Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 13

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) 02:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of jazz songs

What a stupid song list. Despite its encyclopeic value, it is unmaintainable plus there are probably millions of jazz tracks.

• Delete. --SuperDude 17:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete. I am usually defending lists, but this is way too broad to form a meaningful list. — brighterorange (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Molotov (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, listcruft. Punkmorten 20:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Impossible to maintan. Amren ^(talk) 21:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• As of the above comments, I improve my vote for a Speedy delete; reason is that it was made with little thought just like patent nonsense would be; but this list isn't despite that. --SuperDude 01:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable "list" containing one item out of tens of thousands that objectively (e.g. by record seller's categorization) meet the list criterion. Barno 19:11, 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 21:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Church - Synod of Saint Timothy

Non-notable, tiny denomination with only four communities.[1] Multiple articles have been created relating to this group, including a whole category, making this group and things particular to it appear much more prominent than is actual. Other articles created pertaining to this group: Christocephalous, Ecumenical Orthodox Catholic Communion, Gracetide, Society of Saint Timothy, Timothean Rite, and Titusian Rite. Appears to be essentially a group of vanity articles written by one of the group's clergy. —Preost ^talk contribs 00:00, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Evenif it's small, I don't have a problem with it, except that it is unverified. The only evidence that I can find in a quick check is its website, this article and a few board posts. I'll change my vote if this changes. --Apyule 05:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. As you say, tiny and non-notable and will probably go the way of most such groups in the next couple of years. I'm therefore almost inclined to simply wait until it goes away and delete the articles then. In any event, it clearly doesn't deserve the prominent mention it had in articles like Divine Liturgy where the editor tried to put it on par with churches like Eastern Orthodoxy. Absent that, even the plethora of articles and categories is kind of lost in Wiki's sheer volume and it loses much of its earlier prominence. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the page at which the nomination is directed is deleted, is it understood that the other pages mentioned in the nomination should be deleted as well, and the category besides? TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think that that's resonable, can these be added to the AfD officially? --Apyule 02:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• How would one do that? Add a notice to all the other articles? ——Preost ^talk contribs 21:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• I've never done it, but I guess that you would move this bage to something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Church - Synod of Saint Timothy articles, then add a notice to each page, manually changing each to go to here rather than its own page. --Apyule 01:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: If we use Google for general subjects, Allmusic for bands, I use the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church for theological matters, and this group doesn't make it there. Granted, it would be nice if there were another not-paper specialty site for religious subjects, but from what I can gather this is a revival of a fairly ancient...alternative view...of the monophysite sort. Too much e-presence and not enough real presence. When they are widely documented and discussed by real world sources, they will be appropriate. Until then, unverifiable. Geogre 12:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — ceejayoz ^★ 14:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This group appears to be sustained mainly by their own network of webpages. There is no secondary source coverage, which means this group of articles is non-verifiable and is inherently POV. Nothing asserted in these articles has any independent verification. The "Ecumenical Orthodox Catholic Communion" seems to be currently sustained on a geocities homepage, and doesn't seem to be distinguishable from a single-person project. Sdedeo 16:44, 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) 17:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Byron Anderson, Windy City Stories

Pages about an alleged work of fiction by an author called "R.E. Hancock", created by User:Rynehancock. Search of Amazon turned up no such author. User also added listings of other characters to Evansville, Indiana and List of famous people from Indianapolis. Hoax. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 00:07, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Delete; books and their authors must be at least be published to be in Wikipedia! Ziggurat 01:14, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete it. Twice. TheMadBaron 02:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, whether hoax or vanity. Postdlf 05:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, author vanity. Characters should certainly not be in the lists either. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. Amren ^(talk) 21:50, 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 no consensus. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edge Hill State School

Sub-stub, very few Google or Yahoo hits, little chance to grow into anything but a yellow pages entry. Also no events or people of note attached to this primary school. Also per Schools for Deletion. Delete. Gateman1997 00:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Kappa 01:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Might also be upgraded to Schools in Cairns or something. Kappa 01:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom few google hits --Aranda56 03:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is verifiable - see here. Very few Google hits? Probably not. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

So is my house. But that doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Cmadler 11:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• How would we verify your house? Kappa 02:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, I think you're on shaky ground there. There are lots of ways to verify a house. If Cmadler's real world name happens to be what you'd think, and if he or she cares to disclose the city in which they live—for a slightly rarer name the state would be enough—and if it's in the U.S.,you could use an online white pages like anywho or switchboard to find their street address. Depending on exactly where they live there's a good chance you could get enough of an image through Terraserver or other online aerial photography sources to verify the existence of the house. In certain downtown areas of major cities, www.a9.com has streetlevel imagery of entire streets, Pinckney Street in this case, and you can "walk" up and down and see some of the nice private residences on Pinckney Street. Are they all worthy of individual articles? You could use one of the online real estate databases to find out whether that house had been bought or sold in the last twenty years or so, and for how much. And that's just for starters. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable.Voice of All (talk) 04:15, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Stevey7788, I think you forgot to include quotes in your search string--the individual words are mostly pretty common, after all. But mentions of the school aren't. Not notable. Aquillion 06:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Wow it's a school? And it exists? Noooooo way! Paul 06:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Marskell 10:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Yellow pages entry. Pilatus 11:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't even attempt notability. Cmadler 11:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There is no "tribal immunity" for substubs that happen to have "school" in their title. WP is not the Yellow Pages. Geogre 12:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• This would qualify for speedy deletion- one sentence plus an external link- if it were not a school. Delete.--Scimitar ^parley 15:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That wouldn't make it a candidate for speedy deletion. Kappa 18:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete on principles stated above, but also comment: please note that there exist similar stubs for a number of schools in Cairns, Queensland, including St Anthony's Primary, Dimbulah, Cairns West State School, Parramatta State School, etc. Probably all of these should be deleted. Chick Bowen 15:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Makes no claim to notablity and possibly has no claim to make. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Usual reasons. WMMartin 19:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete crap. Dunc|☺ 19:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This school is important to the indigenous population it serves. Silensor 19:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Can that importance be verified? Chick Bowen 19:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Even if it can I don't see the relevance. My grocery store is important to the indigenous population it serves (which incidently is MUCH larger then the community this school serves) but that was deleted. Being "important" to a few locals is not reason enough for a worldwide encyclopedia entry any more then existing is. Gateman1997 19:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• You created that article to makle a WP:POINT, so the fact it was deleted proves nothing. Kappa 20:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Point or no, it had an equal or better claim to an article then this or several school articles. Yet everyone made some great arguments as to why it should be deleted... and those arguments can be carried over to this article. Many schools are worthy of articles, but this isn't one of them.Gateman1997 20:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as above. --Carnildo 21:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important for education in outback Queensland. --Vsion 21:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete When did Cairns become the outback?--Porturology 04:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's good in a way to see that the deletionists are increasingly resorting to nominating primary school articles. CalJW 21:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • A sign of things to come, I think. Even primary schools are regularly surviving the AfD process, which will likely cause a moderate increase in the nominations of primary schools in response as attempts to peel off a few articles through attrition against the most vulernable. Obviously, poorly written articles about primary schools are the most vulernable of all, because some votes will be cast against the school before it can be re-written and cleaned up - some of those voters will never come back to change votes, even if they might otherwise have voted to keep in the first place. Nonetheless, YTD school articles AfD statistics: 277 nominated, 228 kept, 37 deleted.--Nicodemus75 23:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - All schols are inherantly notable. --Celestianpower ^hab 22:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Take this, and all the other substub articles created via links from the education section of the Cairns, Queensland and merge them into one article on education in the area. Which might actually be useful for something other than a child saying "oh look, our school has an article" and obsessives counting the number of stubs they can create. I am assuming here that we're actually trying to create a useful encyclopedia here rather than tiny, pathetic, feeble stubs about everything in the off-chance that something might happen to enable us to write a decent article. I mean, what do we have on this - it's a school, it's in Cairns, it has a headteacher. You could put the useful info on these schools in a table - name, age range, size. Which might actually be useful for people wanting to look up education in Cairns. But I suppose that takes more effort than just creating a bunch of sub-stubs which take far, far longer to look at than information on one page, and in all probability won't get maintained. After all, the time of people reading Wikipedia is NOT valueless. Average Earthman 23:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The current article is not a sub-stub and is more useful for anyone who needs to know about the school itself than a merged page would be, so in fact it is saving them time. Note that it was created by an anon from a red link, so presumably it was a helpful outsider rather than an obsessive wikipedia editor. Kappa 23:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The claim that this is a sub-stub is currently false. Google counting seems to me like a somewhat bizarre method to determine the encyclopedic nature of a school. This is a perfectly good stub and already after only five days it's undergoing active growth. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 00:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I would still classify it as a substub. There is no more information that is of relevance that has been added since the VFD was tagged. However I will note that the only development on this article (however miniscule and irrelevant) has come as a result OF the VfD.Gateman1997 01:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We only delete articles that are incapable of improvement. An article that shows visible improvement during a deletion discussion, well... You also claim that there is "no more information of relevance that has been added" since you listed it for deletion. This is blatantly false. Since being listed, the article has acquired a reference, the date it was founded, the coalition of which it is a member, and the name of the headmistress. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The addition of information to an article, caused because of an AfD listing, is obviously not a criteria for deletion. The argument being constructed here is: "the only development on this article has come as a result OF the AfD - therefore the article should be deleted". This inherently fellacious argument does not even merit a response.--Nicodemus75 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • None of which demonstrate notability nor provide more information than could reasonably be included in a merged page of Cairns schools. By the way, when I saw the earlier reference to "Schools in Cairns", I wondered how well one could learn amid a pile of rocks... Barno 19:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Lack of "notability" is not a valid criteria for the deletion of schools.--Nicodemus75 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Of course it is. All articles on Wikipedia have to have some notability attached to them. Schools are no exception. But that was not the basis of this AfD, but rather the fact this article can never grow into anything but a glorified stub as there is little information relating to this school of an encyclopedic nature.Gateman1997 22:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
          • This is false. As per Wikipedia Policy at WP:DEL, Lack of Notability is not a listed criteria for deletion, nor is being obscure, nor is being "unimportant". It is misleading to make the claim that "All articles on Wikipedia have to have some notability attached to them. Schools are no exception" in large measure because you are simply applying your own standard of "notability" to an article you feel should be deleted. In any event, my response was not made on the basis of your nomination, but rather to several votes on this page, including the one to which I responded directly prior to your reply. Further, the article has already "grown" beyond what it was when nominated. Assertions that it will only be a "glorified stub", and "there is little information relating to this school of an encyclopedic nature" are not objective facts - only subjective statements. Please prove your assertion that "there is little information relating to this school of an encyclopedic nature" with something a little more convincing than a "Google search".--Nicodemus75 23:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no demonstration of notability. Jonathunder 01:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Permanent public institution in existence for 60+ years.--Centauri 02:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no demonstration of notability. Ambi 03:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A school, and a notable one at that. Pburka 03:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Unfocused 20:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no demonstration of non-notability. --Nicodemus75 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and stop nominating schools until consensus is reached. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, well-written, in-depth article about an interesting school. JYolkowski // talk 02:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep! 24ip | lolol 19:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this article is really good so erasing it is not the right answer Yuckfoo 07:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Decent length article, and schools are protected under precedent. Add an infobox and a picture and you'll bring me up to Keep. Karmafist 21:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep good article. -- DS1953 02:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Obviously the article has grown well past what the nom said it ever could. It has improved, and will in the future. Easy keep. --rob 13:18, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and please stop nominating schools. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia content is not and should not be determined based on the arbitrary application of such vague, relative concepts as "importance" or "notability". Keep.--Gene_poole 13:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- A school, and a non-stub article. --Mysidia (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable. freestylefrappe 02:19, 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inlan

non-notable forum, and probably vanity (was crated by user Inlan)--Shanel 06:04, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Shanel Ashibaka (tock) 00:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 02:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are even unencyclpedic descriptions of moderators and forum legends. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly not worth keeping Malcolm Morley 03:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Why is this even here?.Voice of All (talk) 04:17, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, forumcruft. Aquillion 06:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, cruft Usrnme h8er 11:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Spam for a forum. Amren ^(talk) 21:51, 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.

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) 03:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reversal of Man

Not notable. brenneman^(t)(c) 06:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Very weak keep since they have an allmusic page (relatively bare) and 2 releases, not sure of the notability of both record labels though. --TM ^(talk) 08:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

A friend of mine let me borrow one of their albums today, I had never heard of them. Maybe he knows something about the band and can add to the page to make it less lame.

More eyeballs needed. I don't feel comfortable actioning a divided debate with so little participation. -Splash 00:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - there is a biography on allmusic.com [2] — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete unless there is something more to be added, I don't think that they quite pass WP:MUSIC. --Apyule 05:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Do not delete because of the worthiness of the band. Delete for substub. The band could have an article. However, this is not an article. It breaks down as "X is Y. Records include (ONE). Maybe this. Maybe." That's not even minimal for a stub, as the reader learns that the author has one of their records, knows they're from a state, and that's all. Geogre 12:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being on allmusic.com is not a criterion for notability under WP:MUSIC. Allmusic simply makes it easier to find out whether the band does meet notability standards. -- Last Malthusian 15:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not very notable, at all.Voice of All (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per VOA. freestylefrappe 02:21, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Thryduulf 21:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Casper and Friends episodes

Casper and Friends is an anthology show made up of reruns of Famous Studios cartoons produced to run in front of Paramount Pictures films from the mid-1940s to the 1960s. As such, that makes this list dubios on two accounts: (a) the actual broadcast order of the individual cartoons broadcast over the half hour has varied significantly since 1962, making this list inherently innaccurate (and also fueling the erroneous notion that these cartoons were made for television; in addition, there's no source provided and I can't seem to find one myself) and (b) Casper and Friends does not account for all of the Famous Studios Casper the Friendly Ghost, Little Audrey, etc. cartoons. I'd suggest a simple deletion; there's nothing to merge or redirect. I would also suggest the eventual addition of filmographies for the pages on the original Famous/Paramount cartoon series. FuriousFreddy 07:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Notable TV series that was responsible for introducing many viewers to these cartoons. I believe the Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Show has an article (though I cannot locate the proper title format) which sets the precedent. Perhaps merge the episode list with the main article if it doesn't make it too long. The dates given are dubious, however, as I remember seeing Casper and Friends in the 1970s. 23skidoo 15:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't a nomination for the deletion of the article on Casper and Friends; this is just for the episode list. Certainly there should be (and is) a Casper and Friends article, but this is not it. The article on the Bugs Bunny/RoadRunner Show and all of the other broadcast Looney Tunes anthology series is at The Bugs Bunny Show. Now, the original 1960 - 1962 version of that show has a verifiable episode list as far as which cartoons were shown on what date, because new wraparounds were created to integrate them. However, there is no way to accurately track what Looney Tunes and Merie Melodies have aired on the spin-off Bugs Bunny Shows unless someone logged each broadcast. There should not be an episode list for those future versions (in its stead, we do have a proper Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography here). As far as any dates given being dubios (in what way?), Casper and Friends first aired as The Harveytoons Show in 1962, and has been on the air, in one form or another, since then. However, the cartoons included on the show were made by Famous Studios and Paramount Pictures between 1943 and 1961 for movie theatres. My point is that this list in and of itself is incorrect, unless it properly notate what version of Casper and Friends, and from what time period, it derives its information from. --FuriousFreddy 18:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. I don't feel comfortable actioning a divided debate with so little participation. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • (Responding to FuriousFreddy). If the list is incorrect, then it should be corrected. I'm speaking from the POV that episode lists have precedent, and even for anthology/repackaged shows like this one, I think it can be done if someone has access to the information. The only other alternative is to merge it with the original article, which wouldn't solve anything. 23skidoo 15:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (mark for relevance). As far as I can tell, this page provides a lot of information and only needs an explanation of what show exactly it's talking about. Ashibaka (tock) 00:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • changed to Delete, per below Ashibaka (tock) 22:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless, and somewhat informative, if only by identifying the names of the episodes. If the dates can't be figured out, note that at the top, or alpha order them. -- BD2412 ^talk 00:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: FuriousFreddy's nomination is good, but it requires some reading. This is an anthology show, and not original content. In the 1970s and late, late 1960s, there were multiple repackaging shows like this, and so an episode list is largely vaccuous. I.e. there were no episodes, because it was an anthology. An "episode list" of the actual cartoons would be another matter, but, since the original cartoons were not created for television, it would be impossible. In other words, the "episode list" is actively misinformation. Geogre 12:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Geogre. A reprint list for a book series would not be notable, either, even if more people had encountered the books through the reprint series than the original. Chick Bowen 15:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and well-edited. Owen× ☎ 22:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable. freestylefrappe 02:23, 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. Thryduulf 21:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sahara Knite

Completing VfD lising - no vote---Doc (?) 13:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Nn. Possible advertising/vanity. Not sure if the muslim part is verifiable either.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 19:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• She is not the first Muslim Porn Star. There is evidence of this on the net. There is/was an article on YNOT where Sahara's ex mentor was quoted in December 2004 as having worked with other Anglo Indian Muslim models before her. This article was published some time before Sahara decided to announce she was the first and therefore her stating that she is the first, is a blatent untruth. (unsigned vote by User:84.66.112.173)
• Delete NN. And since when did a porn model or porn actress automatically become a porn "star"? Denni☯ 23:31, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The relevant consideration is whether she has appeared in commercially distributed films viewed by 5,000 people. The fact that she has been mentioned in the Sun is indication that she has some profile as does the issue as to whether or not she is a pioneer. Capitalistroadster 00:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete A Google search for thos woman shows just 293 hits see [3] This shows a lack of notability given the general presence on the Internet. As far as the query from the anonymous user the 5000 was from an old version of WP:Bio which appears to have been changed for entertainment figures - very much for the better as far as I'm concerned. Capitalistroadster 08:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC) A question Capitalistroadster...

You are in Australia and the model being discussed is in the UK, so where do you get your figure of "viewed by 5,000 people?" I'm not voting to keep or delete the emtry, I just feel that if there is one, it should be the truthful one and not one made up by the model for the press. This is meant to be an on line encyclopedia and not a comic.

• Delete. She's not the first porn model of Muslim origin, and taking your clothes off and lying in the Sun does not make you notable. TheMadBaron 02:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Boobycruft: Being naked is something Bob Dylan says even the President of the United States has to be some time, and the rationale for a biography is false. Geogre 12:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above Paul 15:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Capitalistroadster...

Sorry to have to correct you... If you do a search on Google for the words "sahara knite" the figure of "293" is for listings containing these two words, and not the number of hits or searches. If you go through the full list you will see many might be for "sahara" as the desert and not for "sahara+knite". There are also listings for "knite" without "sahara". Also, being listed on Google by name means nothing. Being listed high on any search engine is a success when you can use unrelated terms, ignoring a persons name, and they appear. A particular search without using her name on MSN has her listed at #1 and this is a search by the nature of her work, which I won't give details, but I can assure you is the most popular search term used everywhere on the net.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 21:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Beckers

Not notable. It's not because somebody has been on the telly once (or even a couple of times) that this person deserves an encyclopedia article. This is probably a vanity page created by a friend. I'm surprised it takes so long to get this page deleted. Karl Stas 17:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. I just said that I don't think that working in any one profession automatically makes one notable. I was talking about professional boxing, but I guess the same has to go for opera, even though I happen to think being a trained opera singer is far more remarkable than being able to punch some other fella's lights out.---CH (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Depends on how prominent her roles were. If she was one of the main singers, she would be notable enough in my opinion. Being a member of the chorus is a different matter. Capitalistroadster 01:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If she's sutably notable, which I doubt, then someone will eventually write an original article about her in English, ie one which doesn't say "she did Carmen van G.Bizet en Noyes Fludde van B.Britten." TheMadBaron 02:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• del. -Irpen 04:38, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Appears to be about a very young performer, too. The career is underway, and she has not arrived yet. When she does, when she stops being a figurative Mousketeer and becomes a figurative Britney, then an article will be needed. At this point, she is only talented. Geogre 12:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Amren ^(talk) 21:50, 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)

[edit] Darkside Industries

Delete Vanity page, non-notable corporation Atratus 05:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC) Delete Vanity page created by user:Darkside88. Quentin mcalmott 02:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• This page was never added to a main VfD page. Doing so now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 18:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete crystal ball, vanity, zero information... Ashibaka (tock) 00:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.... "will create great next-gen games in 2-4more yrs"? Sure. Maybe they can come back when they've done that, then. TheMadBaron 02:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• May become notable one day. In the meantime: Delete CLW 08:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I wouldn't have a problem with you deleting the articles, Splash, as long as all the votes are "delete". If other people had disagreed, they would have objected. I think people don't vote for some of the most obvious ones, unless it pushes there buttons for some reason. -- Kjkolb 10:26, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DASH KIT

Delete This article is a promotion for an online site. Information on dash kits would be more appropriate on a car article, if at all.

• This nomination was malformed and never added to a main VfD page; doing so now.
• Delete, spam, how-to, possible copyvio (but I couldn't find it). JYolkowski // talk 14:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per JYolkowski Ashibaka (tock) 00:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. TheMadBaron 02:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete So, "Edashkit.com has granted permission for release of their installation instructions for this article" have they? How very gracious of them. Advertising. CLW 08:05, 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. Thryduulf 22:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dennison Bollay

VfD tag added by User:Gwalla but nomination never completed. Completing now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 18:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. -Splash 00:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I don't know why the vfd tag was added, but he seems somewhat notable to me. Ashibaka (tock) 00:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Friday (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Send to cleanup (Anyone remember that place?) I didn't learn anything about him, really, or why his biography is important and necessary. What I did learn was in reverse order, with the topic sentence underselling the subject and the accomplishments paying too much heed to unquantifiable matters (poorly explained) and not enough to what seems to be most significant. If not improved to a coherent, WP:BIO-compliant biography at the end of the cleanup month, delete and wait for someone who will write a real bio that provides rationale. Geogre 12:52, 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DuckyP

Article is an advertisement, and it only gets 39 hits on google. CryptoDerk 17:03, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

• This nom was malformed and hence no-one ever voted on it. Formatting and re-listing today. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 19:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Jll 22:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Ashibaka (tock) 00:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. Jaxl | talk 01:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn, vanity. Sorry, ducky. CLW 08:06, 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) 17:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Busa Alexandru

• Vanity about a singer who cannot be found on allmusic.com. Delete. See also Busa Rodica which I have nominated for speedy deletion. (The latter article's text: Busa Rodica was the mother of Busa Alexandru.) - Mike Rosoft 20:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as adspam vanity---CH (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 03:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Generally, notable singers don't have inactive free web host sites.. --rob 11:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Offensive vanity. Geogre 12:54, 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. Thryduulf 22:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grunt work

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sonic Mew | talk to me 20:59, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dicdef. Too broad to redirect to McJob or grunt. - choster 04:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dicdef. Jaxl | talk 01:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Either delete or, if Wiktionary wants it, transwiki. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Dicdef. TheMadBaron 03:05, 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) 03:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] X1LLa

Looks like nonsense to me, certainly not encyclopedic. Austrian 21:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Utterly unverifiable. Denni☯ 01:29, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I would have loved to speedy it, but let's allow due process to take place for this one. --HappyCamper 01:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Jaxl | talk 01:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax, probably written by someone called aLL1X. TheMadBaron 03:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. CLW 08:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense. Borderline patent nonsense, in fact. 'X1LLa' is clearly l33t sp33k for 'killer'. Aztec and Latin have nothing in common as languages, and the comprehensible part of this article is demonstrably a hoax. I used to know quite a bit about alternative names for Satan figures, and this one understandably passed me be. AlexTiefling 16:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. Owen× ☎ 22:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy failed, delete' Ashibaka (tock) 23:58, 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. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Equanimity

Article has no content, simply a word and a link to wiktionary

• This nom was never completed by adding to a daily page; doing so now. Keep but replace content with {{wi}} as I'll do shortly. JYolkowski // talk 22:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable actioning with so little participation. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep in its current form. --Apyule 05:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Abstain This is becoming an issue bigger than just deleting this article, and I don't want to get involved in setting a precedent on it. --Apyule 04:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It is a link to Wiktionary when I checked. Capitalistroadster 06:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Links to sister projects, like redirects, are cheap and should be used where approprate. Aquillion 06:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• No vote: Umm, why is it necessary? Seriously, what are we preserving in the history? Is the word that unusual in meaning or common in occurrence that we should redirect to wiktionary's entry? It seems like a long, full discussion of essence on wiktionary would be a great wi link, but I'm just not sure why we preserve the less gnarled words. No vote and no desire to impugn anyone's good will. Geogre 12:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, there is no content there except for a link to Wiktionary. Since when did we keep articles with no content? There is an article in Wiktionary. We routinely delete articles which contain more information than this which are transwikied. Are we changing policy to allow the creation of an article for every word in Wiktionary which contains nothing but a link to Wiktionary? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we don't need articles consisting of nothing but links to Wiktionary. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice. Admitted neologism. Do not transwiki. Do not encourage. Paul 02:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops...there being no content, it can't be an admitted neologism...but vote is unchanged. Paul 03:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, no content. --Metropolitan90 04:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with equanimity. Barno 19:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per Zoe. --MCB 20:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need a Wiktionary mirror embedded here. Owen× ☎ 22:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Either Expand, Redirect to Wiktionary, or Delete. In that order. Empty pages like this should not be on Wikipedia. Karmafist 21:28, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Merged Marskell 10:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Europe This Week

Media spam, nothing notable. --Hooperbloob 06:52, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• This nom was never added to a main VfD page; doing so now. Merge with CNBC Europe or keep if it expands. JYolkowski // talk 22:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable with so little participation. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge, as per above. Might be useful there. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. --Apyule 05:26, 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.

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 (6 delete inc nominator, 3 keep, 1 merge). I have since merged and redirected this article to Tiny web servers as suggested in the merge vote. Thryduulf 22:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SimpleW

Compleing vfd - no vote --Doc (?) 22:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Low Google results. Little notability. ArmadniGeneral 19:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• So what is the problem ? There are plenty of (commercial, not well-known) web servers in the category Web Servers. As this is free software, there is no commercial interest.... (Unsigned by User: 84.160.235.16
  • One problem is that no-one apart from its own author has published anything on the subject of this product. Whereas for the likes of Apache, IIS, and thttpd there is a whole cottage industry of third party books, web sites, training courses, how-to guides, and so forth. I've written an HTTP server, which I give away at no charge. Just like the subject of this article, it has nothing written about it that doesn't have me as the source. That I have no commercial interest in it having an encyclopaedia article does not eliminate all problems for an encyclopaedia article about it.

    "free software" does not equate to "no commercial interest", by the way. Witness Stronghold. That the subject of this article is free software does not mean that there is no commercial interest. Uncle G 22:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable with so little participation. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Somewhat useful, although not very well-known. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement for NN product. Whether the product is useful is irrelevant to whether anyone is actually using it or talking about it to a substantial degree. Postdlf 05:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Stevey7788. --Apyule 05:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously.
• Weak delete: The product is not significant. It has a place in a list of products, just as some guitarist deserves a mention in his band's article. Does it need a separate article? Only if it's particularly notable in some way (first, best, most-used, etc.). What tipped to delete for me was the "Download it" link. Wikipedia is not Freshmeat.org, and the article above that "download now" link looked like download.com's product description rather than an article. Advertising for a product that is not substantial, but I have no objections to its being mentioned in an article up the taxonomic tree. Geogre 13:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This just does not belong in an encyclopedia.Voice of All (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Shows no sign of notability, where as existence and utility are not sufficient criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia's job isn't to go out and find little known products for users, and then write pages about them. That said, it would be fine as a (non-linked) mention in a list of web servers or something of the like. (unsigned comment by Icelight)
• I can locate no published work about the product that is independent of the product's own author xyrself. This product thus does not satisfy the criteria in WP:CORP. Delete. Uncle G 22:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unless there is a lot more to this product than what is there right now, there is nothing encyclopedic about it. If there is, I'm breaking out all the programs I've written for personal use and posting them on here. Peyna 22:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Icelight. -- Kjkolb 10:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Tiny web servers. This was the concensus from a previous vote I took part in. Tiny web servers was created to reduce this cruft without throwing away the information and starting an edit war (there were tons of these).--Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 17:41, 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 REDIRECT to Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack. Thryduulf 22:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PetsOvernight.com

Primary source, and on its own, is not notable enough for its own page. If anything, only the important info should be placed on the Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack page [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{22:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)}

• _{Seconded, summarize and merge contents to Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack. It's not-so-notable gamecruft, to say the least. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 05:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC) ╫}
  • _{Redirect to Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack without merge. I no longer consider this article's content salvagable in any way. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 20:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC) ╫}

_{More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable acting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)}

• _{Summarize and Merge to Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack, definitely. Ziggurat 01:07, September 13, 2005 (UTC)}
• _{Delete. Jeezus, talk about gamecruft. --Calton | Talk 04:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)}
• _{Merge etc. --Apyule 05:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)}

_{Please explain why you would have this merged (all of you). There is no notable information on this page that isn't on the GTA3 page already, except for, as I listed above, a primary source of a copywrite (a no-no). The tone proves that this is unencyclopedic, and all information can safely just be added to the GTA3 (soundtrack) page. Please state a furthur reason for your "merge" vote, or I will assume you have not read both, or are not familiar with the subject matter. Thank you for voting, and happy editing, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} 11:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)}

OK, I will give a detailed description of what I think sould be done and why.

1. Add missing info from this article to Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack, notably actually provide a link to the website itself.
2. Slightly expand the commercials section of Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack to give a better description of all the commercials, not just this one.
3. Delete this article to remove the copyvio.
4. Create a redirect page from here to Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack#Commercials so that people can still find the info.

I hope that this clears my vote up a bit, and it may apply to other people too. --Apyule 11:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I believe there was a link on the GTA3 soundtrack page before this page was added, but I'm not sure. In any event, I shall re-add it. I agree with your commercials stance, and in whatever little free time I can, I shall review the commercials and add info about them. I believe the article should be deleted instead of redirected, simply because I doubt many people would search for or link to this article, but "redirects are a cheap and easy way to inflate your edit count" or something like that, so if the consensis is merge/redirect, I shall do the honors (unless Splash would like to do them). Thanks for your vote, and thank you for expanding your vote. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{23:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)}

• Delete: Too fine a detail by far. We ought not be honoring articles created to preserve a single joke from a TV show, a game, or the mass-forwarded e-mail of the week (unless, of course, it has some massive actual life beyond the show (Where's the beef?, most famously)). This is not to say that a mention of this gag in the proper spot (the thing on commercials) is inappropriate, but I don't see a redirect being necessary here, and therefore I don't see a merge being necessary, so delete. Geogre 13:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Grand Theft Auto III soundtrack without merge. TheMadBaron 15:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete All the info's already in GTA3 Amren ^(talk) 21:51, 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 speedy delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gene's gooch

Reads like a hoax, names not in Google NeilN 23:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - I suspect bad joke here, Krabs settling in the gooch? --WCFrancis 01:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. I'm not comfortable deleting with only one concurring editor — but someone tell me if I should be deleting these anyway. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unverifiable Ashibaka (tock) 00:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as possible hoax. Jaxl | talk 01:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. CLW 08:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted by me as 1. nonsense, 2. attack page ("gooch" being sexual slang for vagina, "Krabs" being venereal lice, etc.) mixed with stupidity page. Geogre 13:08, 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.

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) 03:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mandingorra

Delete. Smells hoaxish. Google turns up no support. FreplySpang (talk) 23:17, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

More eyeballs needed. -Splash 00:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Ashibaka (tock) 00:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and possbile hoax. Jaxl | talk 01:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, smells like a hoax. If a reference is provided, I could be convinced to change my mind. Nandesuka 03:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable and not funny Paul 00:50, 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 - although this might break GFDL. To sort this I have merged the histories of Contessa Brewer/Temp and Contessa Brewer, leaving the most recent version (prior to the merge) of the latter as the current version. Thryduulf 22:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contessa Brewer/Temp

Apparently a draft version of "parent" article, now seems to be redundant. Alai 00:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I think draft versions are supposed to be done in userspace anyway, but there's no point in userfying it now. Aquillion 06:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • /Temp's are the approved way of re-writing copyvio's. Error here was to copy and paste the replacement instead of doing a move. -- 82.40.180.42 10:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Then we have a problem. If the content of this was copy and pasted, it violates GFDL, but we can't just delete Contessa Brewer and move this there, because there have been edits made to that article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:45, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Precall

Vanity neologism. Despite requests made on its talk page one week ago, there is no evidence of the general use of this term anywhere outside this book. Also, no evidence that the author is "of" the university cited in the article (in staff/student directories), and no evidence that the book cited in the article is not a vanity publication (as per no original research) - especially when details for purchasing it are advertised through the article! Ziggurat 00:53, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The information here is not notable and would be better placed at a page for the book, which itself is not notable and would be better placed at the page of the writer, who in turn is not notable himself. So delete. Aquillion 06:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as OR, based on an apparently self-published book. MCB 07:42, 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 KEEP. Thryduulf 23:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canon PowerShot A95

Advertising. Surely Canon does not need to hawk its wares in Wiki? Delete Eddie.willers 01:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. There are numerous similar articles, this one is not vainity, and only bordering on advertising[4].--inks 01:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Notable project. Capitalistroadster 01:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is great and all, by why is one particular model of a new camera in an encyclopedia.Voice of All (talk) 05:07, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per CapitalistRoadster. This model should be in an enclopedia for the benefit of people who are interested in the model itself, the delevopment of Canon digital cameras, or state of the digital camera market in the mid 2000's. Kappa 10:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless the advertising goes. Pilatus 11:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. I don't see having it as being too much different from having, say, pages for individual aircraft models like Boeing 747. — ceejayoz ^★ 14:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Alf ^melmac 17:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, most of the "similar" articles cited above are new additions and just as bad as this one. Unless they have withstood a VfD or are long standing, their current existence proves nothing. That said, this is not very encyclopedic. What about this camera makes it worthy of inclusion over the thousands of other cameras that have been made over the years? Peyna 22:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup, digital camera models are notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as I dont see how how this article/page violates any policy. Besides the ouput generated by the mediawiki using image exif data, wikifies the camera model, which obviously means its expecting a page for the camera model. check Image:IMG 3469.jpg and ye shall see!. --Oblivious 01:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Nerge with Canon PowerShot A75, Canon PowerShot A410 and Canon PowerShot A510 into a single Canon PowerShot A article analogous to the Canon PowerShot G article which covers all the various models of Canon's PowerShot G series of digital cameras. To use the analogy with the Boeing 747 article that ceejayoz mentioned, we don't have individual articles for every single variant of the 747, but a single article that contains the small details of how the various variants differ from one another, with seperate article for a few of the more notable variants like the current Air Force One. Caerwine 05:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the other models into a single article is more useful, e.g. for comparison. as per Caerwine --Vsion 07:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep camera models are now linked with Metadata from image description pages. It would be nice to make Wikipedia a great resource for what cameras people use to take pictures, so Keep. NSR (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong merge per Caerwine. This is not DigitalCameraPedia. Barno 19:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We even have articles for some Nikon lenses...but it needs to be cleaned up and NPOVed. In its current form, it does read like an ad. Owen× ☎ 23:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable. freestylefrappe 02:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per NSR above. Lerdsuwa 05:21, 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 Keep. Rx StrangeLove 05:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marshall Poe

Suspicion lurks that this is only here due to the dread "I Was There" Wiki Memoir project, and no real evidence of notability beyond the proverbial average college professor (though I'd be happy to be proved wrong on that). Alai 01:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, apparently. Amazon suggests that someone by this name has indeed published a number of texts on Russia. Remove the reference to the damn memoir project, though. -Splash 02:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Dissertation Poe, Marshall T. Russian Despotism: The Origins and Dissemination of an Early Modern Commonplace, 1994. So he's a Ph.D in that area all right - verifiability rather than notability. Dlyons493 07:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Obvious notability. Several books published with prestigious academic publishers. One of his books has even been translated into Swedish.[5] I don't know why I have to repeat this again and again in these deletion discussions on academics, but don't just use Amazon when the Library of Congress catalogue is no farther than a couple of mouseclicks away (as is the catalog[ue] of every other half-decent academic or national library in the world). By the way, you may be interested in reading Poe's essay "Note to Self: Print Monograph Dead; Invent New Publishing Model" here, in the Journal of Electronic Publishing. --Uppland 10:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I'm fine with this article. Alf ^melmac 17:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable historian. Capitalistroadster 00:41, 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 Keep. Rx StrangeLove 05:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Area2

Who? Where? Why? What? Whom? When? Delete this jibberjabber. Eddie.willers 01:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete advertisement. — brighterorange (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep rewrite. You're right, I was too hasty. — brighterorange (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand. An advertisement for an event that happened 3 years ago? I did some research and found this was a real concert tour, and well reviewed at that. See Moby Taps Busta, Bowie, More For Area2, Bowie, Moby are Stars in Area2; Festival offers multiple musical flavors, Bowie Graciously Steals Host's Thunder; Area2 with David Bowie, Moby and others, Area Music Festival Returns This Summer; Area2 Lineup Includes David Bowie, Moby, Busta Rhymes, Carl Cox, John Digweed, More Acts to Be Announced. I ain't no punk, tho, so I put my money where my mouth is and added this info to the article. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, good additions.Vizjim 10:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Kappa 10:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, short but informative article, now well referenced. Alf ^melmac 17:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 21:52, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erik the Panda

Unlike 'Erik The Red', totally non-notable and unencyclopaedic. Delete. Eddie.willers 01:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Just add a one-sentence mention to OUSGG and do not redirect. -Splash 02:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per above Usrnme h8er 11:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't make the local papers either (but I don't read every edition), should be mentioned in the group's article per Splash. Alf ^melmac 17:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per above. --jergen 16:19, 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 Turned into a redirect and kept. Rx StrangeLove 05:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interslice

Was marked for speedy deletion, but does not qualify because it looks more like unsourced neologism. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• It's not unsourced, it's Simpsonscruft. Bad Simpsonscruft. Delete.DS 01:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirected to Made-up words in The Simpsons. Feel free to undo if anyone disagrees, but I think it's perfectly cromulent. Friday (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well done getting "cromulent" in there, but the redirect is pretty pointles without adding "interslice" to the list of words itself. Is this worth doing, or should the redirect be removed? CLW 08:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Done. Please keep the redirect. -- Aleph4 11:52, 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. Rx StrangeLove 05:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Social Context of Men's Meat Consumption

Was marked for speedy deletion, but does not quite qualify because, as the message left on its talk page says, the first paragraph looks like the beginning of unsourced, original research. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete looks like it would be original research... but they forgot to put the research part in. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:39, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete looks like it's going to turn into a last-nights-sociology-essay or something worse. -Splash 02:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be made into a properly sourced article. Friday (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is clearly not finished though. If it can be fixed into a serious artilce(which I guess it could be), then it can stay.Voice of All (talk) 04:32, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete now, before it turns into an essay's worth of original research. Or delete afterwords as original research, either way is fine. Aquillion 06:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Contributes nothing. Obviously the beginning of a thought never finished. Could be informative if expanded beyond a mere article template.
• Delete per Andrew Paul 00:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If and when someone can produce a real, non-original-research article, they can re-introduce it. What is there now is not worth keeping, even as a stub. Owen× ☎ 23:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Owen× and others. There could be an article on some subject along these lines. For example, consider Jeremy Rifkin's book, Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture, ISBN 0452269520. Not that Rifkin is necessarily... well... can you say "point of view?" Beef has had symbolic importance and has been associated with virility, as well as wealth and high social status, in many cultures, including ours. But this isn't a good start on such an article. To begin with, the title reads like an essay title. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:24, 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. Rx StrangeLove 05:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Flame Marauder

This fictional teen superhero created by comic-book fanboy does not seem to have any third party references to assert its significance. I cannot find any credible Google hits or other sources. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this seems to be fanfic of some kind, only I can't work out what he's a fan of, apart from superheroes. -Splash 02:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 07:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, metahumanistically.Vizjim 10:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Amren ^(talk) 21:52, 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 Keep. Rx StrangeLove 05:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hotnnow

They came; they cooked; they went bust and got deleted. Eddie.willers 02:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Business apparently died for lack of notability. MCB 07:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and retain "clean up" tag. According to the external sources, the chain once had 150 restaurants, which sounds notable enough for me. It could be argued that its failure only makes it more useful as a case study. CLW 07:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per CLW. If it was once that large, it sounds like a notable chain, even if it's gone now. Friday (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. Karol 21:53, 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 Keep. Rx StrangeLove 05:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bleak Cabal

nn fancruft Delete --205.188.116.202 03:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

That was me who nominated that article for deletion in one of those AOL IP Numbers after i accidently log out and didn't noticed --Aranda56 03:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Official D&D Planescape organization passes WP:FICT, although I would be all for merging this with other such articles if there are any more of them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and suggest expansion with more references both to game materials and to the real-world philosophy of nihilism with which this organisation has much in common. I'll do this if I get a moment. AlexTiefling 16:40, 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. Rx StrangeLove 06:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lirs

Vanity/hoax

• Delete. Gazpacho 03:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if verification not forthcoming. I checked the American Astronomical Society website. Searching got this response: "Your search - Lirs - did not match any documents". -WCFrancis 03:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. Certainly, if this term was widely used, the American Astronical Society would have heard of it. We have no articles linking to this and a Google search did not come up with any reference to this in the early pages. Capitalistroadster 03:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Note It appears [6] that "Scott Langhorst" may have been attached in some form or another to USC around 1973, but other than that I had trouble coming up with any other information. Would be a cool story if it were true though... 24.33.229.62 03:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I have enjoyed researching this on the net. For details of what I found see Talk:Lirs. Summary: two named individuals confirmed at USC in 1973, Dr. Whipple real but died 08/30/05, Dr. Irvine real but no claim that he even received proposal or responded. No evidence of letter or response. If hoax, someone went to a lot of trouble. If real, still unverifiable and non-notable. No change to my vote above. -WCFrancis 15:26, 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. Rx StrangeLove 06:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ambrosius Fjord

This article sounds bizarre if not nonsense and is extremely small. A google search provides only exact mirrors of the wikipedia text. Malcolm Morley 03:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable CLW 07:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Situationist Antinational; which supports it; as does Jorgen Nash. Septentrionalis 18:12, 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 Merge and redirect. Rx StrangeLove 06:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GTF Ares

nn fancruft not well written and one of the most minor ships in the game. Delete or Merge --Aranda56 03:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, part of comprehensive coverage of the Freespace 2 universe. Kappa 10:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Ships in the Freespace Universe and redirect. And ditto for any blue links in the aforementioned list. I loved Freespace, personally, but it was a pretty insignificant game in the grand scheme of things. Fictional spaceships need to be a lot more notable than this to mreit their own articles . For a good example of an informative list of topics that aren't individually notable, see List of Star Wars races. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong merge and redirect per F Rizo, WP:FICT. WP:NOT "comprehensive coverage of the Freespace 2 universe." Barno 19:31, 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 Keep. Rx StrangeLove 06:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elf Only Inn

This comes here as a result of undeletion on VfU. Note that it has been previously AfD'd twice: here (deleted) and here (no consensus) — there were some concerns on VfU about the closure of the 2nd. The earlier revisions (not the same as the present article) have been restored to provide participants here with the ability to study its expansion. Abstain.-Splash 03:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a WCCA winner, that's good enough for me. Nifboy 04:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks like a perfectly fine article to me. Bryan 04:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, on reflection it occurs to me that this is a pretty bad nomination. The nominator doesn't give any reasons why the article should be deleted, and doesn't even vote that it should be deleted himself. What exactly is the problem with having an article about this? Bryan 15:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I can address that one, with the caveat that I'm mostly responsible for current version of the EOI article. When the latest AfD came down I went back over the history. The first AfD resulted in a delete, and the second one, which came soon after the first, was inconclusive. There were some concerns on VfU that this article was undeleted without going through the proper channels. Some even wanted a speedy deletion because of that, but it wasn't undeleted, but recreated. The previous versions of the article were either stubs or scrapes of the EOI Web site, and IMHO deserved the kibosh. The current incarnation is based on something I wrote from scratch, with the history from the deleted versions restored. I think the idea was to decide the status of this article once and for all. Obviously, I believe it's worthy of inclusion, but I do agree it was worth bringing to the table one more time. -Adashiel 17:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a webcomic -- a dead webcomic. Let it stay dead. --Calton | Talk 04:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There aren't any more Peanuts strips being written either. Historical stuff most certainly belongs in Wikipedia. Bryan 15:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A WCCA winner and it was also invited to Keenspot. It went on hiatus soon after, but I fail to see the relevance in that. Adashiel 06:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, good article, and Wikipedia's not paper.Vizjim 10:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Anyone who read the mess I made on the 2nd history of deletion knows my reasons. :) Saxon 11:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Pretty notable in the web comic scheme of things (which isn't to say that much, I realize). Deleted the first time, IMO, largely on the basis of the then-very-poor quality of the article, and is now perfectly fine. Alai 23:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd prefer Roflcopter over this.  Grue  15:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderline for Wikipedia, IMHO on the wrong side of the border. Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards? Hmmm... There seem to be 26 of those handed out. In 2004, I see, it was not an Outstanding Comic winner. It was not an Outstanding Comic finalist. It was an Outstanding Story Concept winner... in a field of six. Sort of like saying "But it won an Academy Award" and finding out that it was for Makeup. People interested in deeper coverage of webcomics can find what they seek at comixpedia's wiki. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, are you saying that people who win Academy Awards for makeup aren't notable either?Snowspinner 14:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
    • No. I'm saying that calling it a "WCCA winner" without qualification is exaggerating whatever degree of notability that would imply. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, article is only on AfD becuase of VfU over old revisions in history (I should know, I started it). Alphax ^τεχ 09:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; I don't believe all (or most) webcomics should be on en-WP, but this 'un was popular and significant (tho' Lord only knows why). --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is getting silly. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - strip is on Keenspot, which is a for-profit webcomics syndicate. All Keenspot strips are notable. Snowspinner 14:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable, encyclopedic ➥the Epopt 22:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: It's quite disappointing to see a listing like this - it was obvious that it was not going to be deleted, so why waste everyone's time by listing it yet again? Dan100 (Talk) 20:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: my understanding is that re-listing following an undeletion is part of the process. I found the article interesting and informative, prompting me to go and read the web-comic itself: this IMNSHO is precisely the point of having such articles. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What I want to know is where the VfU comes into play. I don't recall there being an instance where this was undeleted. Saxon 03:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The article from the first AfD -- the one that was deleted -- was undeleted into the history of the current article (i.e., the recreation). I don't think the VfU procedure in that case requires an AfD, but it doesn't rule it out, either. -Abe Dashiell 04:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, web comic with no apparent claim to any kind of fame or importance. Everyking 20:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: The article was remade after it's first deletion, survived a second round and will survive the 3rd here. It's not my favorite comic, but why do people want it deleted so bad? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 21:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Still not a notable webcomic. If the fact that it's on Keenspot is notable, make a mention of it in Keenspot. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:28, 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. Thryduulf 06:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Novitiate

nn, a mess and clearly never will be cleaned up, but more importantly, this page is on a particular example of a pre-novitiate and should not be named "pre-novitiate" Chick Bowen 03:57, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears to be a vanity article about a pre-novitiate house in the village of Pilar in Goa, India. Crypticfirefly 04:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Chick Bowen. -- Kjkolb 10:35, 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 so KEEP by default. Evil Monkey∴Hello 03:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 Los Angeles power outage

As a Californian, I can say first-hand that this is not notable. Maybe it's notable enough for Wikinews, but not here. The outage lasted only a few hours; this kind of thing happens every day somewhere in the developed world. The only reason it's a news story is because it happened in LA. How long would "2005 Bakersfield power outage" last? sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 04:09, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I am living an hour and a half from LA, and it was pretty much a non-event. I hear threats of losing power and saving energy here, so it is nothing really new. Zach (Sound Off) 04:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Having a hard time justifying this as notable. --Dhartung | Talk 04:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand: The event is significant, because it shows the vulnerabilities in the current power grid infrastructure. There has been several NSF funded projects to deal these, being part of one such project, I have studied other large scale power outages too, and the domino-effect of one small misake being multiplied into such large scale failures is definitely interesting. --Ragib 04:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into a new article on large scale power outages since it'snot intrinsicly interesting then, otherwise Delete. Dlyons493 08:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is just a huge power outage, which happens sometimes. This has not yet turned out to be any sort of devasting event/terrorist attack. It is just not noteworthy enough to be an article. If there is a major power outage list, I guess it could go there.Voice of All (talk) 04:26, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I live in LA and the city was a mess for hours, people were screaming about terrorism and a state of emergency was declaired. I also think it's important because one mistake shut down half the county. Sean Bonner 04:58, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It was a limited power outage, worth a 5-minute report on NPR but that's it. No one outside of LA County and damned few within will remember this a year from now. --Calton | Talk 05:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP and move to Wikinews. --Cool Cat ^Talk 05:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC) ,
  • See below for why your vote is not a permitted action. Uncle G 19:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete'. It may be an entry on a "list of power outages". Unless a power outage has international coverage front page I do not want articles on them. --Cool Cat ^Talk 01:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (or Merge to wikinews article-- or expand it into wikibook case study on power grid failures). Any vote to keep it is pure Recentism. People thought it was related to Al Qaida but it wasn't. Funny Coincidence, but that alone doesn't merit a full encyclopedia article. If it blows up as a scandal or coverup or something then sure make it an article, but for now it is at best an interesting anecdote, ergo wikinews.MPS 05:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is rather a non-event in the grand scheme of things --Clawed 05:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Calton. Let's have a sense of proportion here, people! MCB 07:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikinews. --Apyule 08:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • See below for why your vote is not a permitted action. Uncle G 19:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete or merge with an article on large power outages. Apologies for my last vote too. --Apyule 01:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not important at all. Martin 09:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/merge. If this is a truly historic power-outage then it can be merged/added to "History of Los Angeles" but I don't see anything historic about it. As news it is already old. Is there an article about electrical grids that would be an appopriate place to list this as an example of utility fragility? -Willmcw 09:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very few power outages deserve articles and this isn't one of them. — Trilobite 09:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Evil Monkey∴Hello 10:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There are articles about less notable things on Wikipedia, yet are they tagged for deletion? This was a newsmaker in the US. CFIF 11:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • News belong on Wikinews, not Wikipedia. Feel free to bring the less notable things up for a VfD too, if they're equally unencyclopaedic. — ceejayoz ^★ 14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, might be suitable to have a page that deals with power shortage in CA as a general topic, but one probably exists already. Usrnme h8er 11:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It may have future historical interest. Malcolm Morley 12:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Like? — ceejayoz ^★ 14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Easily verifiable and likely of interest to readers. - SimonP 13:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor event. Pilatus 13:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Some workers messed up some wiring and the lights went out for a bit. Non-notable. — ceejayoz ^★ 14:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant enough to receive international press coverage. Also notable for its use in highlighting weaknesses in the power grid. Additional trivia interest for happening on the day Al Queda threatened to attack the city. 23skidoo 15:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and/or move to WikiNews It is important and relevant... especially at this time in American's history, and as other's said, shows an important insight into how Los Angeles is run/how things are handeled. Since it is current news, I believe moving it to WikiNews, and linking to it temporarily from the wikipedia Los Angeles page might be the best solution. -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 17:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • See below for why your vote is not a permitted action. Uncle G 19:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • lol, sucks to be you, but I said keep OR move. Therefore, since one suggestion is invalid you LOGCIALLY move to my FIRST responce. So... in repeating myself, which I hate to do for people who can't seem to put two-and-two together, keep was my vote. Thanks, have a good day now. -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 23:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep Wikipedia is a news source regardless of the existence of Wikinews lots of issues | leave me a message 17:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. It cannot contain primary source material. It is Wikinews that is the news source, that was indeed created with the specific intention of being a free news source. Wikinews is explicitly permitted to contain primary source material. Uncle G 19:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Pedantic misinterpretation on your part. Wikipedia is a news source because, by our inclusive standards, we cover events that are momentary headlines. We don't allow original research duh. At no point did I suggest the contrary and this article distills info from news sources. Wikipedia is a news source regardless of wikinews. lots of issues | leave me a message 23:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Southern California's energy management (c.f. one of the hoarding allegations made against Enron) is an interesting and important topic. If we don't have an article yet, we surely will one day. Then, I think it is likely that we will merge in this article. Until that time, it seems poor form to delete the raw data in GFDL form. Pcb21| Pete 17:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you mean the California electricity crisis article? This would at best be a minor footnote to that. Average Earthman 23:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. California's energy management belongs in an article on California's energy management. A short blackout is not encyclopaedic. Congratulations, your power went out. Mine went out a couple of weeks ago too, and for longer. This ain't that blackout that lasted a long period and knocked out the entire eastern seaboard, this is a brief interuption that absolutely nobody in North America would give the faintest damn about if it didn't happen in a major American city. Lord Bob 18:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So you are saying that it is something that people give "the faintest damn" about. But you want to excise the information anyway? Seems a bit odd! Pcb21| Pete 18:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If any article appears on Wikipedia, it's because somebody gave the faintest damn about it, so much so that they were willing to use up their time to surf on over here and create a page that said "steve duschainme is a butttfac!!!!" or whatever. Nobody ever created a Wikipedia article by apathy. It's distinguishing the articles that are encyclopaedic and those that aren't that's the trick, and the purpose of AfD. In my opinion, despite the fact that people care about it (just like people care about Mr. Duschainme's butt for a face), this article is not what Wikipedia needs. Lord Bob 18:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Equating this article with vandalism. Good one! Pcb21| Pete 08:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
        • My equation of vandalism went only so far as to say "people care about vandalism, and people care about this too." People care about World War II, people care about every article on this wiki, that's why they wrote the article. People care about the fact that the keyboard on one of the library iMacs is broken, for crying out loud. The fact that people, as I said above, "give the faintest damn" about something does not in of itself make that something encyclopaedic. It may make it newsworthy (and I doubt anybody will argue against this blackout being newsworthy on some level), but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Lord Bob 17:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If this article is kept, then move it to September 12, 2005 Los Angeles power outage or something along those lines. This surely wasn't the only LA power outage this year, and probably won't be the last. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, much of the news coverage mentions that just 2 weeks earlier half a million people were blacked out in the L.A. area, so the current title is inappropriate. R. S. Shaw 21:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Note to all editors voting to transwiki: Transwikification to Wikinews is not legally permitted, and any such votes here are simply null and void. Wikinews is public domain. It is not legally permitted to put GFDL material into the public domain. There's another reason that transwikification is not an option, too. As is nowadays commonly the case, Wikinews had an article before Wikipedia did. Wikinews already has an news article on this story, at Wikinews:Los Angeles undergoing large power outage. Uncle G 19:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'd always just assumed that it was GFDL too. Good thing I've never copied anything over there myself. --Apyule 01:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. There probably would have been substantially fewer "keep" votes if the listing of this article on AfD had been postponed for a couple of days to let the wave of recentism subside. -R. S. Shaw 21:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable event. --Carnildo 21:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Absolutely unencyclopedic. ~~ N (t/c) 21:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It was featured in the late news on TV here in Austria, with a correspondent calling in live. Given the great distance to LA, it passes the bar of notability. Martg76 21:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Not everything on the news is automatically encyclopedic - it is worthy of Wikinews, though. ~~ N (t/c)
  • The event didn't make newspaper headlines in Britain. Does that count as evidence the incident was in fact minor? Pilatus 11:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Deftly restricting yourself to newspapers I see. The event happened late in the evening British time.. too late for the next day's papers. By the time today's papers came around, it didn't deserve headlines. It of course featured heavily on the rolling news channels and online in Britain. Pcb21| Pete 11:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
      • If the news aren't newsworthy any more the day after the event they shouldn't feature in an encyclopedia. The LA blackout was local (one substation taken out), nowhere near the scale of the 2003 North America blackout. Next door, at Wikinews, the issue has been covered extensively, no need to repeat it here. In the long run there ought to be an article on California energy management. Pilatus 11:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Although it didn't last for too long, it did have large enough of an effect to deserve an encyclopedia entry.Amren ^(talk) 21:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we don't need an article for every power outage in history. -GregAsche (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a virtual non-event certainly not worthy of an article. SD6-Agent 22:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable enough for an encyclopedia article --Camw 22:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - affected millions of people, major media coverage, Wikipedia permits "encyclopedic" articles on news stories. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A bad rainstorm affects millions of people. Found pets get news stories. Are we going to add every edition of the entire LA Times to Wikipedia? Non-notable! --A D Monroe III 00:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. non-notable. it's just news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W0rd (talk • contribs)
• keep the vunerablity of crucial infrastructure for a vast metropolis is very very notable and wikiworthy. Sabine's Sunbird 01:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • An article on that subject would be more wikiworthy for sure, but this is about one particular blackout, and doesn't really touch on wider problems of electricity supply in Los Angeles. It reads like a news story and tells the reader nothing but the what, where and when of an event that is not notable in itself. If someone wants to write an article about the wider issue they can go ahead, but this is not that article. We have a fairly good article at California electricity crisis if anyone wants to get to work expanding our discussion of the issues surrounding that. — Trilobite 08:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd have no complaints if the article was merged somewhere appropriate, or moved and rewritten on the subject. This is only one symptom of the vunerability I spoke of, but I still think it warants a mention. Sabine's Sunbird 14:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a really significant event. I have a hard time imagining anyone finding this article useful in a couple of months time. An article on how vulnerable the infrastructure is (with this event being cited as an example) would be encyclopedic, but this article is not it. In addition, I don't believe that every single news event is encyclopedic- most news events are transient, and only of importance and relevance for a short period of time. An encyclopedia should cover subjects that have long term significance. Sortan 03:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, totally pointless entry, should I report every powercut & water pressure drop about my small town ? [Beta] 06:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know... did your water pressure drop become the top headline of rolling news channels around the world? Pcb21| Pete 08:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable event that could have gone worse. In terms of effect, it still has more practical impact than say the 2005 trial of Michael Jackson --Vsion 07:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, same to other major blackouts. — Instantnood 08:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into California electricity crisis. Ambiguous name to boot. Alphax ^τεχ 10:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep notable event affecting millions of people, which received international attention and will be remembered in Los Angeles for many years.--Pharos 15:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge into California electricity crisis or California energy management. Stations such as KABC 7 reported on this live, for what I believe is over 2 hours, possible 3? and this is not like a power interuption where a neighborhood had the power go out for a second and then all the street lights blinked red, this was over half of the City of Los Angeles, and caused street lights across the city to go completely black for hours, causing street backups worse then a bad rush hour, and this was at 1 pm, which should be light traffic in most parts. and this also affected freeways somewhat by having freeway exits backed up. Yes it is not as big as the 2003 North America blackout, but it is bigger then any average blackout. If 2/3 of New York City had the power go out for hours, would you delete the article on that? I think not.-- AlexTheMartian | Talk 21:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If the power in New York went out, I'd sure try and get the article deleted. I just think that a power outage has certain obstacles to overcome before it crosses from "newsworthy" to "encyclopaedic" and this one did not. Lord Bob 21:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Somehow I doubt that. CFIF 22:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
      • You doubt I'd vote delete on a similar New York blackout? May I ask why? Lord Bob 22:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I already voted, but someone seemed to want my transwiki comment to invalidate the vote, so I'm voting again with an even better reason why: This black out was given so much coverage because beforehand someone claimed that an attack on Los Angeles was in the works, it was on day after the anni of 9/11 AND It just goes to show how this country is wildly obsessed with fear and terror... it shows how the government and current issues combine into hysteria, paranoia, and a paralyzation of what would have been an easy to deal with and un-notable event... but this is a good illustration of the horrid decade we live in. -- NatsukiGirl\^talk 22:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Can this blackout reasonably be considered part of the California electricity crisis? If so, then I would change my vote to merge. I mean to ask, specifically, whether this is more connected to the general crisis than as just another blackout in California.--Pharos 23:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems likely to become socially significant. Owen× ☎ 23:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh? How? Nandesuka 11:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• should not be merged into California electricity crisis -- that event was a failed deregulation experiment which occurred in 2000-2001. This article is about a blackout in 2005. lots of issues | leave me a message 23:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Firstly, the comments of some other people, with things like "there are articles with less notability than this that are not on VfD, so keep" are ridiculous. Maybe those artciles should be. Maybe you people should go and find them, and VfD nominate them. But the status of "other aticles" does not in any way influence what happens to this article. We have a clear Deletion policy, which is the sole determinant of whether or not to delete this article. The fact is that this article fails the "ten year test". In ten year's time, people will not remember, care about or even want to know about a 30 minute power outage in LA. As such, Wikipedia is not the place for stuff like LA Power Outage 2005. Thanks to whoever created this article for their enterprise and effort; unluckily this is not the place for it. And remember, if it becomes a big issue (eg someone famous died because their life support got turned off or whatever), we can always recreate the article. Batmanand 15:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per LordBob and, especially, Batmanand. Nandesuka 11:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it was a quick reference in another article it could be suitable, but it’s not encyclopaedic as a standalone article. If someone wants to add the event to Wikinews I encourage them to do so. Defsac 12:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable enough to me. *drew 01:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A news event that is not encyclopedically notable. Quale 02:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom. basically a non-event. Power outages shouldn't rate a Wikipedia article unless 1) They last for at least a day for most areas and 2) cover a very large area (usually affecting more than one power provider). Although this outage affected a large part of the City of Los Angeles, it didn't spill over to any place not served by the LA Dept. of Water and Power, and most areas had the power back within a few hours. BlankVerse ∅ 03:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Lving in Scotland, where power cuts are non-existent, it should be noted that even although there will be numerous power cuts in days to come for the city of LA; this should be noted. Possibly take it to another page like: Spectember 12 2005 Los Angeles power outage

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 06:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Villains of Imran Series

Not encyclopedic, at its current state, the article has only a single sentence, in the form of a comment from the author

• Delete: as nominator. --Ragib 04:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. --Apyule 08:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:04, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 cancelled, the page was moved and re-Vfd'd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Blue Hell. Please vote there. Garrett^Talk 01:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Blue Hell"

I'm a huge fan of the Grand Theft Auto franchise, but I really don't think Blue Hell is noteworthy enough; The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time's "Beta Quest" would probably be far more noteworthy, but even that doesn't have an article yet. Garrett^Talk 04:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: While this page refers to the "Blue Hell" page, that is a redirect to Blue Hell which appears to be the subject of the vfd. Usrnme h8er 11:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn, might be possible to merge this and Blue Hell to the main GTA page. Usrnme h8er 11:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC) Cancel VFD- Page Blue Hell is on vfd elsewhere. "Blue Hell" is a redirect to it. Usrnme h8er 11:30, 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.

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. Rx StrangeLove 13:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haylea Blundell

Non-notable junior gymnast. DS 04:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Australian junior gymnast and not yet notable. Capitalistroadster 05:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not yet notable. Malcolm Morley 12:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, though not a speedy candidate, either. android79 21:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and use as motivation for young Haylea to succeed in the future (\silliness) Paul 01:03, 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. Rx StrangeLove 14:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Stir

Non notable band that only lasted for 1 year -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. --Apyule 06:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. Perhaps the "bigger and better things" onto which the band members have progressed will be more worthy of entries... CLW 07:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday (talk) 14:46, 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 Userfy, Moving it to users space. Rx StrangeLove 14:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stewart Isbell

Page appears to have been written by the subject of the page himself (vanity page). I'm not sure he's notable for inclusion in the Wikipedia, either. 71.133.20.252 06:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy seems fair at this point - photographer still in school, indicating no major solo exhibitions. May be on the path to notability. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:50, 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. -Splash^talk 01:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Filemon "Momoy" Canete

Article establishes little or no claim to notability; Google search "Filemon Canete" returns 55 unique hits. Paul 06:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this, the original entry didn't draw enough discussion to establish a consensus. Rx StrangeLove 15:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. Groeck 15:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Speedy under A7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of encyclopedic notability. Gamaliel 20:28, 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. -Splash^talk 01:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agalmics

Non-notable neologism; there are two WP articles about "Robert Levin," although neither is the one who is credited with coining this word; 86 unique Google hits. Paul 06:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this, the original entry didn't draw enough discussion to establish a consensus. Rx StrangeLove 15:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This philosophy is under attack and suffering oppression in web forums due to the implied anti-capitalist and anti-intellectual property stance. Please do not delete the entry without strong concensus to do so. Edit by user:24.218.145.239, users second edit. Rx StrangeLove 18:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless this term is used by people other than the guy who coined it. Friday (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism. I can't find any uses other than in Wikipedia mirrors or by the guy who created it. --Carnildo 23:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I found this site, that is currently down [7], but a google scholar search turns up zero links [8]. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:06, 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. Rx StrangeLove 15:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Things

Vanity Page

• Delete - not notable, plus vanity (page created by Baldric1987 - Thing disambiguation page states that "The Things is a fictitious cartoon, created by Paul Baldry (c)1999-2005" - I suspect that Baldric1987 is Paul Baldry. If this page is deleted, the ref on the dab page will need to be deleted, too. CLW 07:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn comic. I already removed to link to this from the Thing dab page. Friday (talk) 16:11, 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. Rx StrangeLove 16:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AJAr

Advertisement JoanneB 07:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable group of 2 teenage programmers who have yet to release any software. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• It appears to be a software development partnership that has done nothing, and been mentioned nowhere apart from the web sites of the people who (claim to) have set it up. The article claims that the partnership has a project under development, but tells us that it is too secret for Wikipedia. Not only does this fail to satisfy the WP:CORP criteria by a huge margin, its very existence is unverifiable. There seems little point in a redirect to AJAR. Delete. Uncle G 23:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn and just plain stupid. --DocSigma 16:50, 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 Keep. Rx StrangeLove 16:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Powder Ridge Rock Festival

Subliterate substub about a rock concert that never actually happened. Delete. Calton | Talk 07:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable, not a substub. Also please don't bite the newbies. Kappa 10:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. However, I see that JvaGoddess's first contribution to Wikipedia was 13 December 2001. (!). So let's just say "please don't bite people." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• No vote yet. I sorta like it. The question in my mind is whether this was a notable fiasco. Was it mentioned in the national press? In _Billboard_ or _Rolling Stone_ or publications that chronicle rock concerts? That is certainly one notable bunch of musicians. Do biographies about them mention the failed concert? The article is so badly written I can't actually tell whether the event took place or not. "Rock Doctor William Abruzzi ... was there to treat bad LSD trips, and said there were more bad trips at Powder Ridge per capata, than any other music festival he'd ever worked." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mark for cleanup of course. See this interesting article in The Hartford Advocate. These two paragraphs in the article convince me the event was notable:

"Powder Ridge was a disaster waiting to happen, and it happened," Middletown author William Manchester wrote in his 1974 book The Glory and the Dream .

"A cloud of marijuana hung over the central portion of the resort last night, and drug dealers sold their wares openly. Some moved through the crowd crying, 'Acid, mescaline, acid, mescaline,'" the New York Times reported.

So, it was mentioned in a Manchester's quite notable book (subtitled "A Narrative History of America, 1932-1972" and still in print,) and it was mentioned in The New York Times. A tip of the hat to JvaGoddess for starting the article and roughing it in. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

P. S. Since writing this, I've dug up a copy of Manchester's book. It isn't just a brief mention in passing, he spends nearly two pages on it. He considers it important in relation to the whole rise and fall of the hippie-rock-concert phenomenon. Mentions that despite the court injunction the promoters kept hinting that the festival might take place anyway, and people believed it because basically that is what had happened with Woodstock, which had been banned from its planned location and moved elsewhere. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Got a reason? Dpbsmith (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I was able to find a reference to this in the August 10, 1970 issue of Barron's National Business and Financial Weekly (Vol. 50, Iss. 32; p. 3). The article in which the reference appears, "Rated "X"; The Movie Business These Days Is Not for Widows and Orphans," is about the poor financial showing of a documentary about Woodstock, but the article itself begins by saying, "When last month's Powder Ridge Rock Festival failed, so to speak, to come off, no one had more of a bummer than an enterprising company of independent moviemakers from Hollywood . . . But the big-time, big-name music--raison d'etre of any rock fest--was missing, offically turned off at the last minute by Middlefield's city fathers." According to an article in the June 30, 1985 issue of the Chicago Tribune about the Live Aid concert, 30,000 fans showed up at Powder Ridge in 1970 even though it was cancelled. That people were talking about it in the news media 15 years later is evidence of notability. Crypticfirefly 04:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there was an article in Life magazine at the time about the concert fiasco. See [9]. --Metropolitan90 04:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable non-event, widely discussed and covered at the time, in the context of Woodstock, Altamont, etc. and rock-festival culture. I had contemporaneous knowledge of it via mass media (TV, radio, newspapers) even though I was not in the region. MCB 06:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Great stuff, hope I won't be alone in nibbling away at this article when I get time. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If it is subliterate, then clean it up User:Calton. "Subliterate" is no reason to delete. This was a highly notable event that failed at the last minute with thousands of fans showing up. --AI 05:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - OK, this rock concert was no Woodstock, but it is notable because it demonstrates what could happen (with drugs, general rowdiness etc.) if a gig isn't organised properly, and proves to be a commercial failure at the last minute. Andrew 11:11, 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. Rx StrangeLove 17:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gorilla mask

WP:NOT DELETE--MONGO 07:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Totally deletable advertisement masquerading (no pun intended) as a likely deletable neologism. Let's take the average of totally deletable and likely deletable and simply delete. Grutness...wha? 08:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Lock up your daughters, call the police, and delete. TheMadBaron 10:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Eeeehrm... delete... and I wish this could be speedied as pn... Anyone dare follow the link to check if it could be classed as an assault page? Usrnme h8er 11:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Assuming good faith (sort of laughable) this is a joke page. If not, call the FBI. --Noitall 13:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete immediately. Hoax bordering on nonsense. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There are some sick puppies out there and the page the link goes to proves it. The site states "All original material, ideas, and concepts © GorillaMask Media, LLC 2003-2005" I won't argue, let them keep them. Alf ^melmac 17:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Useless content. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion as patent nonsense and vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 18:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yuck. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - is there an R-rated version of BJOADN? --Bletch 00:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, patent nonsense, advertisement. --DocSigma 16:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, save this for wiki parodies, this site should be kept for only serious entries. --Colonel 22:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC) Vote actually by 12.223.171.59 (talk · contribs)
• Delete - complete and utter tripe. Until someone can document even one time someone has ever done this, it is merely cheap advertising for a website. As if someone really runs around with a beard trimmer waiting to have sex and perform this on an unconscious woman. As nobody else seems to have ever heard of this, it is hardly a "phenomenon" and therefore certainly doesn't deserve and article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.149.226 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 17 September 2005
• Don't delete! This definition is totally awesome! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.23.116 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 17 September 2005
• Get a sense of humor people. Come on, don't delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.181.61 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 17 September 2005
• i say keep it. i heard of this years ago and believe the webpage was named after the practice, not the other way around. i viewed the page and i would assume it receives it's viewers from word of mouth advertising and links from similar pages- not from 'advertising' on wikipedia, which would seem to be an inefficient way to attract viewers. also, i think it could only be classified as advertising in the most broad sense of the term because it's not a pay site and they aren't selling anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.175.163.55 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 17 September 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 Delete. Rx StrangeLove 17:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Downes

Non-notable voice actor. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Steve Downes for a previous deletion debate (2 delete (including nominator), 1 redirect. Outcome: deleted) and Talk:Steve Downes for a short debate on its recreation. Thryduulf 08:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedily delete as substantially identical copy of an article that had been deleted previously. Pilatus 20:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a significant improvement on any of the deleted states. -- RHaworth 21:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, qulifies for both {{deleteagain}} and {{nn-bio}}. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral As the voice actor of the principal character of a major CVG and its sequel, I can see the potential for Mr. Downes to be notable, but as I have never played Halo or Halo 2 (first person shooters aren't to my taste in gaming) I can't judge how much dialog the Master Chief character has (especially during the cut scenes) which is what I would need to know to be able to judge his notability. Caerwine 09:57, 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 Speedy delete. Thryduulf 12:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zaac Margin

NN, nonsense Dismas|^(talk) 09:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• speedy as no context and attack page. Kappa 10:02, 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 Keep. Rx StrangeLove 17:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Pittsburgh Survey

Unless I missed something, this Pittsburgh Survey is NN. The real Pittsburgh Survey, from what the google search tells me, may be notable enough but it has nothing to do with a whorehouse as this article describes. I'm in favor of deleting until someone can write a real article about the Pittsburgh Survey. Dismas|^(talk) 09:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• I've replaced the original nonsense with three sentences about the real Pittsburgh Survey. I have no intention of writing the article, however, and if no-one else intends to, the stub should be deleted. TheMadBaron 10:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks to the TheMadBaron rewite, this might be saveable. Keep.Vizjim 10:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• The new content, while still too short, appears to be a usable stub. So, keep. Friday (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Thanks for rewriting, and I disagree that stubs should be deleted for lack of immediate interest in expanding them. — brighterorange (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Thanks to the Madbaron for expanding. Capitalistroadster 01:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep revised article. Nandesuka 11:46, 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 Keep. Rx StrangeLove 17:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Isallobar

Dic. Def. Dismas|^(talk) 09:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, like isobar. Kappa 10:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Should'nt be deleted but needs more information that it currently does. Manik Raina 13:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep But the entry must be expanded.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Rx StrangeLove 17:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Udun band

Non-notable, possibly hoax band. Posted by a user with "previous". -- 82.40.180.42 10:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Nn band vanity. With some dodgy symbolism. Delete. - Demogorgon's Soup-taster 12:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Is it a hoax, or a non-notable band? Either way, delete. Friday (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC
• This is a real band. They are very popular in some areas of Europe. SAVE
• Delete. Even if band is real, article is perilously close to patent nonsense. No mention in AMG; exactly 1 Google hit, which is a MySpace message board message. I can't even see WP:MUSIC looming in the distant mountains of Mordor. --MCB 07:03, 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. Rx StrangeLove 17:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tuxxoline

No google matches or even a spelling suggestion. Dismas|^(talk) 10:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Not notable. I figured it could be a trampoline brand, but even then, you'd suppose it was mentioned somewhere (no mention in a lot of other big search engines either). The article claimed it to be "One of the most favorite sports in the Netherlands". I can't imagine that to be true: I'm Dutch myself and have never heard of it, neither has Google. Therefore, I changed the wording of that first sentence, so future voters won't be misled. --JoanneB 13:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:13, 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. Rx StrangeLove 17:48, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pieces of the Moon

Appears to be a promo for a not-yet completed animation. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 12:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A not-even-done internet cartoon is not very encyclopedic. (Note that I'm not endorsing re-creation of this article once the cartoon IS done.) Friday (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete; the only way this would deserve an article is if Blue Moon studios was a Pixar-like entity and the feature was listed as "in production" on some site like imdb. — brighterorange (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN/Vanity. --Hurricane111 01:34, 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. Rx StrangeLove 17:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Retards In Heat

Non-notable band. Only gets 221 google hits, and it has no allmusic.com presence. Graham 12:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Colinmac 12:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to no allmusic presense and no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Gently boil retards for ten minutes, then delete. TheMadBaron 00:44, 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 Keep. Rx StrangeLove 17:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of banking

It seems a bit opinionated and possibly original research... UniReb 12:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. However a decent article on this topic would certainly be welcome. Cleanup. - Demogorgon's Soup-taster 12:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'd say we keep it, put it into Wikification list and see what comes out - User:Cyberodin
• Keep It needs a lot of work, but there is no reason to delete it. Sonic Mew | talk to me 13:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Cyberodin. Dlyons493 14:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. As it stands it's not very good, but there's potentially a very useful article here. -- Arwel 14:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep and cleanup potentially facinating subject. Sabine's Sunbird 01:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep cleanup and expand. Article doesn't go beyond ancient history. Given the scope of the topic, perhaps it should be nominated as Collaboration of the week. Capitalistroadster 02:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. NSR (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Hurricane111 01:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important subject; article will undoubtedly be improved over time. -- DS1953 02:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have a doctorate in banking. There is nothing in this article that is erroneous, but does lack referencing. It serves as a good introduction to the topic which needs to be added to, but should be kept. I suspect the author either got bored and has paused, having better things to do, or died in the middle of his typing.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 and delist as this was a disruptive nomination made 10 days after consensus already agreed it should be kept. [10] If anyone objects, revert me and re-open the discussion. —RaD Man (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Schwarz

There was a prior request which failed. It is archived at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (first)

• KEEP. Originally, I just happened upon her while researching FOIA requests. Utah Court of Appeals ruled against her and evidence presented supports the Wikipedia article, here is a link to the article [11] Barbara is a notable figure in various courts throughout the United States and her contibution should be noted here. Frankcoop 02:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

My feeling is that the article Barbara Schwarz is being used to torment a mentally ill person and is an invasion of privacy. See for example this post on alt.religion.scientology [12] which bears a subject line which insults Schwarz. The content, in part, reads:

THE PRECEDING POST IS FROM BARBARA SCHWARZ, A ... SCHIZOPHRENIC...
Learn more about this mentally disturbed [person]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Schwarz

(End quote)

Did anybody read her legal papers? She doesn't sound disturbed at all.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.suicide.holiday/msg/e42c44c59dc38cf2?&hl=en&q=public+figure%2Bsupreme+court%2Bbarbara+schwarz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.19.97 (talk • contribs)

Note: 12.110.19.97 is an sockpuppet account of Barbara Schwarz. Reverse DNS leads straight to Salt Lake City, Utah a few blocks away from Barbara's favorite library. (see: [13]

It is obvious sockpuppetry anyway. Anyone that reads about her claims understands that she is alone in believing in her reality. There is no "A Mormon" or "Saint" from SLC that just happens to believe everything that Ms. Schwarz says. Also note the AHBL (Abusive Hosts Blocking List) has this IP in it with notes: "12.110.19.97 - Barbara Schwarz, alt.religion.scientology, usenet abuse/spam" Vivaldi 06:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think tormenting a crazy person in the public square is unkind and an invasion of privacy. She is unable to control her behavior and our maintenance of a forum to torment her is inappropriate. She is barely a public figure. Fred Bauder 12:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think filing another RfD, 10 days after a massive debate was recorded on the same issue is unkind and an invasion of privacy. I think Fred Bauder is unable to control his behaviour and his use of RfD requests to remove an article already voted on 10 days ago with the same content is inappropriate and amounts to tormenting the people that disagree with him. Vivaldi 06:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • Claiming that Ms. Schwarz is crazy and unable to control herself is libel, Mr. Bauder. You better read her affidavit and legal papers.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/10d46a5f5180944d/d89a09147bf034b1?lnk=st&q=Barbara+schwarz%2Baffidavit&rnum=2&hl=en#d89a09147bf034b1 -- User Saint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.19.97 (talk • contribs)

• • • • Talking to yourself from sockpuppet accounts demonstrates schizophrenic tendencies. 12.110.19.97 leads to public terminal a few blocks away from Barbara's favorite public library in Salt Lake City. It is more than suspect that this person 1) claims to not personally know B.S. and 2) she believes every word that B.S. says and 3) she just happens to not have a computer at home like Barbara and must also use a public terminal in SLC, Utah. Vivaldi 06:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and protect using Template:Privacy protection. Fred Bauder 12:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I've taken the liberty of greatly trimming the content cited above. The link can be followed by those interested. The cited material shows the relevant points: it asserts that Schwarz is mentally ill, and, more to the point, directs readers to Wikipedia for confirmation thereof. I don't think the content of this post should be included in extenso, as it means that this AfD discussion itself becomes complicit in attacking Schwarz. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Supposedly unethical purpose, in any case derogatory, hurting rights, dishonoring, defaming, derogatory. Hurts human dignity in any case. Yet all files, including discussion, history, email conversation to wikipedia staff (if it happened) and tracks should be carefully kept for further researches on scientology. Please check out first talk about deletion and the talk pages of the article. Lily Firered 17:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Too late, everything has already been documented to support any legal action which Barbara may take against Wikipedia and it's contributors such as Tilman Hausherr. --AI 20:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This article is built almost entirely on USENET sources. The contributors are selecting USENET postings which support their own POV but oppose USENET postings which work against their POV. Apparent cabal of critics of Scientology who seek to destroy Barbara Schwarz' profile. --AI 19:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• keep I don't see how we can hope to control what people in other venues are saying. It doesn't look to me like THIS article is being used to torment anyone, so keep. This is assuming that this person is sufficiently notable as a known ex-Scientologist. If this isn't true, I could certainly be convinced to change to delete for lack of notability, but I can't agree with deletion on the grounds of privacy invasion. Friday (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • She was the President (= public relations face) for Scientology in Germany in the 1980s, so did media and so forth. Recently, she is the record holder for FOIA requests - David Gerard 14:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • Yes she was the President of the Church of Scientology in Germany, but she is not the record holder of the most FOIA request. You're only source is the SLC Tribune which is wrong. Besides, the SLCT is not the authority to decide who has the record. I challenge you to provide a more authoritative source, David Gerard? --AI 20:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Who is the current record holder of the most FOIA requests then, if not B.S.? Do you assert that Barbara is now #2 all time? What is your authority for making this claim? Perhaps we can update the claim on the page to read that she is #2 all-time, if you have a more authoritative source. Vivaldi 06:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• speedy keep as per previous discussion. Is this even a valid AfD? — brighterorange (talk) 13:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. (1) She is the US record holder for most FOIA requests. She made so damn many that a judge said she couldn't make any more without paying for them. And the ACLU isn't jumping up and down about it. There's no way that isn't noteworthy. (2) She was President of Scientology in Germany in the 1980s, which is a job involving being the public face - David Gerard 14:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• keep. Why did you propose the article for deletion? This was already proposed two weeks ago, all the arguments - including yours - were made, and it was voted to keep. You should have read the discussion BEFORE starting all this again. About "privacy" - all the contents of the definition are based on public information, among them the writings of Barbara Schwarz herself (click on the links inside the definition). No previously private information has been made public. The a.r.s. post you mention is by Garry Scarff, who has posted a similar text for years, even before the wikipedia definition, so deleting the definition won't stop him.
  
  Barbara Schwarz is a public figure - she is well known in the FOIA scene. Just search Barbara Schwarz FOIA in google. You're an attorney, so maybe read also this court decision. [14]
  
  Finally, I doubt that Barbara Schwarz accepts being called "mentally ill" by you. By saying so, you've also made a personal attack against her. It is also a poor idea to repost Scarff's disgusting usenet post in wikipedia, you are hurting Barbara even more. Tilman 14:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman

• Keep. Unless you can prove that an independent psychiatrist has said this woman is mentally disturbed, I'd be cautious about accepting your unsubstantiated comment that she's "mentally ill".Vizjim 15:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep the notable nut-job. If it were my encyclopedia, it'd be deleted, but she meets (IMHO) Wikipedian notability standards.--Scimitar ^parley 15:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The result of the previous debate was Keep on 21:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC) reported by Zscout370 (Sound Off). It seems inappropriate to open another vfd a mere 10 days later. Dlyons493 16:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Barbara Schwarz posts her own history (in 92 shocking installments!) to Usenet. She's not shy about publicity. She has also made herself part of an extensive and ongoing libel campaign, both online and offline, against Scientology critics. I do think that namecalling and personal attacks should be kept out of the article (glad to see the Kook of the Month award deleted), and all efforts should be made to acknowledge her point of view. But the article should stay. --Touretzky 16:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, neither Dave Touretzky nor his bullies of friends have a legal education He is lying by claiming that I am a part of a libel campaign. I never said anything about him or others that I can't prove. He and his friends are persecuting Scientology. I got a porn letter as harassment that could have been just mailed by Dave Touretzky himself, and he and his friends remove any website from the net that is critical of him and show the facts of the harassment. Fine "free speech activitist" he is. He also can't see that bomb instuctions on the net available to any lunatic is not a sane idea. He keeps his up.

Read this here and understand that I am NOT a public figure per definition of the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Above posted by 204.113.91.64
• 204.113.91.64, please clarify. Do you want the article to be deleted or do you want it to be kept? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've removed the mountain of text posted by User:204.113.91.64 and placed it on the talk page for this AfD, which I've linked to in their comment above. Please do not place huge amounts of text into AfDs, it makes the voting process much more difficult. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The gist of Barbara Schwarz's comment is that she is not a public figure which would support deleting the article. Fred Bauder 17:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. This figure meets the notability criteria set forth by WP:BIO. We cannot delete articles from Wikipedia based upon unsubstantiated claims and personal attacks posted on Usenet. Bill Gates comes to mind right now. Hall Monitor 16:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I see no reason why the subjects of articles should get to "choose" whether or not they're a public figure. Friday (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP. Schwarz is a public figure. There's an article in the Salt Lake Tribune about her. There's thousands of web documents discussing her. She broadcasts her opinion numerous times each day using her own name. There are numerous public court cases about her. This makes her a public figure worthy of inclusion. Just because some ass uses a Wikipedia article to torment her (if that is your argument), doesn't make it right that it should be removed. Our job is to determine if the article is worth keeping and to make it as NPOV as possible. Once we do that, its beyond our control how it is used by others. Many biographies here are less than flattering, see Reed Slatkin or David Miscavige. Each of these articles could be used to taunt their subjects, but that is of no concern to the encyclopedia how its articles are used. Vivaldi 18:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- This is an unnecessary vote as all has been said and done two weeks ago. If you had done your homework you'd have saved us a lot of time and you'd seen how the person who posted the postring you refer to on alt.religion.scientology is agitating against other people as well and he does so from way before the Barbara Schwarz Wikipedia article appeared. Mgormez 18:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Keep - Just because one loser like him on Usenet is dragging us into his little mess, I don't think we should delete the articles he's drawing from. Keep this one. (But DON'T create one about Garry Scarff.) 206.114.20.121 19:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I question ever reopening an AfD that decided to keep. In any case, she's still a public figure in Salt Lake City, and she's clearly a public figure on the net. Insanity does not change your notablity.--Prosfilaes 19:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep -- Keep this, for many of the reasons listed above and others as well.

I have been watching (reading) the continuing saga of Barbara on alt.religion.scientology. She often claims that her prolific posting there is to counter "lies" posted by others, but, in reality, she mostly does a cut-and-paste job reposting the same tripe (and personal attacks) over and over, and never commenting upon the "lies" as she claims. She also claims that she has to keep posting there as when she does not, the lies about here get out of control. I have noticed that, in reality, the exact opposite is true. If she does not post for more than two or three days, almost all mention of her disappears (with a few exceptions from specific people.)

In any case, Barbara has made herself a public figure by her actions. A FOIA Officer I knew had told me that Barbara was a lunch room topic a number of times when they would have lunch with fellow FOIA Officers. In addition to being cited in the official goverment FOIA Guide, Barbara is mentioned at FindLaw.com, the Department of Justice web site, and web sites of many other government agency. Super7

• Keep As per previous discussions. Why has this been resubmitted for deletion? What do postings in USENET have to do with the content of this article? Databind() 20:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • NOTE: User:Databind() is a possible sock puppet. Look at Databind's history[15], he/she has only edits related to Barbara Schwarz. --AI 20:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • So? Admittedly, I am new. Feel free to email me if you suspect the sincerity of either my posts, or my edits. Hopefully you did not single me out simply because my vote is in conflict with yours? Databind() 21:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• No vote, just like to ask Fred how this article is being used to "torment" Barbara (unless you count NPOVly documenting verifiable negative facts as tormenting), and what relevance the SCOTUS's definition of "public figure" has to Wikipedia. ~~ N (t/c) 22:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • I am not Fred, but it is clear to me how she is tormented. Her data are constantly deleted and those of people who hate and defame her are kept in the article. -- User Saint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.19.97 (talk • contribs)

Note: 12.110.19.97 is a sockpuppet account of Barbara Schwarz. Reverse DNS leads straight to Salt Lake City, Utah a few blocks away from Barbara's favorite library. Vivaldi 06:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep This is an inappropriate AfD nomination in the first place as per Wikipedia policy WP:DEL due to practically immediate re-nomination of an article which just survived AfD on Sep. 3. An admin should close this nomination immediately.--Nicodemus75 22:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• keep. She's a public figure, and the information here is useful in evaluating her claims on ARS and other places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.184.200 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Which law is applied, Wikipedia? If U.S. law is applied, she is not a public figure.

• Keep. She did in fact abuse FOIA laws to an amazing extent, did in fact file numerous lawsuits, and does despite her squawking, attack and smear people acting as a channel for Scientology's fair game tactics and operatives. Her amazing track record with the US government alone is notable enough for an article. If she does not like reports on the things shes does, she should not do them. --wbarwell

Where is the evidence? Mr. Barwell, you don't like Ms. Schwarz's religion and that is why you misinform about her. I think that Mr. Barwell is famous for that. Google his name. He defames any Scientologist. I hope he does not defame my religion too one day. Ms. Schwarz has a right for a fair portayal and not an article written by people who hate her religion and therefore hate her as Mr. Barwell. I am sorry, Wikipedia, but the people who defame Ms. Schwarz on Usenet are the same who defame her here. Mr. Barwell is one of them. You really should read her postings on alt.religion.scientology and how she is attacked and defamed by these people. Some of them even attack and persecute the LDS church. -- Unser Saint —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.110.19.97 (talk • contribs)

Note: 12.110.19.97 is a sockpuppet account of Barbara Schwarz. Reverse DNS leads straight to Salt Lake City, Utah a few blocks away from Barbara's favorite library. Vivaldi 06:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep She may not like the article, but unless it's contents are proven to be untrue, that's too bad. She seems notable enough though, for reasons stated above and primarily the FOIA stuff. --Firedrake 03:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep the article appears to report facts from the public record. it does not draw any conclusions on her mental state, although a reader might draw such conclusioons. Then person appears to be notable. Assuming that the sources support the facts alleged (which i have not double checked personally, but I strongly suspect that they do) this is a completely proper articel and should remain. DES ^(talk) 14:34, 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 Redirected. Rx StrangeLove 18:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miz Liz Strickland

Was marked for speedy deletion, but it doesn't particularly fit the criteria, so I'm bringing it here. She was a character on King of the Hill, however, as far as I know, she's only appeared in two episodes. No need for an article in any event. Ral315 13:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete or redirect since I have merged the content into the list of minor characters in King of the Hill (TV series). — brighterorange (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirected to King of the Hill (TV series), per above. No harm in the redirect and it's quicker and easier than AfD. But, if anyone disagrees, feel free to undo the redirect. Friday (talk) 14:06, 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 --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bumvertising

This is an advertisement. Well, actually a hoax that leads to an advertisement 216.35.131.141 14:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep As the original author of the article, I started it after seeing numerous mentions in the media - TV and national newspapers. It's certainly no hoax. Nor is it an advertisement, it's a method of advertisement. I specifically avoided linking to or highlighting the products/inventor of the term. SchmuckyTheCat 15:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Idleguy 18:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep The major news media have decreed "It's Noteworthy". And, no, I don't think this page is an ad. Nowhither 06:52, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Not an ad or a hoax. Has been getting major press in Los Angeles. Sean Bonner 00:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Like Sean said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ospheric (talk • contribs) 22:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Gamaliel 03:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. The article was clearly used to contribute to the promotion of the publicity campaign, but it has attracted media notice from reputable outlets. I have cleaned up the article to put the campaign into a little more context and added a couple of references. Dystopos 04:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. With all of the media buzz this topic has been receiving, I wouldn't be surprised to see the term used more frequently within the English language vernacular. SeattleAssAsher
• Keep. I suppose the media attention qualifies. --Netvor 07:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I've actually seen it up here, and it was on the local news (granted, it was a slow news day.) This is also not an ad Bob the Cannibal 19:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I like. I personally bumvertise in my spare time. Right now I'm in the local library. Its the only form of employment I can get, bumvertising.
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - however revolting and morality-free. Vizjim 15:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable cultural phenomenon. And hey, I didn't know you could sponsor Frank Chu's signs! --MCB 07:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Here in Russia it's a common practice...  Grue  15:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This just hit The Daily Show (prompting me to check Wikipedia for an article), and I see that it has been receiving a great deal of media attention. The practice (assuming that it's not a Joey Skaggs-style prank) is disgusting and reprehensible, but that's irrelevant. And if it does turn out to be a hoax, that will be equally noteworthy. —Lifeisunfair 04:30, 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. Rx StrangeLove 18:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Hell

I'm a huge fan of the Grand Theft Auto franchise, but I really don't think Blue Hell is noteworthy enough; The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time's "Beta Quest" would probably be far more noteworthy, but even that doesn't have an article yet. GarrettTalk 04:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Admin: Note that "Blue Hell" redirects to this page. There may be more redirects out there which would need to be removed... Usrnme h8er 10:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete There are plenty of game FAQs that cover secrets and glitches. Wikipedia does not need a specific article on a useless glitch in a video game. Wikikevin 00:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic, and I don't think that there is any need for a redirect. --Apyule 06:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Apyule. I'm a pretty big GTA fan, and I didn't know what Blue Hell was before I read this article. Actually, I've read it and I still don't know what Blue Hell is. :P Fernando Rizo T/C 18:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: the term "blue hell" has been around for years, and is not just restriced to the GTA series. In some 3D games the game camera can sometimes go through a floor or an exterior wall and reveal a colored void (of the default background color, usually blue). If the player is to travel through the floor or wall (primarily as a result of a glitch), the character can fall into the "blue hell" which either ends up with the player character's death or the game crashes. — Kjammer ⌂ 21:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - aside from my comment above, this article is badly written, there seems to be no salvageable infromation, otherwise it could use a complete rewrite. — Kjammer ⌂ 21:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, badly written. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into their respective games as a glitch. Haoie 08:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Of the three Blue Hells written in this article, only the Liberty City Blue Hell in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is worthy of mention, and even that has already been covered in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' Myths and Easter eggs section. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 15:37, 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. Rx StrangeLove 18:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Between worlds

• Absolutely not notable Groeck 15:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• delete nn vanity (note that this alleged show apparently airs on a public access channel)---CH (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Major TV series may be notable, but this show sure doesn't look to be. Friday (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I wonder where we draw the line for public-access-based cable shows. An audience of 5,000 is used in other contexts (authors and musicians, (see WP:PROF) ... would a show like this have that sort of rating? Sacramento metro has a population of 1.8 million, so, who knows? I'm inclined to keep if it's been running since 1991; that's impressive. --MCB 07:21, 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. Rx StrangeLove 18:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ballarat News

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nn local newspaper. — brighterorange (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:20, 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. Rx StrangeLove 19:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Onerock

nn website - Alexa -100,000, no rating. No historical significance Outlander 13:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of notability. WP:NOT a web directory. Friday (talk) 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. Rx StrangeLove 19:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SfB

WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of raw information. I'm not quite sure what these codes mean, but the way they're just dumped right in tells me this article is unsalvageable. DS 13:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• speedy as having no context. It seems to be some building code, but who can tell? — brighterorange (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete. This looks to me like the table of contents for a refernce on building codes. If there was actual content and the copyright status was ok I'd say transwiki to wikibooks. However as there is no content and the copyright is therefore irelevant (afaiu in the USA you cannot copy just a table contents, but ianal) there is nothing to transwiki. Thryduulf 14:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. These are UK building codes. -- RHaworth 14:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• See UniClass and ISO 13567 for an explanation of what these are. Uncle G 18:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as lacking context and possibly copyvio. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:21, 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 Delete. Several keep votes were folks whose only edits were directly related to this article. There were only 2 valid keep votes and 6 delete votes.Rx StrangeLove 19:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bilston Glen

plus six images.

Hopelessly POV article. This is a road protest group trying to extend their own website into Wikispace. Originally spotted as a copyvio. The page from which it was copied has been deleted and the site's main page now carries a link to the Wiki article ("wiki" on left hand side)! (Creator Rogerz is not above vandalism - see Wikipedia:Copyright problems#September 10 under Bilston Glen - so we need to keep watch.) -- RHaworth 14:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete. Extremely POV and unencyclopaedic in style. Whether the road they're protesting about is notable outside the local area I'm not certain, but I think its unlikely. I'm reasonably well versed in significant new transport proposals in the UK, and I wasn't aware of this. Thryduulf 15:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• weakly delete keep. I don't know that POV is a good reason for deletion. (granted it would be easier than battling POV warriors - I added the NPOV tag). Not being encyclopedic on the other hand would be. I was going to ask if it got any coverage in the UK, but Thryduulf pretty much answered that; I think the road in question is a bypass spur of the A7 road. If their claim that the protest site has been around for over three years and I'm interpreting right that it has been continuosly occupied, then that seems like an extraordinary example of protest that may deserve mention somewhere else on wikipedia. Whitejay251 16:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

  Like Sdedeo, provision of some sources has helped to assuage some of my qualms with this article. I say keep for now, and see what happens both here and in the real world. Whitejay251 20:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless newspaper coverage can be sourced confirming the supposed three-year occupation. Then slap a billion cleanup and NPOV tags on it and hope for the best. Sdedeo 16:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC) Now keep; sources have been provided. The article still needs a huge amount of cleanup, however, there are copyvio images all over the place for example. Note that POV problems are never sufficient grounds for deletion. Sdedeo 19:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web host --Carnildo 21:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, advocacy, rant. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, nn, rant. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP! Your wrong to argue that it breaks copyright, It is my interlectual property. The topic does require a page of its own, not just a mention on another. I am posting it as a discussion document, and if anyone wants to do a major edit on it, thats fair enough. It is not that extreme a point of view compared to the Bilston Glen website. Yes it does need some work to make it more encyclopedic in style. Most of the photos are also my interlectual property.

apart from 2 photos which are from the web- traffic.jpeg www.epa.gov/epahome/gallery/newsroom/traffic.jpg the route map (41105284_e6a16a810f_m.jpg) is from this website http://www.spokes.org.uk/oldsite/naag/

heres a newspaper article for Sdedeo http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15922005&method=full&siteid=66633&headline=bilston-woods--the-only-camp-in-the-world-with-an-eco-warrior-so-clean-he-s------called-shiny--name_page.html

I am posting it as a discussion document. I'm sorry, you're in the wrong place. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of discussions. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:NOT soapbox, webspace. Apparent copyvio as well, as he claims it's his intellectual property, unless he donates it under GFDL. Owen× ☎ 00:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Kept. I just did an edit to tone it down a bit, changed the style and to document the other point of view. I have also emailed midlothian council for a reply and to expand the other point of view.User:NicolaX|^(talk) 14:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: User's fourth edit --Carnildo 19:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Kept Please do not bite the newcomers just because a newbie doesn't yet know php scripting (in html)and didn't post links, and has done things incorrectly is no reason to discard the article. I've sent messages to him with a tutorial about non-POV articles PHPtraining 14:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: User's first and only edit --Carnildo 19:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Scratching my head. Where do you possibly get the idea that we are trying to get this removed because of the format? It's the content which is incompatible with an encyclopedia. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• NOTICE: Trollz attempted remove of AfD tag on article (edit: 04:08, 21 September 2005) - this is user's only edit. Whitejay²⁵¹ 12:38, 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 TRANSWIKI to Wikisource. -Splash^talk 17:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tong Hua

From what I can tell, and assuming the English half is an accurate translation of the Chinese half, this is a lullaby. I don't think lullabies are encyclopedic. DS 14:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to a Wikibooks book of lullabies Wikisource as per Uncle G. Thryduulf 15:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's Wikisource that is our songbook. It contains hymns, songs, and the odd national anthem or two (Don't be misled by the number of redlinks there. They were blue until very recently, when the language separation caused a bit of a mess.). Uncle G 18:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Although the song is titled lullaby, it is not a lullaby. Rather, it is a song for a recent song in China. The content of the article is the lyric for the song. Unless Wikisource keep tracks of lyric for recent songs, the article should be deleted. --Hurricane111 01:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Wikisource will take lyrics as long as they are either not subject to copyright or are copyrighted but licensed under the GFDL (or a compatible licence). If, as you appear to be implying, these are the lyrics to a song that is still subject to copyright, then the article is a copyright violation, and does not belong on any WikiMedia project. If that is what you are implying, please list the article at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Uncle G 11:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki per Thryduulf, or Delete if copyvio. Paul August ☎ 16:34, 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... Rx StrangeLove 20:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WS FTP

Advertising. - Demogorgon's Soup-taster 14:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Cleanup/Rewrite. WS_FTP is one of the major FTP clients for Windows, I remember using it in the late '90s. I'd say it's as notable as some of the other software products we've got on WP. It reads as an ad now, but with a rewrite it'd be useful info. — ceejayoz ^★ 15:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

There, I've gotten rid of the (partially false) marketing speak quoted directly off the website and put in a stub. If we're going to delete this version, most of the apps on the list of FTP clients are going to have to go too. — ceejayoz ^★ 15:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• keep following rewrite. I too remember using WS_FTP in the late 90s, and also for a short while about 18 months ago. This is definately notable. Thryduulf 15:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've seen it used in so many places. Pilatus 15:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I use it because my alma mater offers it to all students for free, so they can maintain student webpages. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Rewrite and Expand. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep major software. NSR (talk) 11:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Major/notable software in the field of FTP. --Hurricane111 01:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Notable software, at least in the 1990s. —Psychonaut 17:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - a significant piece of software which is still used today. Andrew 20:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable SW (I still have it somewhere) Pavel Vozenilek 21:02, 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. Rx StrangeLove 20:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My Chemical Romance (Their mainstream stuff)

This is just someone's commentary on how he thinks a band has sold out. ErikNY 14:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete. POV rant. Thryduulf 15:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Thryduulf. Fernando Rizo T/C 18:58, 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. Rx StrangeLove 20:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Loulady

Marked as a speedy due to no assertion of notability. However I think the first paragraph does assert nobility, although I have not checked to see how well known she actually is. The rest of the article is very poor, but I don't think this is quite speediable. Delete. Thryduulf 14:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7, and so tagged. i don't see the mere statement that someone is a model as being a claim of noptabliity, and I don't see any other claim. This reads like a typical vanity/tribute article. If not speedied, delete unless cleaned up and significant additional evidence of notability provided. DES ^(talk) 16:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - I originally added this page as a {{nn-bio}}. Thryduulf moved the page to VfD and then DESiegel readded the nn-bio tag, leaving the VfD tag intact.

To quote the guideline on criteria for speedy deletion

"An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead.". I feel that I correctly listed it under speedy deletion, but since it seems to be disputed by the user who created the page and Thryduulf, the article should remain in VfD, not speedy.

I would, however, like to give the newcomer a chance to move the article to their user namespace before deleting it, and a chance to respond to the message I left on the discussion page. I should note that the user LouLady is new, has not been welcomed yet, and may not be familiar with policies or aware of how and when to use the User namespace. I don't consider having your first article listed as a VfD to be a friendly welcome. --Aluion 17:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy under A7. I would have done it myself if it hadn't been listed here. Article in no way asserts notability. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 18:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Also would have done it myself if the AfD notice hadn't been there. android79 18:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, maybe speedy. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:26, 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. Rx StrangeLove 20:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ladies in Nude

Not notable. UniReb 15:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - advertising or attack? I can't tell, and I ain't doing any research on this one. Vizjim 15:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable porn website. -Willmcw 20:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Vizjim Dlyons493 21:34, 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 ☎ 16:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kodimedia

Non-notable company; does not appear to be publicly traded or otherwise significant; likely promotion; 86 unique Google hits. (Nominated along with Jackson Mahr) Paul 15:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn.  Grue  15:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm relisting this because the original entry didn't draw enough discussion to judge consensus. Rx StrangeLove 21:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, most search results appear to Wikipedia mirrors. -- Kjkolb 02:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn. CLW 09:17, 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, the company has an entry on AFD. Even if it is kept, this probably only needs one entry. Rx StrangeLove 21:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jackson Mahr

Non-notable, probably vanity; fewer than 100 unique Google hits; nominated in conjunction with Kodimedia. Paul 15:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn.  Grue  15:14, 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. Rx StrangeLove 22:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teniverse

Delete, self-promotion of an embryonic company. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikipedia documents companies that have already established themselves in some way. FreplySpang (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per FreplySpang. Friday (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Hello, I am very new to Wikipedia as a contributor, but certainly not new as a user or researcher of how the Wikipedia solution works. Regarding the comments above, my comment is they are both very short. My first question is - have you thoroughly read the article? If so - please provide your specific comments about how the article violates a policy? What research told you the first statement above is correct? I would point out that Rizo on his page references a "why I'm a deletionist" page. This contains the very insighful observation that "New users need to first believe that their efforts are worthwhile and then that they will not find themselves instantly ridiculed for working on an article." Deletion - before a group even gets started on making an article decent - seems very quick on the draw (again reference Why Deletionist for his correct observation as to what happened with Usegroups - certainly not meritocracy - but those who were most energized dominated). I will also point out - the activities referenced in this article relate to key failings in internet architecture and something that is now happening in both the United States and Sweden. To get a benchmark on this delete recommendation, I have just spent some time checking Swedish companies in Wikipedia to understand why this article needs deleting relative to them. There are certainly many more articles in Wikipedia on very small as well as large Swedish companies. See for example Eniro AB. Eniro has been there as a fragment - I think - for months. Why keep Eniro? Or look at what is probably the largest known Swedish company - L.M. Ericsson. I have watched this article for months. I will admit, it is actually getting better, but it remains loaded with inaccuracies. Why not delete Ericsson when it is not only poorly written, but actually inaccurate? What harm is done by allowing an article sufficient time to evolve? Is 18 hours sufficient time? John Andrews....
• Delete. Advert for a company formed in 2005. Not notable. TheMadBaron 00:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, regardless of "sufficient time [for article] to evolve" since I don't think a case can be made for inclusion of a company which is not yet even in operation, except in extraordinary cases. MCB 07:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I am the main contributor on this article. I made this posting yesterday. Hello,

I am one of the people working with the introduction of this new company. In regard to candidates for deletion notice we have read the wikipedia quidelines and tried to work within that framework.

In particular we had already noted the reference "Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs."

This is not a garage company. The (open access) web-site will release in the near future. The article is being written in anticipation of that release. You may have read about Skype recently. The ambitions are in that category. If the article is not sufficiently neutral - please inform?

As we have understood, the guidance on Wikipedia is to lean away from deletion unless a clear violation has occured?

Vita Balode Stockholm, Sweden

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Rx StrangeLove 22:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Numpad

At present basically a dictdef, I don't see this as likley to expand into a worthwhile article. Delete or merge to an appropriate article, perahps one on computer keyboards. DES ^(talk) 15:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, encyclopedic topic, likely link/search term. Kappa 19:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with computer keyboard. --Carnildo 21:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if expanded.  Grue  15:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with computer keyboard. --logixoul 16:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Kappa and Grue. IanManka 17:29, 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 Keep. Rx StrangeLove 22:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marie de Villepin

While by my nown standards the mention in Elle is a calim of notability and so prevents using speedy deeltion under A7, being the daughter of a famous person is not itself notable IMO. Delete unless additional grounds of notability are specified. DES ^(talk)

• Keep I created this article because this modelling thing is making headlines in France today. Her father is a possible candidate for the 2007 French Presidential Election and I am making some research on her [16], due to my interest in this election, mainly because her modelling carreer and also her stormy private life could become a major issue (or headache) for Villepin in his campaign.68.91.98.209 16:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC) After all Barbara and Jenna Bush have an entry, not to forget Alexandra and Vanessa Kerry...68.91.98.209 16:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, we actually have a whole Category:Children of U.S. Presidents. In theory the press coverage should ensure that Ms. de Villepin is verifiable, but if there are only a couple of sentences that can be written about her, the article should probably be merged with the one on her father. - SimonP 17:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Undecided She seems to appear in Google mainly for La bûche=Season's beatings but she has been mentioned in Le Figaro also. Don't know that possible future effects on a possible candidate counts. Dlyons493 18:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep He's already been prime minister. CalJW 22:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, daughter of very important public figure. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep He is a significant public figure as French Prime Minister and she has a reasonable profile with appearances in Elle, Le Figaro and even Interview back in 2001. She had a minor role in the film La Bûche as well making her notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Was interviewed (imagine) in Interview magazine by Chrissy Persico, October 2001. (Vol.31, Iss. 10; pg. 227.) On top of that, given the fact that the article was only created yesterday, I say give the article a little time to develop. Crypticfirefly 05:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as a notable public figure and daughter of the French Prime Minister. Hall Monitor 17:00, 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 Not much discussion but there's not much here. Rx StrangeLove 22:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John E. Stewart, Jr.

Seems non-notable unless additional facts are provided. Not quite a speedy IMO, but delete none the less. DES ^(talk) 16:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete Well, his company apparently does $19 billion in revenue, which would pass my notability threshold. But, this article contains hardly any information, and there is no article on General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems so there is nowhere to merge. Toss it. — brighterorange (talk) 22:33, 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. Rx StrangeLove 22:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ainslie Henderson

I think this is only just this side of {{nn-bio}}, so I am bringing it here instead. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 16:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--the article claims his single charted at #5 in Britain, clearly fulfilling criteria 1 at WP:MUSIC. Meelar (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:Music. Had a top 10 hit in the UK in March 2003 see [17]. Capitalistroadster

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. -Splash^talk 01:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orsian

Seems non-notable (2 Google hits for "Orsian NationStates") - Laur 16:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete GovSim cruft. The NationStates article states that there are over 1.3 million of this little imaginary nations running around at one time or another. --Icelight 20:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:29, 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. Rx StrangeLove 15:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cocos Crew (brothers)

User:Stevertigo tagged this with a VfD tag but never completed the nom. Doing so now. Keep if verified. JYolkowski // talk 14:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• No votes, relisting. No vote. Ral315 16:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete looks like a hoax. Scores 49 unique google hits but all of those are WP and mirrors or coincidental pairings of these words. No Groups or News hits at all. It seems to me that such a supposedly-large group would have at least one mention somewhere online outside of WP. The MSPaint/Clip-art logo doesn't look like something a real group would have either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Nice crest/logo thing (sorta) but delete anyway, NN, possible hoax Paul 02:49, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cocos Crew Fan Club

Cocos Crew Fan Club appears to be kind of a vanity club page. Cocos Crew (brothers) claiming a membership of 1500, and seems a bit less vanity, but not by much. -SV|t 15:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Only 2 votes in multiple listings, relisting again. No vote. Ral315 16:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The number of 1500 was initial. member numbers continue to grow every month. Once an Official Public Page is ready, a link will be included. BanditBubbles 07:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• This nomination was malformed and orphaned. Completing nom. Merge and redirect with Cocos Crew (brothers) and go with whatever happens with that article. JYolkowski // talk 14:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete very likely hoax, for same reasons as the other Cocos Crew article above. This one gets 8 Google hits, every single one a WP mirror. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is a garbled article about a bunch of high school kids doing...what exactly are they doing? Who cares, just delete, for those reasons and others. 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 no consensus · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of traditional Greek place names

This page is simply a list of classical Greek placenames, with demotic and English translations. I see no encyclopedic content here. The names are from all over the world (and since they include America and Oceania, I suspect copyvio from a Greek-English dictionary or gazeteer). This list is admittedly incomplete - and hundreds or thousands of lines could be added to it, and it would still be incomplete. It also massively uses non-compliant special characters. Septentrionalis 17:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nominator vote. Septentrionalis 17:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • question Please define "non-compliant special characters." Are you talking about the IPA characters? The polytonic Greek? - Gilgamesh 04:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if it's incomplete, expand it. If it has something wrong (America surely is wrong), correct it. For the non-compliant characters we have templates. Therefore I strongly disagree with this nomination. MATIA 19:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • comment I've checked the history, and I doubt it has anything to do with copyvio - perhaps you want to check it too. While removing America, I've noticed that the editor uses the appropriate templates (I didn't even knew that there was a special template for IPA characters). MATIA 19:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Lists. MATIA 07:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • comment I agree that there is not a copyvio issue here, at least under U.S. law -- see Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. Copyright does not protect facts. --Macrakis 19:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT a dictionary. Pilatus 21:01, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, list is useful for synchronizing ancient, medieval and modern history (e.g. for questions like "what is the modern name of Greek colony X?"). Martg76 21:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • comment This information should be in the article on colony X, and a search within the Wikipedia should find it. If the name is unique (unlike say Nicaea), it can be a redirect. On the other hand, it is not at all clear to me why an English encyclopedia should mention the Greek Βρετανία -- should we also have the Arabic and Norse names of Britain? --Macrakis 19:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

comment Yes, we should, if they are relevant to the history. Britain is relevant to the history of seafaring Phoenicians as well as Greeks of Massalia and other deep-sea-faring cultures, as well as to the Roman Empire, where the educated elite preferred Greek over Latin by a wide margin. As such, Greek toponyms from Roman times are more than appropriate for what was essentially a Greco-Roman imperial culture. See also List of traditional Arabic place names, where there are old Arabic names even for places in Sicily and Spain. There were even distinctive Arabic names as far north as France that are highly relevant to Arabic-speaking history. As for Norse names, absolutely—an article like that would be just as invaluable as these articles. Norse settlers had a heavy presence in the Danelaw of England's history. - Gilgamesh 07:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• If it has something wrong, correct it. — It does indeed have something wrong. It's a Greek-English translating dictionary of placenames, complete with IPA pronunciations, in Wikipedia, contrary to our Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. And indeed we are correcting it. We are deleting it. There's a translating dictionary of all words of all languages that is ready and waiting for any and all translations that editors want to submit. It's intended to be Wikipedia's lexical companion. There's no need to be a Lost Lexicographer wandering the encyclopaedia in lonely fashion, when one can collaborate with a whole load of other lexicographers at the dictionary. The dictionary has a group of editors doing far more than this mis-placed-dictionary-in-the-encyclopaedia can, with editors collaborating on giving individual words translations, pronunciations in at least three systems, declension tables, etymologies, and even audio files with example pronunciations. It even already has a category for Greek proper nouns, with a sub-category for placenames, that can be filled to one's heart's content. Please use it. Delete. Uncle G 22:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, just as valid as List of Latin names of European places (or whatever that article is called, I can't find it right now). User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • comment, excuse me gentlemen, but first of all the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy refers to one-line articles that just have a dic-def (and they're not to be deleted but expanded). Yet, this is not the case here, and as far as I know we don't have a list deletion policy or a category deletion policy (if I'm wrong please let me know). Besides this is not a list with translations. It is a list that shows the present or the historical names of various places (with wiki-link, aka the articles for these places are present here on WP, and are named this way), and all these places have something in common. The place name derives from a greek word. This list is like a category, with a small comment for every article. I'm not sure what would be the purpose of moving it to wiktionary and I disagree with the reasons to delete it. MATIA 23:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --F. Cosoleto 23:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Wikipedia has many such lists that have survived vfd, and they are all sufficiently encyclopedic. Besides, I wrote this article, and I used no dictionaries nor gazetteers for the names. I used linguistic resources, as many modern Greek place names are very different from traditional ones, even in the ancient Greek language. Besides, I included names like Oceania because it actually has a Greek etymology. So do Indonesia, Polynesia, Philippines, etc. See also List of traditional Arabic place names, Hawaiian name, List of Hebrew names, List of Arabic names, List of Indo-European roots, etc. - Gilgamesh 03:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as useful list as per Gilgamesh. Capitalistroadster 04:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but separate Ancient Greek names from Medieval/Modern Greek ones... --MacRusgail 16:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • comment They're already separated. Ancient is non-italic, and modern is italic. If the forms are the same, only the ancient form is shown. The modern forms are to show how the name has evolved in extant Greek, therefore remaining traditional to this day. - Gilgamesh 00:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting and useful. Adam 04:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting and useful; a major help on a project. Only concern is copyvio. (Whoops, I did not read what Gilgamesh wrote.. durr.. well, not a concern now.) I agree with Gilgamesh on this. 65.96.44.49 12:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. —Cryptic (talk) 11:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• This is a tough one:

1. It's misnamed. Abydos is an Egyptian place name which happens to be listed in Greek. It should be List of place names in traditional Greek.

Abydos is a Greek name, it was a town on the Dardanelles near Troy. The name was borrowed for the Egyptian place, since the Greeks couldn't pronounce Egyptian placenames and gave them Greek names - cf Thebes). Adam 11:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Pronunciations belong in the article about about the place or in a dictionary.
2. Same goes for Greek spelling, which I would limit to mention in articles on Greek placenames or Wiktionary.
3. If all that is put in the correct place you're left with a list of towns which are undoubtedly categorized, and a list wouldn't really add anything.

That said. It is useful to have a list that helps in translating Greek placenames into English counterparts which ends up being the use of a dictionary. Transwiki to Wiktionary. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

comment: Actually, there's Abydos, Hellespont on what is now the Dardanelles in Turkey. And, as is noted, this isn't a Greek-to-English dictionary, nor is it the geography of Greece or of Turkey—it's a linguistics article about listing traditional names, and includes modern Greek forms if the tradition still lasts. Look at the locations of these places—they're all over the place, but still figured prominently in the Classical Greek world, the Hellenistic world, the Roman world (where Greek was considered the language of the educated elite), the Byzantine world, the Ottoman world, and the modern world as well. This isn't a dictionary. It's an annotated reference of extreme usefulness to deeper linguistics studies, and not strictly for the typical homemaker, or sixth grader doing his homework. This is solid info. - Gilgamesh 13:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Dictionaries aren't really suited to providing this type of subject-based name-to-name mapping. Nandesuka 11:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Send it to Wiktionary. Leave a soft-redirect in it's place. This is very good content but it is more lexical than encyclopedic. I also agree with Uncle G's argument that Wiktionary has more experienced editors who can help with the multi-language spellings, character sets, pronunciations, etc. This is, after all, the english-language Wikipedia. Wiktionary, however, accepts words from all languages. Rossami (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This article is a list, not an encyclopedia entry. Names of places which have Greek etymology should already have this information in the article itself (in fact, I have added it myself in many places),but I especially object to the link from individual articles to this list. I do find it interesting to have a list of all the names of Greek etymology, though: perhaps this should be a category, "Names with Greek Etymology". The word "traditional" is also inappropriate. As for names with non-Greek etymologies but which are used in Greek, that seems like straight dictionary material. What is Βρετανία (Britain) doing here, for example? Aristotle uses the word, so it belongs in a Greek dictionary, but not in an English encyclopedia. --Macrakis 18:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

comment: The point is that Βρετανία is a distinct form in the Greek language, and not simply an adaptation to nor from a Latin form. It has significance to linguistic studies, and there are many other such linguistics list articles around Wikipedia with clear encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this is not a dictionary either. If it were a dictionary, it would more resemble a gazetteer of every Greek name for modern places, and yet it doesn't. Notice that many of these places are long since in ruins, and are part of history. Yes, it is nice to put this information in each article, but it is also extremely helpful to a topical study to put these in one place, and placing a category in each relevant article raises its own issues for many an impatient editor who might think "This isn't a Greek place. It isn't in Greece. This category doesn't belong here," or those who are wary of having too many different topical categories stacked into one article, particularly when they don't see the relative significance of adding so much detail of a place's history for what may effectively be a dead culture for a place where it may not seem like a relevant topic to the region's modern inhabitants. This is a linguistics article, and many of the things that make it important and useful as a linguistics article also make it an extraordinarily dry topic. It may be college-level material and not well-suited to most Wikipedia users who just want to find a fact or an encyclopedic snippet, but that doesn't mean such rich topical academic detail doesn't belong here. Wikipedia has many lexicon-style list articles that have long since survived vfd challenges, for the reason that a list makes the material easier to browse. Another bad reason for categories in this case is that it complicates the effort it takes to make a detailed topical study like this. The subject material is somewhere between lexicon and encyclopedia, and should not be ripped from one domain just because it resembles the domain of the other. See how Hawaiian name especially survived a vfd challenge, and see how List of traditional Arabic place names, List of Hebrew names, List of Arabic names, List of Indo-European roots, etc. thrive in Wikipedia's environment. To rid of any of them is inappropriate. - Gilgamesh 07:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

comment As I said before, I do find much of the content useful. I also find the various dictionaries on my bookshelves useful.... And it's not so awful that this article appear in the Wikipedia -- my vote is really a weak Delete, because you can always ignore the article if you don't find it useful. What I do object to strenuously is the introduction of the link "List of traditional Greek place names" all over the place. That, you can't ignore. And the word "traditional" is being misused here; perhaps what is wanted is "historical"? --Macrakis 23:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep—This is not a dictionary-anything. This has nothing to do with a dictionary, and is of great encyclopedic and reference value. It definately DOES NOT belong on Wiktionary, or any other dictionary, unless they specifically desire to include tables. What do you mean "massively uses non-compliant special characters"? When people are naming articles with Unicode characters, there are bigger fish to fry! My browser can display Unicode characters properly long before it and the server can do all the mangling associated with URLs. HTML named or number entities could easily double the size (bytes) of this article. It uses the necessary templates, too! There is no reason this article should be deleted, hands down.—Kbolino 03:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think the article contains useful information which should be kept; but 'I'm also uncomfortable with putting this link everywhere. Wouldn't it be more sensible to leave the Ancient Greek name on the page without putting the link? Aldux 13:20, 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. -Splash^talk 17:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rubberoid

non-notable neologism. DS 17:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete agreed. — brighterorange (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism. Paul August ☎ 16:47, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Святой Коннектий

A deity from an obscure piece of fiction. No evidence of notability - delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• NON ENGLISH title, at the very least, a rename into Latin lettering. 132.205.45.148 19:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk
• Delete funny hero of Russian Internet Stories fut not notable enough for world-wide recognition yet abakharev 05:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Some people will never learn to treat Wikipedia seriously. KNewman 12:58, 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. Rx StrangeLove 15:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Starforce Simming

A non-notable RPG group. (Their site has no Alexa rank.) Vanity, spam - delete. - Mike Rosoft 17:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 22:36, 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 no consensus · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St Anthony's Primary, Dimbulah

Sub-Stub, VERY few Yahoo or Google hits (over half of which point to this stub), no notable alumni or events. No chance to grow into anything more then an yellow pages entry. Also per Schools for Deletion. Delete. Gateman1997 17:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, should be given a chance to grow, or merged somewhere. Kappa 18:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Yellow Pages at least give a phone number. Pilatus 18:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WMMartin 18:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dunc|☺ 19:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important school for the town of Dimbulah. Its students made some touching drawings calling for World Peace. Those hawks should take a look. --Vsion 21:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a school CalJW 22:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Making drawings for world peace does not make you notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Dimbulah unless someone can demonstrate there is a high probability of it growing legs and walking off. Come on, it's part of the town, the town article is short, this is a sub stub - surely it is just of so much more use to anyone looking to have the sections of info together? So have a short section on this primary school (and Dimbulah State School, founded in 1914) in here. I'd also like to point out that it appears this article doesn't even have the name right - it's St Anthony's School, not St Anthony's Primary. [18]. Not sure how the keepists missed that one when they've already said it's an important school. There is now more info on the school in the Dimbulah article than there is in this sub-stub. Average Earthman 23:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. Not likely to grow much, but I don't see any point in deleting such information as we have about the institution. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no demonstration of notability. Dunc|☺ 01:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, tried to vote twice! Dunc|☺ 01:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete no demonstration of notability. Jonathunder 01:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. A permanent public institution in existence for nearly 40 years. As the first attempt at creating an encyclopedia that is actually properly encyclopedic, Wikipedia can and should have articles on every school in the world. --Centauri 03:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is content-free. --Carnildo 03:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Average Earthman's argument. Cmadler 14:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. Unfocused 20:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. no demonstration of non-notability. --Nicodemus75 22:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't you mean no demonstration of notablity? Something doesn't have to demonstrate non-notability but does have to demonstrate notablity. But that's neither here nor there as notability was not the basis of the AfD.Gateman1997 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I meant exactly what I said. "Something" (as you put it) does NOT have to demonstrate notability. As per Wikipedia Policy at WP:DEL, Lack of Notability is not a listed criteria for deletion, nor is being obscure, nor is being "unimportant". Your AfD does have notability as a basis, as per your statement above: "no notable alumni or events". Non-notability of this school has not been established in any event (even if this were a valid criteria). Also I do not see you replying to other votes which state "no demonstration of notability" as a comment for their "delete" vote that "notability was not the basis of the AfD". --Nicodemus75 05:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Re: non-notability, regardless of whether the subject is notable or not, the article should attempt to establish notability, which this does not (unless one considers all schools inherently notable, which is obviously not agreed upon). This might be considered a vanity article, and would be deletable on those grounds (this is obviously my preference). Or one could say it is "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" in which case we could "merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect." If we were to merge and redirect into Dimbulah, consider how little content there is to merge. (Average Earthman noted that there is more info on the school in the Dimbulah article than there is in this stub.) Cmadler 12:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for re-phrasing the entire debate about school articles. I disagree that an article should attempt to establish notability - this is not WP Policy - only your own assertion. Given the high number of schools (even primary schools) that survive the AfD process, it is clear that schools may be many things - however "vanity article" is not one of them. The entire ongoing debate exists because there is a disagreement over the premise that schools are inherently notable, in the first place. Simply restating that you do not think schools merit articles by virtue of being schools, is no more productive than my repeating that "schools are inherently notable" on each and every AfD. The point I was making the above response, was simply that "non-notability" is not a valid criteria for deletion as per WP Policy. Like it or not, that is a fact - your opinion that schools should "attempt to establish notability" notwithstanding.--Nicodemus75 07:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and stop nominating schools until consensus is reached. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • One could just as easily say "Delete, and stop creating school articles until consensus is reached." Permitting the addition but not the deletion of school articles would, in effect, be a decision in favor of inclusion, and one which would have the further effect of ending this debate (consensus would never be reached). Cmadler 12:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Permitting the creation but not deletion of school articles is effectively what we do now. But nominating schools for deletion does allow us to repeat the same debate hundreds of times, what could be more fun? Christopher Parham (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Vsion. The suggestion that this article has no opportunity to grow beyond a YP entry has already been disproven since it was nominated for deletion. [19] What is the motivation for attempting to remove these from Wikipedia? Why not go on a quest to remove vandalism, correct inaccuracies, or write articles about topics you are interested in? This particular form of deletionism does not seem to be very productive based upon the results Tony Sidaway has been publishing. Just my thoughts. Silensor 17:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please silensor is right just look at how much better this article is already so why not let it keep getting better erasing it makes no sense Yuckfoo 07:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia content is not and should not be determined based on the arbitrary application of such vague, relative concepts as "importance" or "notability". Keep.--Gene_poole 13:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep --Mysidia (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful article. --rob 08:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep schools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:33, 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. Much words, but no suggestion that anyone has been persuaded. The nominator's condition does not seem to have been met: the article history and diffs [20] don't show that this has been transformed away from an article about the book, or that anything but war and revert has been done with the article. -Splash^talk 17:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: whilst I have deleted the now targetless redirects, I'm not going to unlink the couple of redlinks left behind since the debate is clear (per the nominator, for example) that an article could still be written in future. -Splash^talk 17:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion theory

An article started by the author of a self-published book to promote the book and his alternative science ideas. The book has been reviewed by the Yorkshire Post, but has apparently attracted little or no scientific interest. A few skeptic sites debunk it. The article has proven difficult to maintain as anything other than an ad for the book, because the author insists on reverting to his preferred version.

• Delete. An article created and maintained solely as an ad for a book. Proviso: per WP:DP:
  • The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for the listing no longer applies. This requires a reason to be given initially when requesting that a page be deleted.
• As nominator I specify that if dab or someone else has managed to turn this into a semblance of an encyclopedia article on the larger subject matter (not just this guy's book), the article should be kept irrespective of other editors' stated opinion. My reason for deletion is solely because it's a massive, pointless, unencyclopedic ad for (and partial rebuttal of) the book. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Tony Sidaway. Dlyons493 19:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. The vandalism keeps it from being turned into something useful. Salsb 20:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete page until such time as there exists a method to protect pages from anon edits only. It's something that could possibly use it's own page, but there's no hope for it now. (And hasn't been for months.) --Icelight 21:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete page. It's only generating vitriol at the moment. Throbblefoot 22:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep, It is a splendid addition to the Category:Pseudoscience collection. But merge with accounts of the "Divergent Matter" theory. Since the concept keeps re-occurring, it is good to have an article about it. But make it an article about the concept, not about this book in particular. If we delete this, we'd also have to delete Time Cube and lots of other pseudoscience article. Vandalism is not a valid reason for VfD! If necessary, keep protected. Get the arbcom to ban the "anon", and then clamp down with range blocks. dab (ᛏ) 08:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vandalism is not sufficent reason to delete this article. However, I don't think this article establishes that this subject is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Gamaliel 14:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • you must not have come across WP:PAC. Seriously, I realize the theory is worthless, but there are several ISBN'd(?) books about it, with a publishing history of "many" documents, reaching back into the 1930s, so sans all the vandalism, this VfD wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell. Suppose I vfd'd Heribert Illig? Besides, I found the (unvandalized) article useful, well-informed, and interesting. It shows WP's strength that it manages to feature an independent assessment in the face of such aggressive authors' online activity dab (ᛏ) 20:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm changing my vote to a very weak keep, but not because of the tired pokemon cliche. If it was McCutcheon himself, I'd still vote delete because I don't see any evidence he's achieved a Time Cube-level of noteriety. But since this does seem to date back to the 1930s, it is somewhat notable beyond McCutcheon alone. This article should beef up the historical context and establish how famous or infamous McCutcheon actually is, however. Gamaliel 21:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I note he does have an ISBN; that's usually good enough for WP. I grant the book is hardly notable; Is it book more notable, or less notable, than, say, Kélen or Brithenig (just web-published) The Burning Times (movie) (random bad documentary film)? That's a matter of taste, I suppose. It wouldn't be a disaster not to have this article, but since people have taken the pain to put it together, I don't see why we should trash it.dab (ᛏ) 15:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: If it does get deleted, closing admin needs to make sure it gets protected against re-creation. Also make sure Expansion Theory and anything else linking gets removed and protected. Wikibofh 21:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't seem to have attracted any significant interest. I don't think it's correct to say McCutcheon's theory dates back to the 1930s so much as McCutcheon has latched on to someone back then he can cite. There's no real intellectual history to trace. --Michael Snow 22:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Obviously need more work Fornadan (t) 17:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I'm deleting my vote to keep this article. There doesn't appear to be room in some people's minds for compromise. Fine. Some insist on twisting my words regarding tolerance for the concept and to allow truth to emerge over time. Fine. Go ahead. Delete it. Hope it makes your life less constipated. If people don’t like messy, ugly processes, they can always opt for benevolent dictatorship...because that’s basically your alternative. --66.69.219.9 16:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, one of many non-academic Theories of Everything which got no significant interest. --Pjacobi 14:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-published nonsense (and getting an ISBN means nothing, since it's merely a classification number that the vanity press had lying around), and non-notable nonsense to boot. --Calton | Talk 15:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, I really think the above suggestion (by 66.69.219.9) that "expansion theory" should be treated in Wikipedia on a par with quantum mechanics is preposterous. Granted, one can always find people who think those two bodies of thought are on the same level, but it would make a mockery of Wikipedia to treat them as if they are comparable. Also, I think when 66.69.219.9 says the article should be "kept and allowed to evolve over time", and talks about "maintaining a dialogue" about a list of unanswered questions, he is really advocating what the Wikipedia founder euphemistically termed "original research". Wikipedia is not intended to be a forum for lunatic fringe crackpots like Mark McCutcheon to engage in "dialogues" about their crackpot beliefs. I'm afraid if the article is kept, this is what it will become (at best), to the detriment of Wikipedia.

Having said that, I agree with those who've said that the general subject (expansion as the cause of gravity) could make a useful article, because it's a very old and well-known (albeit silly) idea, and there are interesting and factual things that could be said about it. Unfortunately there are no reputable references for these statements (as far as I know), so it would just have to be written by some non-crackpots... but then we immediately get into the business of deciding who is and who is not a crackpot. This is why the Wikipedia founder (wisely, in my opinion) said that the only feasible way of protecting against physics crackpots is to insist that material not be allowed in Wikipedia until/unless it has been published in a reputable source. If there's any other answer to the problem of crackpots, I'd like to hear what it is. 63.24.49.67 23:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• The former version was a promotion of crackpottery. The new one effectively states that the theory's has no notability or significance. Either way, delete. - Mike Rosoft 06:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No harm having an article on the general subject and deleting articles that are problematic is not a good way to resolve the problems they pose. As far as "crackpot theories" go, I think we should cover them all, no matter how narrowly supported they are. They can be presented in a neutral way and verified and that is all we should require in my view. There's a proscientist bias in Wikipedia that doesn't really do it any credit. This is a book about the whole world and every way of looking at it, not just an encyclopaedia of science as endorsed by the establishment. This might not be science -- actually, I'd agree it certainly isn't -- but where does it say that only real science can be included? I urge the delete voters to put aside their scientific selves, don a more human outlook and reconsider on the grounds that if the article says "no one thinks this is science", no harm is done by including it as a curiosity. Grace Note 01:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• I think people voicing their opinions here might find the following statement of Wikipedia policy useful. This is from the Wikipedia policy page on "No Original Research":

Origin of this policy - Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described original research as follows:

The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide." (WikiEN-l, December 3, 2004).

...if you're unable to find anyone to publish it, or if you can only secure publication in a news outlet that does not have a good reputation, then the material has no place in Wikipedia, EVEN IF YOU KNOW IT TO BE TRUE. [my emphasis]

What counts as a reputable publication? Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.

End quotes.

So there really isn't any question (is there?) that this article is not suitable content for Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's own stated policies. Of course, if people want to change the policies, that's fine, but I frankly think the existing policy is the only one that will protect Wikipedia from being over-run with crackpots. Just take a quick look at the edit history of this article for the past month. Then multiply that by a thousand, when crackpots discover that Wikipedia has opened its doors and repudiated what Grace Note calls its pro-scientist bias. Yes, it's true, Wikipedia is biased toward science that has been published in reputable sources... this is an explicit part of its policies. Grace Note says this policy does Wikipedia no credit. I disagree. I think it does Wikipedia great credit, and should be preserved. There's already a web site called Crank.net, that includes more crackpot theories than anyone could possibly want. No need to duplicate that here in Wikipedia, and certainly no need to conflate such nonsense with articles on real science. But that's just my opinion. I guess it all comes down to - what do people want Wikipedia to be? And are we guided by its existing policies, or are we making up new policies? 63.24.123.49 05:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete the current version adequately makes the only point that matters: scientifically, this stuff is utter bosh. However, from the history page it seems clear that if the article is kept, vandalism will continue indefinitely. Someone said that crank theories can make interesting articles, if not exactly edifying ones :-/ They can, but it is probably best to wait until the author has passed on, so that we don't see the kind of edit war we see in the history of this page. I think this is basically the same point that Jimbo Wales was making: in a perfect world, everything would be grist to our mill, but some articles are just to hard to keep NPOV, because of recurrent vandalism.---CH (talk) 04:58, 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 no consensus · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fahrenheit_9/11_controversy

This Article doesn't inform about the controvery, it tries to convince the controversy is correct HisHighness420 18:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but revert any POV involved in the article. Molotov (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My personal preference would be to refer to controversies surrounding the film in the main article about it, ideally taking an NPOV and linking to the various protagonists' sites appropriately. I think it would be very difficult to "revert any POV", as has been suggested above, as so much of the article is cast in terms that are more "rhetorical" than "encyclopedic". I hadn't read this article until it came up as a "VfD", and my immediate impression was of "soapboxing". Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. WMMartin 19:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge any NPOV and notable information with F 9/11 main article. --Quasipalm 20:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge as per Quasipalm Vizjim 22:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and remove POV. Controversy section would be too long to put in main article. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and NPOV. Owen× ☎ 00:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge as per Quasipalm. Why is it linked to the Bush Family category? Amram99 02:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's right wing junk HisHighness420 05:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge in with Fahrenheit 9/11 entry. The regular Fahrenheit 9/11 entry just makes it appear as this was a highly-acclaimed 100% factual documentary and it doesn't really seem to mention how many of Moore's points in the movie are presented dubiously from less than credible sources with little to no context.

• Keep: I do not believe that the Fahrenheit 9/11 entry should become a point-by-point description of claims and counterclaims about the content of the movie. That content should remain here. -O^O

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. — JIP | Talk 16:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Broadview Avenue (Toronto)

This looks like a road without historical, cultural or commercial importance to Toronto. Pilatus 18:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator, and action to delete Steeles Avenue as well. Molotov (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gateman1997 19:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Mindmatrix 23:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, significant road. JYolkowski // talk 02:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Significant for what? This isn't a rhetorical question. There are several people from Toronto trawling this page, and if there was anything to say about that road beyond what the entry already says they would by now have put it in and voted keep. Pilatus 11:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe that something is significant if (a) it does not meet any criterion for deletion as listed in Wikipedia:Deletion policy and (b) it's important enough that someone took the time to write about it. This road meets both criteria. On a side note, it is a major street near the heart of a major world city; very few streets in the world have that distinction, so I'm sure there's quite a bit that could be said about it. JYolkowski // talk 13:45, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete nn --TimPope 21:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this is not roadcruft Yuckfoo 07:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, lousy Riverdale punks! If this is is important to Riverdale put it in that article, don't create a substandard, non-expandable article. Just create a section in Riverdale, Toronto called transportation or traffic pattern or something and discuss there. This roadcruft is just fragmenting relevant discussion into odd bits of info here and there. --maclean25 03:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-- despite what you Killjoys want....Lots of cultural signifigance; Chinatown, Don Jail, Riverdale Park, TTC Subway, TTC Streetcars, Don Mills Road's early route.... (Unsigned comment by Bacl-presby)
  • "There are notable things located on this road" is not what "cultural significance" means. Bearcat 23:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Major road, subway stop, cultural significance. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm. I live in Toronto. I can bike from my apartment to the corner of Broadview and Danforth in five minutes flat. And I'm still at a loss as to the encyclopedia-worthy cultural significance of Broadview. Bearcat 17:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Broadview does not meet my definition of what makes a street notable enough to have an encyclopedia entry, and I'm a Torontonian who can see parts of it from my bedroom window. Delete. Bearcat 23:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My bedroom is a major room in my house, from which I can see a culturally significant feature in a major city. Does my bedroom now deserve a Wikipedia entry? -- Corvus 05:12, 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 keep · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steeles Avenue

This is a road on the outskirts of Toronto without any historical, cultural or commercial importance. The article informs us that it is amongst Ontario's worst kept roads. Pilatus 19:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete if any relevance is found at all, put it on the York University article. Molotov (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not a stub: it is a complete article with a photograph, details on major sites along the route, and so on. This is a major thoroughfare in Toronto. Ground Zero | t 22:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• As much as I'm against the notion that any street should have an article just because it exists, this is the street that actually forms much of the boundary between the city of Toronto and its northern suburbs. Article needs some expansion (a photo and a list of attractions on the street does not make an article encyclopedic), but the topic itself is keep-worthy. Bearcat 22:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• This one is a major street. Please keep. --YUL89YYZ 22:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not much for road-cruft in WP, but this article should stay. The article needs a lot of work though. Mindmatrix 23:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important street in northern Toronto which also forms the boundary between Toronto and its suburbs. It has significant bus service and is near York University. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a major street and a decent article. - SimonP 00:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Has a photo, that's great, and there's a nice nugget of information or two with the origin of the name and how it has a ton of potholes, but it's all unreferenced and thus unverifiable. Give me a reference, and I'm perhaps willing to change my vote, but I'd also like to hear about why this is historically, culturally or commercially significant, as Pilatus said. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as significant Toronto Road with reference/s providing evidence of significance. Capitalistroadster 04:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep major road. NSR (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Dearth of references makes an article a candidate for improvement, not deletion. — mendel ☎ 20:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Major road has historical, cultural and commercial importance to the several large Ontario cities for which it is a boundary. It is also a heavily-travelled artery. Samaritan 21:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious keep, notable road. Please do some research before putting stuff on VfD. JYolkowski // talk 02:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep roadcruft --SPUI (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this is not roadcruft and it is an article for improvement not deletion Yuckfoo 07:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious Delete, just another road. Quale 02:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if this is truly an encyclopedia of facts in our world, and a few milion people have cursed the potholes on Steeles in the Toronto area, and at the construction at Highway 10 in Brampton, why not?? It's not like the little road in Rexdale that someone added to wiki (still there??), but if this is denying the chance for other postings...then remove ALL roads in Toronto, Canada, and even the world !! (Unsigned comment by Bacl-presby)
• Keep Reminds me of 8 Mile Road in Detroit, as they both mark the northern borders of their respective cities. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:22, 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) 03:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zach White

Self-published author, no evidence of real notability, possible vanity. Alai 17:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 20:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete together with his other vanity entry Conquer the King -- (☺drini♫|☎) 20:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as A7. Publishing a book through CafePress is not a claim to notability, though I've got no problem if this one goes slowly. android79 22:02, 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 delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conquer the King

Self-published work, no evidence of real notability, possible vanity. Alai 17:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete. vanity press indeed! — brighterorange (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity also author entry Zach White -- (☺drini♫|☎) 20:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. android79 22:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Alai. -GregAsche (talk) 22:33, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alligator Rivers

Problem: Not encyclopedic - if to be kept, it should be cleaned up to conform with Wikipedia quality, and put under a better title. Molotov (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Keep per Capitalist Roadster. Molotov (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this and redirect to Alligator River. There are couple of links to this related to Crocodiles. However, the correct title of the article should be Alligator River a crocodile infested river in the Northern Territory of Australia. I will create an article on this river. However, this should be deleted as completely unrelated to the Alligator River and redirected to the Alligator River. . It seems that there are three Alligator Rivers in the same area of the Northern Territory. I will rewrite the article tonight. It was named by Captain Phillip Parker King who thought the crocodiles were alligators. Capitalistroadster 04:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have started rewriting the article with more to come. The article should retain its name because of the three Rivers. The Encyclopædia Britannica uses the same title while the Australian Encyclopædia uses the title Alligator Rivers Region for its article. These rivers are highly significant with part of the rivers flowing through the Kakadu National Park which is a World Heritage Site due to both its human and natural heritage significance. I will be working on this article over the next few days when time permits. Capitalistroadster 10:31, 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 (nice try, cock blockers) · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cock block

This is a neologism, an earlier version has been transwikied to Wiktionary - wiktionary:transwiki:Cock block. This doesn't count as a speedy for recreation as it is much more extensive than previously, however it is still only a definition. Thryduulf 19:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• keep notable social phenomenon with decent article; 47,000 google hits. — brighterorange (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete since official policy at WP:NOT states that wikipedia is not a slang guide. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 20:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I admit to being somewhat out of the mainstream in my position on dicdefs, but I think that WP:NOT permits this article even under a reasonably conservative interpretation. The article is not a mere definition of the term, and it is not a usage guide. WP:NOT does not exclude articles with slang titles (especially if that is the best term for the subject of the article) nor articles about new "low" cultural phenomena. In my mind, this is a pretty notable one with 47,000 googles and numerous pop culture uses—definitely the kind of thing that someone might want to look up—and the article is decent. — brighterorange (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment. "Cock block" is not a slang term in the sense that it is a colloquialism that replaces a formal term, i.e. "rock" for "basketball", or "grom" for "young surfer". I would argue that "cock block" is the only concise term in English for a situation where one's friend is trying to flirt with a girl and is interfered with by another friend. It is definitely a phrase that is in wide use in the United States, and is perhaps the best term to describe a common social situation. So now the questions in my mind are:

1. Can references be cited for "cock-blocking"?
2. Is the subject itself encyclopedic?

I don't know yet. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Four days later, still no references. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep very widespread useage, as User:Fernando Rizo pointed out, it isn't a cultural synonym for a more formal word, it is a phrase in and of itself. -GregAsche (talk) 22:00, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• This is not a neologism, it's a well-known slang term, but there isn't much more that can be said than what is said here, transwiki to Wiktionary and delete. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Any catchy slang phrase that is used by young people nowadays is going to end up all over the internet with a jillion google hits. WP:NOT Urbandictionary. Neologism or not, delete, at most this is worthy of listing alongside other contemporary slang terms. Paul 03:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictionary definition. --FOo 05:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this is not a dictionary definition and we have a bunch of these at category sexual slang so this should be here too Yuckfoo 07:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As noted, this is not a neologism. It is a dicdef, and as is typical for dicdefs that end up on AFD, a completely unsourced one. Quale 02:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Cock-blocker!!! Whooo-hoo. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a dicdef. Joyous (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not just a dictionary definition. It describes a concept that is sufficiently noteworthy to be included in an encyclopedia.--Grouse 19:03, 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 Already speedied --Mysidia (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah race

possibly nn? UniReb 19:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• speedy delete meets CSD A7 unless expanded to explain why she is notable. — brighterorange (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• speedy delete per nn-bio -- (☺drini♫|☎) 20:22, 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 delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Our tree

possibly non-notable... UniReb 19:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-encyclopedic. Punkmorten 20:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete although I found it more interesting than many wiki articles. "We used to have a ladder but someone nicked it", they're voting to delete our tree ... Life's a bitch! Dlyons493 21:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the article and cut down the tree. TheMadBaron 00:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Aw gee, cutest band vanity article ever (see last sentence), but, you know, it's gotta go. MCB 07:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Gently and cutely delete. NatusRoma 05:02, 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. Would normally relist, but this doesn't stand a chance. -Splash^talk 17:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rumdum

nn slang dicdef with poor article, is self-referential. — brighterorange (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 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. Articles not edited since the afd tag, author has rejected userfication. -Splash^talk 17:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pinafore Pirates and The Future (book)

I recently saw the Pirates of Penzance and HMS Pinafore performed on consecutive evenings in Buxton so this title jumped to my notice. But this article is a series of synopses of completed/projected plays written by 11/12 year old Maulik Thakkar et al. It really pains me to dent Maulik's enthusiasm but, very sadly, non-notable. -- RHaworth 20:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Why not create a user account, put this project on the user page and maybe, after it has had some performance success, rethink whether it's become notable enough to resubmit as an article? Dlyons493 21:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I userfied this to User:Maulik2005. But he objected strongly so I am re-opening this debate and adding his latest creation. -- RHaworth 07:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• My Comment - I strongly objected to this deletion because I am that author. RHaworth, will you not give a chance for me to rise from my humble home and try and rise from this simpleness? You really pain me to dent my enthusiasm, huh? Well, what did I do wrong by attempting to simply share what I write with wikipedians. My articles cannot be deleted, and that is as firm as that. If you insist on it, then please delete my account: Maulik2005. I won't be returning to wikipedia. --Maulik2005 10:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Maulik, dear boy, this is your chance. Other Wikipedians may come to your rescue and leave a string of keep votes here. If they do, I shall abide by their decision. In fact, count yourself lucky, I am sure there are some admins who would have said "11/12 year old - cannot be notable" and speedily deleted as a gut reaction. -- RHaworth 11:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Must the argument go on? How is it possibly my chance? If you, RHaworth, are going to insist on deletion, then please do so. I won't returning to Wikipedia, where 11/12-year-olds can't try to become somebody out there. In short, you are accusing me of something which is not, repeat, is not my fault. This is my last posting. --Maulik2005 12:42, 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 -- graaaagh! · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Graaaagh!

Delete, only because I couldn't find a speedy caegory to put it under. Advert not only for a little web game, but one probably used by the creator to try and increase his own score. Icelight 21:16, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete nn / ad Spearhead 21:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and expand WP:CSD. Martg76 21:52, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and eat the creator's brain. TheMadBaron 00:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under {{empty}} rule. Owen× ☎ 00:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the above reasons. --Mysidia (talk) 00:39, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Uncle G as ever writes very persuasive arguments and the article has been expanded considerably. THe two-thirds guideline is too low here. -Splash^talk 17:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Numeronym

A pure dictdef. I doubt that a reasoanble article about such words will be created. Delete or transwiki to wictionary. DES ^(talk) 21:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Whilst sources don't say much about numeronyms, they do say some. Keep. Uncle G 04:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Surely one for a dictionary, not an encylopedia?. Delete. James 09:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC) (Actually 82.70.145.118 according to edit history. Uncle G 11:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC))
  • Some editors contend that an encyclopaedia article that is merely short is a dictionary article. This is false. For one thing, dictionary articles are long. (See cogitare, line, key, and can, for examples.) Short encyclopaedia articles are stubs, not dictionary articles.

    The difference between an encyclopaedia article and a dictionary article is content, not length. A dictionary article numeronym tells the reader about the word "numeronym" (its etymology, meaning, pronunciation, translations, synonyms, antonyms, related words, derived words, and so forth). An encyclopaedia article, such as this one, tells us about the concept of numeronyms (what numeronyms are, the history of numeronyms, the different types of numeronyms that exist, and so forth). A dictionary article is on the "mention" side of the use-mention distinction, and an encyclopaedia article is on the "use" side.

    As the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles says, if you encounter an encyclopaedia article that is erroneously on the "mention" side of the distinction, one thing that you can do to improve it is to edit it so that it is on the "use" side.

    That wasn't the case here, though. This article was already on the "use" side, and labelled as a stub. The correct question is whether or not it will be a perpetual stub, with no hope for expansion. There seems to be enough source material for this not to be the case. And given that the article has already been expanded from its form at nomination, the proof of the pudding has been in the eating. Uncle G 11:58, 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. -Splash^talk 17:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eisner cup

I'm not sure what this is, but it seems to be something very internal on a gaming forum. Uppland 21:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• LEAVE THE CUP ENTRY!!!!! PLEASE! (Unsigned by 63.145.150.3 (talk · contribs))
• Delete, not relevant to an encyclopaedia, a minor web-based fantasy football game with one (1) relevant Google hit. It doesn't belong here I'm afraid. Budgiekiller 08:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Reduce to 1 sentence in length and Merge with GameFAQs (otherwise, Delete..) --Mysidia (talk) 02:32, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Squeeks

Non-notable bio page for a BBS persona. CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete forumcruft. — brighterorange (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Well... Seeing that even Jennicam had an article and seeing the success Squeeks thread were beginning to have, I just tought about adding her to Wikipedia in hope that other users from 4chan would add a lot of informations about her since she's becoming more famous than local figures there. (Don't know if I did this explaination in the right format sorry but I have no account there to sign this)—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:172.211.213.55 (talk • contribs)
• Delete Sorry but Jennicam is notable, a site with high traffic maintained for many years, featured on BBC News etc. Nothing personal, all forum members are deleted, unless they're deemed notable, like John Titor for example. --TM ^(talk) 22:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. (ﾉ∀`) oh 4chan... Thatdog 23:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Speedy under A7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - orioneight (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Breasts are not a valid substitute for notability. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 03:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• O RLY? Yulia Nova

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Kung Pow. -Splash^talk 17:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kung-Pow

Non-noteable, vanity -GregAsche (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• redirect to Kung Pow: Enter the Fist. Kung Pow also redirects there. --TM ^(talk) 23:24, 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 redirect to Pamlico Sound. --Canderson7 14:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pimlico_sound

A non-article, not linked to, and the place is actually called Pamlico Sound (which does have an article).--Keith Edkins 23:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect--often, we'll redirect articles that are plausible misspellings, to make things easier and decrease the load on Afd. Meelar (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as misspelling. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect - though it's a pretty humorous misspelling originated from the NHC and spread by The Weather Channel according to a comment on Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season. I doubt it'll become anything major. AySz88^-^ 03:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Point of interest: the article was there before the NHC product. --Mm35173 05:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Pimlico sound is not only misspelled, but also miscapitalized. Sound is part of the proper noun, either way. Would we set up redirects for Misissippi river, Missisippi river, Mississipi river, or Massissippi river? It's not even a homonym for the correct title. I know redirects are cheap, but come on, draw the line.--Mm35173 04:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Mm35173, there's no need to clutter up the database with a useless article. -- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as a plausible mispelling. --Goobergunch|? 21:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Point of interest: see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion/Precedents - should this become a redirect, it would be an excellent candidate for deletion anyway, becuase it certainly follows the "extremely rare typo" precedent. --Mm35173 19:52, 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. It hasn't been rewritten per the condition in the 'rewrite' suggestion. -Splash^talk 17:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pirates (movie)

• Delete. Non-notable; movie isn't even out yet. Text of article is just advance praise for the movie. Very few references on google. csloat 23:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - What csloat said. --Bletch 00:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite to discuss the 1986 movie Pirates directed by Roman Polanski instead; if this is not done by the end of the AfD period, then delete per csloat. --Metropolitan90 03:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I've just entered an article request for the Polanski movie. No reason to why anyone should write an article about the Polanski movie right this very instant just because someone submitted a bogus article about a completely different movie that coincidentally has the same title. (By the way, imdb shows about seven or eight movies entitled Pirates). Dpbsmith (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. If there are 7-8 such movies, then this page should be a disambiguation page. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

  Even if this becomes a disambig page, I do not think this particular movie should be on it. The only movie so far mentioned that seems relevant to mention would be the Polanski one. I don't think we need an entry for every film, especially not ones that have not come out yet, and especially not when the whole article is basically an advertisement for it.-csloat 19:55, 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Impeach Bush Coalition

A coalition of bloggers calling for Bush's impeachment. According to the external link given on the page, this coalition dates back to September 8, 2005. "Impeach Bush Coaltion" gets 1370 Google hits; not bad for a week's work, but nowhere near proof of notability. Not a notable blog or group of blogs. Meelar (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete pending media coverage or something else to establish notability. --TM ^(talk) 23:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Gazpacho 01:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. --rob 04:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Movement to impeach George W. Bush. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:54, 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 to delete the article. --Canderson7 14:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miranda Biletski

nn accident victim. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Why is this a reason for deletion? User:Miranda_Biletski|^(talk) 23:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• Somebody has already userfied to User:Miranda_Biletski, so delete. Does not seem notable enough to be encyclopedic. — brighterorange (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Salsb 02:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete personal history should go on your user page rather than the body of the encyclopaedia --Porturology 03:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• I really wish Miranda well in her goals. But Wikipedia isn't here for egoboo; it's an encyclopedia. To have an article on here, a person needs to already have accomplished something that makes him or her notable. Just having a goal to achieve that someday isn't enough. Userfy is probably the best solution here. Bearcat 09:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity page. -- Corvus 20:21, 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.