov (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft. Bunchofgrapes 22:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all - This is just a subset of List of places in xxxshire, and the main settlements in a county can be found in their corresponding county article. These articles are just repeated information in a place no one is going to find them. - Hahnchen 23:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all: Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. --Carnildo 23:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. No potential to become encyclopedic. Might as well list Street names in Bedfordshire containing exactly three vowels. (Which would, of course, be very useful to anyone who wanted to know which street names in Bedfordshire contain exactly three vowels). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Pilatus. As a second choice, if there is no consensus to delete these articles, merge and redirect to the articles on the respective counties. --Metropolitan90 02:10, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Potentially informative, but useless as it is now. -- BD2412 talk 04:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with what? KeithD (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
There's really no need to merge at all, this information already exists in the county article. - Hahnchen 23:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't imagine why this would be useful. Tuf-Kat 08:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Lord Bob and the person who forgot to sign their vote earlier. Wikipedia is NOT a how-to on planning a route. If you want to know how to get somewhere use a atlas, map or online planner. A random list of the places you see on roadsigns isn't going to help anyway. - Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --G Rutter 09:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all as above --TimPope 21:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Quale 01:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge with Primary route destination, it is more useful to put the list in a single article. --Vsion 05:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Max Resist

Non-notable band. No entry at allmusic.com KeithD (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Friday (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all unnotable nazis, and exterminate the rest. TheMadBaron 18:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC Tuf-Kat 08:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shieling

According to the OED "shieling" is a Scottish term for "a piece of pasture to which cattle may be driven for grazing" or "a hut of rough construction erected on or near such a piece of pasture". It doesn't seem to be any special type of "pastoral behavior or custom" (and even if it were, this article doesn't tell us what it is!). I don't think this article, currently an orphan, could ever be more than a dicdef. Angr/tɔk tə mi 14:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. A dicdef. A dialectal one at that. / Peter Isotalo 15:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki - it's a type of rough shelter. Check this article for details, and here for a Shieling song.Vizjim 16:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Can't even be a DicDef unless it's accurate. Right now it's just nonsense --Outlander 17:20, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AirScene Remote Sensor (ARS)

Contextually, this is gobbledegook. Although it could be merged to the main article on Rannoch Corporation I believe that it would add nothing. According to the mfrs. product notes, this is a minor component-set of a much larger system. However, the other article referred to, AirScene, which I have now redirected, said nothing about the role of the ARS either! Delete Eddie.willers 15:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Title is a brandname and article details parts, what it is made up of, but not what it does. Remote Sensor for what? ->WCFrancis 16:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, maybe it senses your remote when you lose it between sofa cushions. Delete, no indication of notability, just contextless advertising of something with some parts (which might or might not serve some useful purpose) as it stands. Barno 01:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Hilgers

I almost wanted to speedy this as a nn-bio, but being an "award winning sports writer" may be too close to an assertion of notability, so I'm AfD'ing instead. I see no assertion of meeting WP:BIO for this person, so delete. Friday (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete 22 year old; proud of his participation on (junior?) high school paper. nn. Septentrionalis 17:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, looks like spill-over from the "Wiki Memoir Project", also being deletified. Alai 00:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, may even meet CSD... Usrnme h8er 12:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. 22 years old and already a decade of award-winning experience in journalism? If this is not patent nonsense, it sure as hell is patent vanity. Aecis 11:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
See next nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews against zionism (2nd nomination).

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Neturei Karta. No consensus to delete, but noone wants to leave it standing as it is, and there's plenty of support for this redirect. -Splashtalk 00:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jews against zionism

Unverifiable, no evidence of notability. All information about this "group" appears to come from the website itself, which does not even list the names of those who are running the "group" or who are members, but instead simply gives a PO Box number for donations. Jayjg (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Jayjg (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote - they are actually called True Torah Jews according to their website. Needs more info - I shall look. Secretlondon 16:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather 16:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • redirect to Neturei Karta - it's the same people. Secretlondon 16:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote to Keep Jayjg has previously made pro-Zionist edits and is part of the Zionist media machine. His deleting of the article cannot be seen as NPOV. The group is legitimate. (vote/personal attack by User:Courageous)
  • Delete. No third party sources, and the group claims to have held just 10 protests since 1973, so not exactly active. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:19, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Neturei Karta. --Viriditas | Talk 22:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above, although I would note that there are some secular Jews in the U.S. who could care less about Israel, Zionism, etc. -- BD2412 talk 04:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Secret London works. Yet Another Religious Spliter Group -- YARSG. — RJH 14:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't redirect; one day we will have a comprehensive article on Jewish anti-Zionism and "Jews against Zionism" can redirect to that- there's no point wasting the redirect on this very minor website.--Pharos 05:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To the death

unencyclopedic; adjunct to To the pain on AfD. WCFrancis 16:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • The meaning of 'to the death' is self-evident, even to crustaceans. Delete. TheMadBaron 17:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or transwiki to WikiRandomPhrases. Bunchofgrapes 22:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silent Abortion

Google search suggests neogolism, article itself is also not encyclopedic, no information that is not included in oral contraceptives or abortion [7] Tznkai 16:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Delete. TheMadBaron 18:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any useful info could go into more appropriate articles, per Tznkai. Friday (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologistic title and a subject that'll read like a pamphlet no matter how it's cut. Can failure of implantation be considered an abortion? If so, why doesn't the article's author mention the pre-implantation miscarriages — ahem, "silent abortions" — that occur naturally? --Kyd 20:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete, although I don't see why you reverted my redirect, there is no information on the page that isn't at Oral contraceptives. -GregAsche (talk) 21:28, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Because Silent Abortion <> Oral contraceptives.--Tznkai 20:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as neologism. I think the term's purpose is to attach a stigma to birth control by saying that it is essentially an abortion. -- Kjkolb 09:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 23:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alkmania

Non-notable, probably vanity. Club plays in the fifth tier of the amateur leagues, which is the seventh tier of Dutch football. That's about as non-notable as a Dutch football club can get. Aecis 16:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete that way below any threshold of notability that it would be useful to consider. (The irony of which is, if this were a school football team, we'd give them a merge and redirect.) -Splash 03:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, substub as platform for external link. And since they don't play in any first or second division games broadcast on national television, I don't think they should really have an article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Phatmass

Promotion of a religious movement, AfD under WP:NOTa propaganda machine. Seems to be part of an organized program to prosteletyze using Wikipedia, see http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/evangelize.html Also related Dust Sieber Flowery and image Phatmass_stage2.gif. Expect to find additional "projects" and numerous reverts as this seems to be part of their program --Outlander 16:36, September 12, 2005 (UTC)


Not promotion of a religious movement, rather a description of a religious movement and more. A valid and noteworthy aspect of contemporary American youth culture. Not simply a unique online community, but also an affiliation of musicians and artists. Excluding phatmass from wikipedia strikes me as a mistake consider the fact that there are articles on some of the must banal and absurd topics.

And I fail to understand the accusation of an organized program to prosteletyze using Wikipedia. The link provided points to a page belonging to some unaffiliated organization who happens to have phatmass.com on their list of websites to prosteletyze. Ha!

Phatmass.com is entirely public and is archived by google.com and archive.org. You will find not evidence of an organized program to prosteletyze using Wikipedia, the accusation is utterly absurd. Good day!

vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

re:Phatmass Hmmm… Phatmass.com doesn’t seem to view “trads” in a favorable light See user profile Extra ecclesiam nulla salus - so the kensmen.com "trad" movement seems entirely unrelated. Moreover, Phatmass is a Christian music production group – therefore a valid entry example: Tooth & Nail Records --Lounge Daddy 17:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

A music production group? Is that what they're describing at http://www.phatmass.com/about/? --Outlander 17:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Note: Phatmass.com has several members who attend a legitamite mass of 1962, myself included ie: the_rev. Others would include at phatmass, McJust, Totus Tuus, and many more. The reaosn why Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is marked as "phishy" is because he holds beliefs contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches. Promotion of the SSPX, or affiliation is wrong since they are in schism.

Please do not delete this page, because it may be helpful to others.

The About thing is mainly talking about the site which is forums, but any casual perusal of the site will reveal the music side of things (click the music section, or any of the message boards for a particular band in the forums section). And as I said, you will find nothing about an organized prosteletyzing on Wikipedia or whatever else you were accusing phatmass of. The only thing that is related in the phatmass mission statement is: "Our mission is to live and defend the faith given to us by Jesus Christ by remaining totally and completely obedient to the teaching authority of His Church. We encourage dialogue between people of all faiths and recognize that we are all children of God striving for holiness." This is hardly prostelytism, it is defending the faith when anti-Catholics visit the forums and what not. I do not understand your bias in this case. What is the issue?

And futhermore, did you read on that page the section regarding what phatmass does? Example: "Produces Catholic hip-hop music as a creative method of communication to the youth and urban culture" "Performs at live shows and events across the country with the cooperation of a network of different artists"

Regards

vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a website, they have an Alexa rank of ~100k and falling fast, too low for inclusion. As a music producer they have no allmusic page, nor do any of the bands listed. (One of the bands, Remnant, has an album listed, but no bio.) From what I can tell, just about all of those bands would fail WP:MUSIC as well. --Icelight 18:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

No all music page? Check it: http://www.phatmass.com/music/index.php http://www.phatmass.com/music/hip-hop.php http://www.phatmass.com/music/rock.php http://www.phatmass.com/music/rythm_blues.php http://www.phatmass.com/music/electronica.php http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showforum=31

Also the same was ranked pretty high on a recent list of popular Catholic sites.

Allmusic, as in Allmusic.com, a site referenced by WP:MUSIC as providing a rather good indication of what a band or lable has done. --Icelight 19:34, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note - I'm not accusing Phatmass of anything. We delete or keep pages on their own merit, not on any imagined conspiricy. The reason for the note on www.kensmen.com was simply to make other wikipedians aware that such programs exist. --Outlander 20:31, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • I hate myself already, but keep. 68,700 google hits for "phatmass." The article has improved a little since it was nominated, it looks like. Bunchofgrapes 22:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC) Vote changed to Delete - Icelight is correct below, and the vast vast vast majority of those google hits are identical forum pages. I'm no longer convinced this site/movement/organization is notable. Bunchofgrapes 18:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Google reads links, Alexa reads hits. This would mean that lots of people link there, but few actually go there. --Outlander 14:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Actually, there are only 79 unique links to phatmass. That's a tiny number, and probably means that the rest are just copies of the same few forums. --Icelight 17:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

What's so different about the two sites that they'd allow Onerock and not Phatmass?

Onerock is in AfD - --Outlander 17:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Leaning toward keep now that it's cleaned up. Getting slightly off-subject, a friend of mine is friends with Father Stan Fortuna and talks about him often. I've never met him myself. I was flat blown away when I saw his name over on new pages patrol, so I expanded the article. According to his website, he's quite notable. Only thing that keeps me from a full-blown "keep" on this article is no mention of "phatmass" on his website. His main genre seems to be Catholic-based hip hop. - Lucky 6.9 05:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Fr Stan was involved with - and has a track on - Phatmass' first comp, released 1993
  • Delete as per Icelight. Just not enough there except some nn forum and that they produce some bands that don't meet WP:MUSIC. I guess they have an enthusiastic anon editor as PR, which is nice, but does not make the subject notable. MCB 07:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, article is clean; indications that bands and phatmass brand have been associated with notable youth events, national and international (eg. World Youth Day); I encountered related interviews/features in online sources of apparent note. --Fangorn35
  • Yahoo returned around 128,000 results for 'phatmass'.
  • 1,950 registered members at Phatmass.com

Keep, is straightforward, has no "hidden agenda", seems to be a clear and professional organization with links to large events like WYD and NFCYM.


KEEP IT....useful article and cool website. No harm done.

vote discounted by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0(scribble) 23:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Chateaus in the Highland of Castlemore, Brampton, Ontario

Delete generic residential development. This is not a community, but just a group of homes being built simultaneously. Mindmatrix 16:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Group Delete for ALL generic residential developments as perMindmatrix - wiki is currently too slow to wade through them individually Dlyons493 18:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Settlements are notable, this isn't. Pilatus 18:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a community it was in the Toronto Star for being one of the last of its kind. There are few subdivisions with large houses being built anymore and it was designated as an Exective step up community by the city of Brampton. There are few areas in Brampton that are building these types of homes and it is very significant to the area Gsingh 23:58, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Perhaps the word 'community' is being thrown around a little too loosely. I know little of Brampton but I know a lot about residential subdivision and development. I don't think they should be included in Wikipedia for several reasons, among them: they're just trying to sell a product, they're all hype, and they're not significant in themselves. Few grow to be real communities, most simply just get integrated into the town and lose the 'place', unless there is a gate around it - then it becomes something else. The name is meaningless - just a selling feature, like my couch the 'Palm d'Or' (it has palm trees on it!). It will be gone as fast as the developers once the last house is sold. rant rant rant... --maclean25 02:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Quale 01:52, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A new pile of houses like every other one in North American suburbia. Not notable in any way. Radagast 14:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lakelands Village, Brampton, Ontario

Delete generic residential development. This is not a community, but just a group of homes being built simultaneously. Mindmatrix 16:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Settlements are notable, this isn't. Pilatus 18:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Also, the article just discusses an advertising campaign. --maclean25 02:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing unusual or special or even interesting about a collection of houses. -Splash 03:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Group Delete for ALL generic residential developments as perMindmatrix - wiki is currently too slow to wade through them individually Dlyons493 18:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Quale 01:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Four Corners, Georgetown, Ontario

Delete generic residential development. This is not a community, but just a group of homes being built simultaneously. Mindmatrix 17:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Digitaldreamdoor.com forums

Delete, nn forumcruft (1486 registered users) Punkmorten 17:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • The same probably goes for DigitalDreamDoor.com. Punkmorten 17:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - MakeRocketGoNow 03:37, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 23:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Navigas

No encyclopedic value. Punkmorten 17:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-encyclopedic entry. Mindmatrix 17:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • To be consistent, we should either create a completely valueless list of the "sms word to" every word and name in the English language, with a seperate page for each, or delete. TheMadBaron 17:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete dic def. If it was worth an entry, it should be merged with others in a single list. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, but since you can spell almost any word with SMS, that wouldn't be a list, that would be a dictionary in itself, and a delightfully pointless one. Someone should definitely write it. Only, not here. TheMadBaron 02:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE and KEEP as redirect. Paul August ☎ 14:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Germs (Batman)

Non-notable Batman: The Animated Series character. Has only appeared in a two-parter. Apostrophe 17:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep', necessary to comprehensive coverage of Batman: The Animated Series, wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 18:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • A one-time grunt is not necessary in the least for a comprehensive coverage of an animated series. Most certainly when he only appears in one story. I love the show and all, but I'm not going to give every minor character their own article. Make a "Feat of Clay" article if you're that upset over deleted content. --Apostrophe 21:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Create Batman: The Animated Series#Minor characters, and merge and redirect there. Wikipedia may not be paper, but it is an encyclopedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:21, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect per Zoe. Nifboy 21:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect per Zoe. TheMadBaron 22:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above (per WP:FICT) or just delete. "comprehensive coverage of Batman: The Animated Series" is not necessary for a reality-based encyclopedia. Barno 01:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • But it's somehow comforting to see our brother (sister?) Kappa back to normal. There were several nominations where Kappa voted "delete", or voted "merge" citing actual WP policy, the last couple of days. (Not to misrepresent; it's happened before, just not three times in two days that I ever noticed.) I was afraid we'd see Everyking voting to delete an Ashlee Simpson article or something. Barno 01:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Roland Daggett. -Sean Curtin 21:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 23:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sigma Tau Psi

Non-notable fraternity. Apostrophe 17:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • If it had a national, I'd say keep. As is, delete as a non-notable student organization. Friday (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Seeing as how there are other small local fraternities and sororites posted on Wikipedia, would we be setting a precedent here that non-national US higher ed Greek orgs are inherently nn?  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 20:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment If we didn't delete it, would we be setting a precedent here that non-national US higher ed Greek orgs are inherently notable? Let's stay out of the "inherent" business, which seems to have the effect of factionalizing the community, and decide whether this organization is notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless convincing evidence of notability is presented prior to expiration of AfD discussion. If this were a person, it could be speedied because nothing notable about the organization is mentioned in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC) P. S. It claims to have the biggest basement in Geneseo.
  • Delete. Local fraternity = local student organization. Nn. -- DS1953 02:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sigma Tau Psi is a notable fraternity in that it challenged the 1953 New York State ban on national fraternities, as an underground affiliate to Sigma Tau Gamma national fraternity. Further, membership in an activities sponsored by this organization have been a dominant force in social activities at SUNY Geneseo for 42 years. DS1953 11:35, 30 October 2005.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to delete the article. --Canderson7 23:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Past Committees

Delete. Behind this wonderfully ambigous name (I was afraid I'd find a list of every comittee every made) we have instead a (partial) list of the past leadership of a student orchestra from a university in Australia. While the orchestra itself might warrant a page, if there isn't room on it for ex-members, they probably don't deserve their own page. Icelight 17:23, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Far more detail than could possibly be warranted. TheMadBaron 17:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ugh. Delete, vanity at its worst. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ridiculous. Bunchofgrapes 21:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Monash University Philharmonic Society. It appears the separate page was created by accident - the original intent was that this info should be within the MUPS page content. Bennyc 06:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete with a unanimous 6 or 7 delete votes, depending on whether the group vote is counted. moink 20:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Manors of Wellington Crown, Brampton, Ontario

Delete generic residential development. This is not a community, but just a group of homes being built simultaneously. Mindmatrix 17:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Pilatus 18:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing unusual or special or even interesting about a collection of houses. -Splash 03:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Group Delete for ALL generic residential developments as perMindmatrix - wiki is currently too slow to wade through them individually Dlyons493 18:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Dlyons493. Zhatt 20:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Quale 01:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A new pile of houses like every other one in North American suburbia. Not notable in any way. Radagast 14:10, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Delete, with a unanimous 5 or 6 votes, depending on whether the group delete is counted. moink 20:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Estates of Valleycreek, Brampton, Ontario

Delete generic residential development. This is not a community, but just a group of homes being built simultaneously. Mindmatrix 17:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Pilatus 18:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nothing unusual or special or even interesting about a collection of houses. -Splash 03:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Group Delete for ALL generic residential developments as perMindmatrix - wiki is currently too slow to wade through them individually Dlyons493 18:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Quale 01:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A new pile of houses like every other one in North American suburbia. Not notable in any way. Radagast 14:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. I don't see an assertion of note in there (apart from ones I resolutely refuse to attach any actual meaning to). -Splash 23:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maniax

Doesn't seem sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia (although I don't think he's quite non-notable enough for speedy deletion). KeithD (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BIO Kappa 18:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. Tagged as such. Friday (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. I would speedy it, but the claim of being a pro gamer forces it through afd IMO. Thue | talk 20:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No, he "professed to be the first professional gamer to come out of Stoke-on-Trent". In other words he made himself a promise. He's not a professional gamer and regular gamers or clans do not deserve an article. Speedy delete. - Mgm|(talk) 22:07, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. No real notability is asserted here. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. Molotov (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied as spam by FCYTravis. android79 19:41, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Razor gunk, Fresh razor gunk, Fossilized razor gunk

Delete. Neologistic dicdefs, spam. Part of an advertising campaign for the "Razor Gator" by, oddly enough, User:Razor Gator. See that user page for the actual ad. android79 17:29, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per android. And a preemptive delete on 9-day old razor gunk, Blood-stained razor gunk ... Dlyons493 18:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

"Razor Gunk" the term is now commonly in use. fresh and fossilized terms used to describe such 'gunk' are descriptors. An upload of content on a product like Razor Gator is content none-the-less.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirected to Inline linking Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Bandwidth theft

This article misleadingly conflates a number of unrelated actions under the rubric "bandwidth theft". It gives the impression that this term has some legal or technical meaning, which it does not. Some of the actions described are not crimes at all. Others are crimes under unrelated laws which do not treat with "theft".

Many pieces of the article appear to me to be original research, or simply opinion presented as fact. Others are simply erroneous or misleading. The title, and the presentation of this morass as a single legal or technical category called "bandwidth theft", rather caps it off.

I don't see any way that this can be improved in place: the title needs to go; most of the content is misleading; and what isn't misleading is redundant with other articles that deal better with the specific subjects. That's why I'm recommending it for deletion. For more discussion of the problems, please see the talk page. FOo 17:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Why does the title need to go? What other title is suitable for this concept? Kappa 18:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The title needs to go because it's a made-up category. There isn't really a connection between the things being described as "bandwidth theft" -- it's just several unrelated things that someone doesn't like, thrown together and given a title. There's no reason to expect that there is a right title for this grouping of things.
It's as if someone created an article entitled "Sex theft" and put into it discussions of rape, adultery, copyright violation of pornography, and faking orgasm. Some of those are crimes; all of them have something to do with sex; but they don't belong to a category called "sex theft". It's just made up. --FOo 18:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Webmasters bitch about it, sometimes frequently and with great vigour, and I think it's notable. Is it illegal to link to an image on somebody else's web page? Good God, no, but theft the crime and theft the concept can be two different things. Lord Bob 19:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
    The action you're talking about is dealt with in our articles on deep linking and inline linking -- two neutral titles which describe the action rather than pretending that it's a crime. Slapping the mistaken term "theft" on top is just a bog-standard NPOV violation, since it assumes the point of view of people who think this action should be illegal. Moreover, what do you suggest be done with the bits of this article that deal with spam, malware, advertising itself, and other unrelated things that someone wants to call "theft"? --FOo 19:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    For one thing, I don't think the title is nearly as bad as you say...although I do see a problem, the term is the term in common usage. You want to move it, fine, but that's obviously not an AfD matter. And if non-bandwidth-theft related content is in there, then my suggestion would be to take it out (or, if it's content that's only bandwidth-theft-related to a small group, mention it in a little section). Be bold and so forth! That said...and here's the part you're going to like because I admit my ignorance...I wasn't aware of inline linking and deep linking. Oops. So I change my vote to merge to inline/deep linking and redirect to inline linking, which from my experience is the more common usage. Lord Bob 23:43, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. it's a lousy article, but the term has Google hits well into six figures. Here's an example of a standard discussion of what's referred to. http://www.buffyguide.com/webmasters/directlink.shtml Monicasdude 19:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC) vote struck by closing admin Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, since the title "bandwidth theft" is an NPOV violation, how would you feel about changing this to a redirect to inline linking, the neutral title for the subject of that page? This assumes, of course, that the spam, malware, and advertising sections are not worth considering. --FOo 19:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a commonly used term, maybe the most commonly used term. It definitely refers to a different concept than inline linking. It's not an NPOV violation to describe the way the term is used. And with 150,000+ Google hits, it shouldn't be ignored. Monicasdude 16:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with prejudice to inline linking. Gazpacho 20:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to deep linking inline linking, since that's usually what the phrase refers to. Bandwidth "theft" is not a legally recognized or even well-defined term, and the article as it stands is full of POV and weasel words. --David Wahler (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Article has some major problems, but it should not be deleted. It needs re-writing though. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    I'm curious, what sort of rewriting do you think would be necessary to fix the major problems? How could the article compensate for the inherent NPOV violation of the title, which accuses people of a (nonexistent) crime? Should the unrelated accusations against Web advertisers be kept? The suggestion of a connection to spam and malware? --FOo 22:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep But consider turning into a disambig that takes people to the pages on various issues that are known by this term rather than an article in its own right. Plugwash 21:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The article doesn't claim this to be theft in any legal sense. It's a term in very common usage, but which many less knowledgable computer users don't understand. The expression clearly has applications beyond inline linking, which doesn't always constitute bandwidth theft. TheMadBaron 21:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is poorly written, but the subject matter is notable, and the title is proper. Owen× ☎ 22:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per OwenX. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate between deep linking, inline linking, and other similar things. --Carnildo 23:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. The term is in use, although it is somewhat provocative. struck by closing admin because unsigned vote Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to List of legal terms. --Canderson7 23:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abscond

DICDEF, Delete, already in wiktionary.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 19:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per above, speedy if possible since it's already in wiktionary. Friday (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Friday, Molotov (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with, and redirect to List of legal terms. TheMadBaron 22:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per TheMadBaron. - Mgm|(talk) 09:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete with 5 delete votes, a keep vote from an anonymous contributor, and a keep vote from a newly registered user who seems to be unaware of Wikipedia:No original research. moink 20:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lillehovde's Dynamic Network Address Protocol

I don't think this is real. Can't find it in Google and does not seem credible. YUL89YYZ 19:54, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • delete; possible vanity, anyway not-notable. Perhaps some day, after the project is completed and peer-reviewed... — brighterorange (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I quote from the article: "The project is currently in its early stage of development." Any notability (or even completion) is in the future, clearly. Bunchofgrapes 21:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep The project is very much real, and it have been under development for a couple of years. There're some pretty interesting changes in the field of computer networking compared to conventional protocols, and those who're familiar in the field will recognize those are very much real. The article now contains a good deal more information than the brief overview also. I must comment on that it would be hard to find it on google because the project have been publicly closed until recently, but with the bsd implementation of the stack that is on the way, I believe that's going to change. Tempus0 01:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: It may change. When and if it does, that would be an appropriate time to create this page. Again, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, it's helpful if you sign your comments by entering four tildes (~~~~). Bunchofgrapes 23:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply: The "not a crystal ball" section you're refering to have nothing to do with this article, however I understand that it may fall under the "no original research". Depends on how you look at it, because it can also be considered a practial application scheme. But research should have referances to reputable publications, which this one lack. The project leader was publishing some papers on this, so I'll find out which magazines that was and add it. Tempus0 01:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Reply: I place this in the Crytal Ball category because you seem to be asserting that this topic is going to become notable (shortly?) in the future. It is not notable now, except perhaps as notable original research. It is also a little hard for me to believe that a proposal for a Networking Address Scheme would not have a large number of google hits before it came into wide or even limited real-world use. My opinion (which I could be argued out of, perhaps) is that a network scheme described in research magazines but not even moderately deployed in actuality would not be notable. Bunchofgrapes 03:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Reply: I agree that this article may be a bit "early". When some articles have been published, the implementation is available for public development and testing, and I hear there's also a Internet-draft on its way, then someone else might take the time to write an article again here. Tempus0 18:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Thank you for understanding. I hope you continue to participate in Wikipedia! Bunchofgrapes 18:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Why is this one on delete? seemed kinda interesting in my opinion. 00:30 13, September 2005 (UTC) (Unsigned comment by IP 151.203.191.170; IP's first wikipedia contribution.)
  • Delete per WP:NOT crystal ball, WP:V. Barno 01:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. This is either a hoax, a joke, or someone's OR. There is absolutely no way that a serious or legitimate proposal to redo a Layer 3 addressing scheme can exist in a total vacuum. Where's the RFC? Where's the IETF Working Group? Where is any evidence whatsoever of any publication of this in a journal? Proceedings of a conference? Even a BOF session at a user group? Not even a single Usenet posting??? I am familiar with how network standards and protocols are developed, promulgated, and adopted, and it is inconceivable that something could be described at this stage and there be absolutely no record of it in the entire Internet standards & protocols community. Plus, there are fewer than 10 unique Google hits on the protocol's alleged designer (or a person or persons with the same name), none of which refer to any networking or protocol design activties. [User:MCB|MCB]] 06:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: It have already been pointed out that the protocol is under development, which do explain the lack of documentation. So, yes, it's original research so it doesn't belong here. That matter has been resolved. But since you claim to be familiar with protocol development, you probably know that layer 3 protocols like IPv4, IPX and XNS had years in closed research / developement before they became widely used / standarized. What you seem to have described in your post is the process to adapted a widely used protocol to a network standard, which is something years ahead of a protocol still in development. Tempus0 18:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, no. IPX and XNS are not good examples, because they were originally designed as proprietary protocols designed to provide commercial advantage, and were kept secret (in fact, trade secret) during development. IPv4, on the other hand, was not "closed R&D" by any means, and was widely discussed in the network community before its deployment on ARPANET. The Lillehovde protocol, on the other hand, while it may not be entirely imaginary, does not by any means appear to have any independent or verifiable existence. I mean, many of us have sketched out protocols or meta-protocols on whiteboards to solve particular problems; perhaps even written code stubs to handle them on top of a lower layer. That does not really signify anything. One of the very odd and suspicious things about the article is that neither Lars Lillehovde nor his institution (company? university? laboratory?) is identified. Unless a project is proprietary or a trade secret, it strains my credulity that there is no mention of it in any form whatsoever other than the article itself, even though we have access to essentially every web page, Usenet group, conference proceeedings, or mailing list in existence. In 2005, the world just does not work that way. Perhaps you could give some details about Mr. Lillehovde, his institution, and about yourself and your affiliation as well? -- MCB 23:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, and appears to be a load of crap as well. MCB hits it right on the head. Quale 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Yes, it's original research. However the rest of your post only show how immature you are, and that you're not to be taken seriously. You seem to lack the ability to be constructivity and proffesional, and I think you should consider if this is indeed the correct forum for you. Tempus0 18:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lovely party

A mock political party in a satirical skit in one episode of the popular UK Dead Ringers (comedy). There is simply no content to merge, and it would create a pointless redirect. --Doc (?) 20:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • delete unexpandable minutiae. — brighterorange (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per both above. -Splash 03:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As above. KeithD (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xixax

Delete. Non-notable project. Essentially, it's someone with a projector putting "graffiti" onto the walls of buildings. Once you eliminate a film forum by the same name, and a few screen names, it doesn't appear to have had any impact on the world, or achieved much notice. Icelight 20:10, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nothing links here, no links out... orphan page. NN --20:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Advert - same user just added the same text to Wikipedia:Deletion policy for some unknown reason. - Tεxτurε 17:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that this article was created by user:Xixax and that the user subsequently vandalized the Deletion policy page seriously prejudices me against this article. A google search turned up lots of false positives and a very few references to a "Project XIXAX". I also can find no evidence that this meets any reasonable standard for inclusion. Rossami (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] O'Connor Drive

Delete generic road article; this road does not have cultural or historical significance to Toronto. Mindmatrix 20:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 20:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • delete per nominator
  • Delete Molotov (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator.--inks 23:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, and put the road on a map, not in writing. --maclean25 01:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Maclean25 and nominator. This is not a major highway or an historically important place. - Mgm|(talk) 09:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we should get a speedy criterion for road articles that don't say anything apart from their location (similar to CSD A7 for people). - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, interesting street. If anyone wants to propose a merge that's fine with me. JYolkowski // talk 02:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Merge to what? Bearcat 08:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • O'Connor falls on the wrong side of my own personal line determining the notability of city streets. It doesn't have a lot of historical or cultural significance, and there's so little in the article that I even find JYolkowski's "interesting" comment to be, well, mystifying. I'm on the delete side of this one. Bearcat 08:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. Zhatt 20:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leisure 7

nnbv?? --Doc (?) 20:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Nominator appears to have withdrawn. -Splashtalk 00:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TNTlite

Self-advertisement, has no outside links or contributors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TNTmips. --David Wahler (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I was very glad to find this article on the Wikipedia the other day, since I had been looking for a free GIS program. Trying to find something like that using Google had proved to be nearly impossible. I agree that the article needs work. I've now downloaded the program but not installed it. After I've installed it, I should be able to improve the article. Note: The article has been wikified by me, and there have been two other editors besides the original anon, so David Wahler is incorrect when he states that there are no outside links and no contributors. BlankVerse ∅ 21:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more clear; I meant that there were no links from other articles, and that there were no contributions of new content. I didn't mean to imply that your contributions weren't appreciated, I just feel that this program isn't particularly notable, and that Wikipedia isn't necessarily the best place to make it notable. --David Wahler (talk) 21:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I originally found the article through the List of GIS software, but you deleted that link (see [8]) just before creating this AFD! That's one way to make the facts fit your argument. BlankVerse ∅ 14:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
You know, in retrospect this doesn't seem like such a good idea. Please understand, I'm relatively new here and didn't mean any harm -- just trying to be bold. I apologize if acted too rashly. No hard feelings, right? --David Wahler (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Even the split comment is unsure of which way it prefers to lean. -Splashtalk 00:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TNTmips

Self-advertisement, has no outside links or contributors. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TNTlite. --David Wahler (talk) 20:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Fix the article, don't delete it. BlankVerse ∅ 21:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/Rewrite the two articles - the program's lite version appears to be usable and free so if the advertising can be toned down, it's worth keeping IMHO Dlyons493 23:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: "Usable and free" aren't Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. Barno 01:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harlequin Centre

Not notable, I googled it and found nothing that would indicate that this shopping centre is more notable than any other one. Could even be construed as advertising.--Carabinieri 21:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. I used to live near it, it's nothing more than your average mall and this article is much less than your average article. -Splash 03:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Shopping centres are generally non-notable, and there's no evidence that this is one is an exception. Quale 02:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 11:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milena Benini

not notable, in particular as we know nothing about the Croatian Weekly Economic Bulletin yet. Also there is (so far) no Croatian page hr:Milena Benini Austrian 20:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 22:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not enough for encyclopedic notability. Quale 02:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 16:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Tony Large

Non-notable, dead-end Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Covered adequately in Laconia Incident. TheMadBaron 22:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless this article can generate significantly more than one short sentence. siafu 06:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per whoever actually was bold and did it. - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as redirect. Paul August ☎ 15:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I'm not going to take this to WP:CP since without an offer of a rewrite in the 12 days on here, it's not going to get one sitting over there either. -Splashtalk 00:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gary M. Reiner

Was listed for speedy on grounds of vanity, but I think claiming to be senior vice president of General Electric is at least asserting notability. I abstain from voting. Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Since he really is the CIO of GE, I think we should keep him. The biog is lifted word for word from the given source, though.TheMadBaron 22:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio, only on the borderline of notability. Martg76 23:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as copyvio of executive who may or may not be notable enough. Capitalistroadster 23:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. There was no trace of an assertion of notability in that. Image to IfD. -Splash 02:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Power

Delete, resume-type of article on an nn subject. (It's not a vanity page; the author is not Keith Power.) --Idont Havaname 21:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Idont habaname I don't understand your objection to this submission? Could you explain the statement 'resume-type of article on an nn subject'. Person in question quite noteworthy where he comes from. (

    • It sort of reads like a student vanity page, except more like a resume or curriculum vitae. See Wikipedia:Vanity page. I've listed the article here to find out if other editors think he's notable enough to have his own article. As of right now, I don't think he is, but if some other people come here and give evidence that he's notable, I'll change my vote. --Idont Havaname 22:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Non-notable biography as per WP:BIO. (Incidentally the article says "Since then I've been involved in a variety of group projects and activities.") KeithD (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffery V Merkey vs. World

Meets Deletion criteria. Molotov (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Which criterion specifically?
  • Which criterion? Delete as it stands since info exists at Jeff Merkey. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 00:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, sub-stub that does not establish...well, what it's talking about. I should take on the whole world in a lawsuit sometime for "emotional pain and anguish". Lord Bob 00:50, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. -- BD2412 talk 03:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Jeffrey Vernon Merkey then protect page Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 23:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Jeff Merkey

A resume in an encyclopedia. Molotov (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. However Mr Merkey is a controversial figure in the Linux and OSS community by way of his own actions and perhaps a page is justifiable. Mr Merkey does not handle criticism well and keeps changing the page to reflect his own narrow viewpoint. Unfortunately there are many within the community that Mr Merkey has angered that enjoy poking him to get a reaction, consequently we are getting a wildly erratic entry based on who had the last edit. Written by Fava

    • Comment Let him get mad. Molotov (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

As much as I like the 'Poke Jeff With A Stick' game, this really has no place in an encyclopedia. Jerryg 23:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

As Fava notes, Merkey is a well-known public figure - I think that alone warrants keeping the page. Poking him with a stick doesn't belong here but a record of his public acts and comments DOES belong in an encylopaedia. (TWP)

  • Weak Delete - To me, the entire history just looks like one vandalisation versus another one. Because of this, I have no idea what is actually true and what is false, this makes it a useless wiki article. And what sort of notability is there? I've gone for delete, because he doesn't seem that notable, but if someone could do a complete rewrite and establish what is true in the article, then I'd go keep. - Hahnchen 23:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I started the Jeff_Merkey wiki and I've tried to keep what I wrote factual. Merkey is a minor player in the whole SCOX vs World+dog lawsuit circus but he has done and said some very interesting things. I envision the wiki as just a container pointing to the various things he has said online. FYI I didn't have my jeff_v_wookie ID when I started, but I did this so my edits would be tagged as mine.

Go ahead and let the Jeff_Merkey wiki die, but Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey should continue ...
  • Strong Keep - Obviously Mr. Merkey IS a public figure deserving an entry in Wikipedia. As with any controversial topic the editors of the article should painstakingly try to be NPOV. Gugganij 12:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed legal threats and personal attacks by 67.137.28.187. [9] El_C 01:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


From JMERKEY gadugi:

This article is simply an attempt to harrass and google spam me with wikipedia. The links posted in previous versions contain libel, statements and emails I did not author which are attributed to me, and copyrighted materials and materials which are currently sealed under a Federal Court Order. The version of this story which is present under Jeff_Merkey is accurate and I approve of this content should wikipedia choose to keep it. Please do not allow others to post links to external content or copyrighted materials. End of JMERKEY:


The Merkey "approved" pages are compleatly meaningless because it doesnt address the issues that would make the entry significant. That is his attempts to buy the linux kernel and his threats of lawsuits against those in the community who disagreeing with him. His (removed) legal threat against this forum is just another example of why this is important. I think that the community CAN create a NPOV entry that sticks to the known facts, however as long as Merky keeps reverting the page to his prefered version the community will continue to react in kind. Fava 02:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


From JMERKEY gadugi:

These individuals have never met me, don't know me, and are simply perputating false, libelous, copyrighted, misleading, and incomplete "hearsay" on the internet for their own political and social agendas to promote wholesale IP Theft by OSS and Linux accross the planet. I have never worked for SCO, Canopy, Microsoft, or any of the companies these stories and links reference. I have had my identity stolen, and have had to resort to litigation to stop these indviduals from harassing and threatening not only myself, by my family. They do not have the facts of my life -- but I do. Please go to the source for the accurate information, and not a group of misinformed, anonymous internet users.


Mr. Merkey, you seem to have a peculiar view of what an encyclopedia is. An article about a person doesn't require that person's approval. It's doubtful that George W. Bush, Michael Jackson, or Osama bin Laden approved articles about themselves. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines on autobiography and verifiability, and edit war. If you feel that there are errors in an article, you can present alternate points of view instead of engaging in vandalism. Exabit 03:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


From JMERKEY gadugi:

An encyclopedia first and foremost is ACCURATE. Unsubstaciated commentary and attribution, plaugerized copyrighted materials, and libel are CONTRARY to WIKIPEDIAS policies. I will remove any content which is false, inaccurate, copyrighted, or libelous -- period. These categories are PROHIBITED by your POLICIES which state that REMOVAL OF SUCH CONTENT is NOT VANDALISM. I could of course contact wikimedia and speak with your legal representatives for clarification as to what constitutes copyright infringement if there are legitimate questions.

  • Delete, not notable. -- BD2412 talk 03:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed personal attacks by 67.177.35.211 [10] Exabit 04:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Jerryg 04:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Jeff seems intent on abusing wikipedia for his own ends, and he's bringing his obnoxious lawsuit threats (which are part of why he's notable) to wikipedia. I reckon we should report Jeff for his continual reversions of this and the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article. Once he's learned to play nice, or is out of the way, a factual, balanced article could be cobbled together.

  • Keep but Protect It is clear that Mr. Merkey is notable and that there is a massive revert war going on over this article in which the subject is participating. Since no one can be considered objective about himself, he cannot be allowed to have an editorial veto over the article. This article needs to be hammered out on its talk page and then put in place and protected. Caerwine 09:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • In this condition: weak keep, if cleaned up: strong keep. Jeff Merkey is actually quite an interesting person. His role in SCO vs. reality deserves some attention. There is a lack of NPOV information about him in the internet. One reason to delete this entry might be his behavior. Wikimedia Foundation has better things to do than to reply to lawsuits from Jeff Merkey once he discovers his wikipedia entry. -- 84.176.181.81 10:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. This entry could never be objective and hence has no place in wikipedia.

Well Jeff has publicaly announced on his website that he intends to sue wikipedia (You might want to read it quickly, articles on his site tend to come and go very quickly). This is standard practice for Jeff, anyone who criticizes him will be threatened with a suit at some time. Most of the time its just an empty threat. Fava 16:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a mirror of the removed post at [11] and the one that replaced it at [12].

Unfortunately the wikipedia has become embroiled in the tail end of a long running dispute between Jeff Merkey and everyone.

The controversy began with a post by Merkey to the Linux Kernel mailing list in which he offered $50,000 for a snapshot of the kernel to be re-licensed under the BSD license. Currently the Kernel is licensed under the GPL, this allows people to use and change the software but the changes must be public and also licensed under the GPL. The BSD license does not require that the software remains open and public and kernel snapshot could be exploited for commercial purposed without changes being given back to the community that created it. So say that this proposal caused discussion and controversy would be an understatement. Much abuse was directed at Jeff as a result of this proposal and it was almost universally rejected by the community.

As a result of this proposal some people began digging. One thing that was found was legal documents between Timpanogos Research Group (Merkeys company) and Novell (Merkeys former employer). Novell alleged misappropriation of trade secrets and Merkey alleged sexual harassment. Novell requested a temporary injunction against Merkey that was granted. The text of the injunction is extremely critical of Merkey, paragraphs 112-125 are particularly damming. Merkey then began to threaten anyone who hosted or discussed the ruling. He argued that the Judge was a Novell stooge and that the ruling was a preliminary one and that he was completely vindicated in the final sealed settlement agreement.

On Jun 21 Merkey filed suit against a few named individuals and 200 ”John Does”. As part of the filing he included the sealed final ruling between himself and Novell. Due to a filing error the sealed document was publicly available for a short period. The settlement agreement did not vindicate Merkey as previously claimed. Within a few hours of the inadvertent release of the document it was being mirrored all over the internet and was being widely discusses.

Merkey began to threaten those who hosted and discussed the settlement agreement and he soon filed an amended complaint that named those individuals and websites.

Some highlights of the Amended complaint.

  • He has alleged a broad range of first amendment, torturous interference, identity theft, and hate crimes.
  • Bruce Perens suggested in a public posting that Merkey be added to each users killfile. Merkey accused him of making death threats.
  • He has accused the linux community of aiding and sponsoring terrorism.
  • And much more.

Merky has continued his complaint of abuse and threats against anyone who is critical of him. The 2 deleted entries on this page are good examples of this. This is the most basic of background information, a proper summary would be many pages. Fava 18:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I have not seen the article yet, so I can't comment on the specific article's merit but I believe it is highly likely that an article on Jeff Merkey would meet our notability criteria from many angles. He has been discussed in the national media, and has caused at least a much noise as any infamous internet personality though at least some portion of it is limited to the Linux related community. On the flip side, I think we will have a very difficult time producing a good article about him that merkey will agree with, because there are some very solid references which say some very negative things about him. I strongly disagree with the above delete view that the article couldn't be objective... Unlike sollog Merkey doesn't really have followers, and he is also not completely unreasonable. If we can write an acceptable article on any internet personality we can write one on Merkey. My position should be cosidered a keep because deleting the specific text will not help the stability problems we've had with this notable subject. --Gmaxwell 22:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I feel that it is possible to write a neutral piece about the subject "Jeff V. Merkey". It is unlikely that the result will please Jeff, but at the same time, it won't be the piece that his main distractors like to see. The person of Jeff and his actions are interesting enough to warrant an entry in Wikipedia, I suggest to keep Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey. --213.84.14.16 10:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC) MathFox

The definition of a compromise has been said to be an outcome with which all parties are displeased... Usrnme h8er 08:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, edit war aside, appears to be non-notable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, npov and possibly protect depending on the vandalism levels after a redirect. He certainly passes the google test with some 22,000 hits, most of which seem to be him. Usrnme h8er 08:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and cleanup, as above. --Carnildo 03:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • A prodigious troublemaker, but not notable in the grand scheme of things. Delete. --fvw* 22:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, violates all the vanity pages, NPoV, and other guidelines. Most data is from various JVM sockpuppets. The phrase "legend in his own mind" applies. N0YKG 13:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - highly notable in the SCO Vs Linux litigation. He's somewhere between a nutter and a troll (including legal trolling), but that doesn't affect whether he warrants an article. Read older articles on Groklaw (he's not mentioned in current ones precisely because he's suing them now) and you'll see why. I urge all delete voters whateverit'scallednows to read, learn and reconsider. Might merge with the full name article, or merge that one with this one - he's more commonly known as "Jeff Merkey" - David Gerard 06:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Jeff Vernon Merkey - notable person - vanity information can be removed. Trödel|talk 10:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Crypticfirefly sounds like a keeper to me, and Paul August does provide some evidenciary basis. Will tag it for cleaning. -Splashtalk 16:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exo-cuisine

Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:15, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • "In this context", it says, but offers no context, so makes no sense. Don't Transwiki, but delete anyway. TheMadBaron 23:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the writer intended to mean that exo-cuisine is food that one offers to guests. Perhaps someone with access to a good anthropology text could fix this up. Crypticfirefly 00:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like a perfectly encyclopedic topic. See for example: pdf Paul August ☎ 15:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE ALL to Address Unknown (television series). I'm going to do this by adding the single-sentence synopses to the target article under a new section heading, removing the then-redundant wikilinks and adding links to the Wikiquotes entries in the same new section. This is all purely editorial, so someone who knows a better way to do this is welcome to do better. -Splashtalk 16:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Address Unknown: Episode 6

Episode 6 has a more thorough explanation and description in the main Address Unknown article, the additional article is unnecessary.

  • Merge with Address Unknown (television series) and do the same to the other episodes. And make sure the section saying: "The scripts of all six episodes included in Max Payne 2 can be found below." is removed. We don't need scripts of tv shows, especially not fictional ones. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment There is more:

Address Unknown: Episode 1 Address Unknown: Episode 2 Address Unknown: Episode 3 Address Unknown: Episode 4 Address Unknown: Episode 5 Address Unknown: Episode 6 If we vote on one we should vote on all. -Ajshm 08:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC) Adress Unknown is a very important part of the Max Payne series. If you really are considering deleting the scripts, then why not delete any mention of the game series or all video games. You should just leave this page be. There is no need for deletion.

  • Merge and redirect per Mgm. Paul August ☎ 16:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP --Doc (?) 23:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1977 Pacific hurricane season

This article is actually about the first storm of that season and that storm is nowhere near notable. Look at its track, it did nothing. [13] Even if it was notable, it'd need to be moved. This anon article has no hope-Delete. A speedy delete might be a better option.-- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - see What links here, follow the links, and you end up back where you started. - This is obviously intended as part of a large ongoing project. See also 1973 Pacific hurricane season et al. TheMadBaron 23:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Part of a valid series. CalJW 00:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. This needs expansion. An introduction and a few empty headers can make this into a start of an article on teh season. - Mgm|(talk) 09:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This hurricane does not seem particularly important with winds of onlu 55mph. However, history should be preserved and remembered. I think that this currently dull article deserves to be kept and expanded. ----Kacachura

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DeathByVoltage

Delete, band vanity (possible hoax). Google gives 43 results for "death by voltage" and 5 for deathbyvoltage; none have to do with the band. --Idont Havaname 22:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Not notable. Electrocute and delete. TheMadBaron 23:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Thought about relisting but 1) it doesn't have a serious chance and 2)it's a copyvio anyway. -Splashtalk 00:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CQdesign

[edit] Delete

NN Web Design Company, nothing in portfolio section of website, very little Google, Vanity, also possible copyvio - the text is lifted straight from the company website. inks 22:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • delete vanity article - Anetode 23:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops. Delete, as nominator.--inks 23:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 16:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Sunsara Taylor

nn activist -- 111 Google hits. Writer for a "newspaper" we don't have an article on. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:26, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP --Doc (?) 22:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Girl Who Slept Too Little

Tagged as nonsense, but doens't fit. Looks like a merge/redirect or something. -Splash 23:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep due to precedent, Wikipedia has an article about every episode of The Simpsons, and this is next week's episode (Sept. 18, 2005). --Metropolitan90 02:02, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • If that's the case, merge with List of The Simpsons episodes. TheMadBaron 02:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per new edit. I've edited the article, adding an infobox and as much of a plot as is known thus far. This article can be fully expanded in about six days; a delete now seems unnecessary. --Mcmillin24 02:59, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Metropolitan90, Mcmillin24. -- BD2412 talk 03:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. TheMadBaron 09:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The improvements should keep this alive. Optichan 19:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it was unnecessary to put this up for deletion in the first place. Could someone please remove the tag already as the discussion is clearly over?- JustPhil 11:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If you're going to call me an idiot for not speedying it but respecting the fact that someone wanted it deleted, then really you should try to use more mellow language. -Splashtalk 16:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I worked a little of my magic on the entry, and it's looking halfway presentable. Incidentally, I noted one of the titles of the new season is "The Italian Bob"--does this mean another appearance by Sideshow Bob is in the works? Would another appearance by Cecil--outside of the comic book--be too much to ask, you think? The_Iconoclast 16:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Blackwater USA. -Splashtalk 00:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blackwater_mercenaries

This page is redundant; see Blackwater USA. Nicktastic 03:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Then it could have been redirected to Blackwater USA. You could withdraw your nomination, so this AfD can be quickly closed, and then redirect the article. KeithD (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Include one sentence from Blackwater_mercenaries in Blackwater USA- "Those killings sparked US retaliation against the civilian population of Fallujah that resulted in scores of deaths and tens of thousands of refugees." ....if that's true. Redirect as per KeithD. TheMadBaron 15:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.