Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 14

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. Postdlf 05:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thunderdome Music Festival

Not-notable, non-neutral point of view, only 2 hits on Google, one of which is here. I say that we delete. --fpo 19:34, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - The Thunderdome (disambiguation), which currently disambiguates 3 pages, should also be removed. --fpo 21:50, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Nine days on AfD and not one solitary vote. Let's go, slackers. :-) --Fernando Rizo T/C 00:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Probably didn't hurt that there was no heading on the original AfD...I admit that my eyes skimmed over it (but they do that!) Anyway, it doesn't seem to be conspicuously popular or notable, so delete. Lord Bob 00:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Most people are unaware, but their mp3 playlists almost always include a thunderdome song". Ridiculous. TheMadBaron 01:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but keep Thunderdome (disambiguation); I've added another item to it. --Metropolitan90 03:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Keep disambiguation. Satyadasa 08:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. I seem to remember something by that name, but the Dutch Wikipedia doesn't have an article on it, so I'm doubtful. Keep the disambiguation. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (keep disambig per Metropolitan90) DDerby(talk) 21:23, 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. Postdlf 05:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Giant East-African gnat

Delete. Probable hoax. Normally I wouldn't bat an eye at a stub like this, but I only discovered it after reverting edits by 193.196.193.110 (talk · contribs), whose only other contributions are vandalism. Google searches for "giant east-african gnat" and "sir gillian whitestead" turn up zilch. android79 00:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax. TheMadBaron 00:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, and above. (0 google results) — Kjammer ⌂ 01:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Lord Bob 01:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, given the track record of the author and the complete lack of references in the article combined with lack of verifiability. Capitalistroadster 05:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. --Apyule 06:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Capitalistroadster. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Colinmac 14:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax. CLW 17:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per CLW Molotov (talk) 22:30, 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. Postdlf 05:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Victims of Society

This was deleted for copyvio on July 4th 2005. Content has not changed substantially from the source material the copyvio was based on. Delete for vandalism and copyvio. Eddie.willers 01:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If it is a copyvio, it should be deleted. However, the article states that the article comes from Wikipedia. Allmusic.com lists these guys as having released one album on the Pup label with no biography so doubts about meeting WP:music are strong.[1] Capitalistroadster 05:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. When non-notable articles are marked as a copyvio, won't people waste their time trying to find out if it's truly copyrighted and/or trying to get permission? -- Kjkolb 08:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Here is a peek inside the mind of a bandity author, though: get the Wikipedia article, then start spamming the earth. Bad, bad, bad. Not a notable or verifiable act, although having a release that makes it to allmusic is something. Geogre 13:44, 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 DELETE. Postdlf 06:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Railway missing links

This article survived a VFD back in April Yes i read VFD results from back then to learn from some VFD mistakes i done recently but it only got One Vote to Merge and the result was Merge to I dont know where which it really aint anything. This article is one of the worst written I Have Ever Seen So Confusing.Reads like a News Bullten also.Strong Delete --Aranda56 01:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete for vagueness. How can you objectively identify places that aren't connected by rail but should be? Gazpacho 02:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for impossibility of becoming encyclopedic, as Gazpacho notes. The single paragraph about Turkey to Georgia to Azerbaijan might be usable as part of Railroads of Turkey or the Transport section of Turkey; the second is just "A UN official said [blah blah blah]." --MCB 07:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not only that but there's also scores of places without a train station which should have one. This can't possibly be neutral. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per MCB CLW 17:47, 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. Postdlf 06:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Open Season (2006 film)

Im not sure if this qualify for speedy but Wikipedia is not nither a crystal ball or a Ad . Delete --Aranda56 01:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No attempt at anything even slightly encyclopedic. TheMadBaron 02:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, IMDB lists this film's status as filming, which means it's not in cinemas for a long time yet (WP is NOT a crystal ball). Naming a few of the cast doesn't make an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• We do have articles on notable upcoming movies, provided they are of sufficient interest and are in production, so an article on this film would be acceptable imho. That said, this isn't much of an article, so I wouldn't mind if it's deleted in this state. sjorford #£@%&$?! 09:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• 2006 film = 2005 delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and there is no notability to a thing that does not yet exist. (N.b. articles on Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy the movie from before its release were about the notability of the making-of, not the notability of the film.) Geogre 13:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — IMDB only lists upcoming films up to 6 months in advance. That seems like a reasonable limit. Anything beyond that needs a lot of rock-solid information, or something of significant interest, to be notable. — RJH 15:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • IMDb currently have 221 titles listed for 2007. [2] sjorford #£@%&$?! 20:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment So Farenheit 9/11 1/2 (which supposedly comes out in 2007) gets kept unanimously and this gets only delete votes. Either Wikipedia has a disproportionate number of Moore's fans or... I don't know what to think O_o.  Grue  19:14, 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete →Raul654 07:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter trolling

This was closed as a no consensus merge, but this has been disputed. Relisting. I cast no vote. I have no opinion on this article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• original AfD

• Delete. Not sure if this AfD is necissary. The article has been redeleted, again as No Merge was done by anyone, Moink saw that the AfD was a delete consensus, and the VfU has no consensus thus far, so it has no reason to be undeleted. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The article has been undeleted. The solution to an unperformed merge is to perform the merge, not to delete. Moink uses a different definition of consensus than the one some other use--as he remarks himself: "I guess there is no consensus on consensus". --Tony Sidaway^Talk 02:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Putting this back here is perfectly understandable Ambi 02:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

  (ambi said more... the resulting off-topic discussion was moved to the talk page)

• Delete. A transient, unremarkable, completely unimportant "phenomenon". No need for the article to either outlive or outshine the vandalism it commemorates. - Nunh-huh 03:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Nunh-huh. I, too, read the earlier AfD as a clear consensus to delete, but I understand that Tony is posting this here in the interests of transparency. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This page has been merged to Harry Potter 6 so Tony could undelete it... we've made a deal to undo the merge if the consensus here is to delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Undelete.. undo the merge.. consensus to delete.. forget it. My head is gonna pop like I'm in Scanners if I try to piece that together. ;-) Fernando Rizo T/C 03:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually I reversed the second out-of-process deletion prior to the merge--it's hard to paste wiki from a deleted article. The merge was, I freely admit, performed largely to dissuade further delete warring while we (or rather you--I'm not going to vote) decide what to do about this article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Like everyone else said. Also, before you merge with a page it's polite to discuss the merger with the page in question. Cmouse 05:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If this was ever encyclopedic, it's not anymore. --Apyule 06:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article is on a an utterly non-notable, non-encyclopedic phenomenon. It should be deleted, but within process. Deleting this article the first time was out of process since that AFD debate had been closed with a reasonable "no consensus" judgment call. It was a fair call by Tony Sidaway to undelete, and bring this back to AFD. VFU is not yet the place to dispute "keep" results (it might be in the near future), and just deleting it so that it can go to VFU (where about 50% to not delete is required) instead of AFD (where about 33% to not delete is required) is not really right either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• I would prefer to see this merged into the article on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince which it pertains to. While trolling is non-notable in itself, this sparked merchandise, and caused considerable controversy within the fandom (fancruft isn't a reason for deletion). I agree this doesn't warrant a seperate entry, though and wouldn't particularly be upset to see it go either. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the HP6 article, as per my previous vote. Since the merge appears to have already taken place, a redirect is required. -- Joolz 12:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, good article, or leave it merged I guess. Kappa 14:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A poor article. I see no change that compels a reconsideration of my first vote. Moink, incidentally, is a woman— a Canadian aerospace engineer at MIT.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον  15:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, same reasons as everyone else, same reason I gave in the last vote. --DocSigma 16:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, all the same reasons as everyone else. Bart133 (t) 22:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and dismiss the obfuscatory merge. It's about a bunch of trolls. Why don't we serve them dinner? -Splash^talk 23:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the useful content, then Delete Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: No Ryan, you cannot merge and then delete as it violates the GFDL. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't think so, Redwolf, although the argument is often made. See [3]—encephalonὲγκέφαλον  01:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. That applies to history merges. We are definitely NOT doing that though. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment. I think the argument is intended to make clear that the vote "Merge and delete" is indeed a valid one to make, Redwolf24. It is sometimes held that it is not valid because keeping author attribution is required by GFDL, whereas a page delete would seem to remove trace of it. However, this is not so. One can merge an article into another and still preserve author attribution in one of two ways: by performing a history merge, or by listing the authorship(s) in the Talk page. The history merge method is somewhat disliked by admins, because of it's laboriousness (and, I'm given to understand, its irreversibility). However, the operational difficulty of one method is no argument that the "Merge & delete" vote is invalid. If Ryan wants to vote that, he is perfectly eligible to do so. Kind regards—encephalonὲγκέφαλον  12:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment: Yes, technically he can vote "merge & delete" but those alternative means of preserving attribution history are all laborious and error-prone. Unless someone makes a very strong case for why I should go to all that trouble, many closing admins (myself included) are going to ignore the "delete" side of that vote. A "vote" unadorned by comment or explanation gets low weight. Rossami (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Oh yes, I'm quite aware of that Rossami—I did read this comment that you'd linked from that discussion I linked for Redwolf. I was here concerned mainly to dispel the notion that it is invalid or disallowed; it is not. Incidentally, and I'd understand if you'd like to take this to a talk page, it seems to me that the decision to disregard the delete part of the vote is one that is usually possible only because the vote is rare; I imagine that if I were closing a hypothetical AfD and was faced with 10 clear M&D votes and nothing else, and all specifically asking for a history merge, I'd be bound to honor those wishes, however unadorned the votes (as I would be if, say, they were all unadorned keep votes). Not that this has practical relevance here, of course.—encephalonὲγκέφαλον  00:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as trollcruft. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• 'Merge or Keep I voted against the article which had the trollish phrase as a title, becuase that was a spoiler. I see no reason to delete this. Septentrionalis 02:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (rename?) I find this article both interesting and informative...and it's about a real phenomenon, not a minor fictional character or an episode in a TV series. Guettarda 00:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment so every true event deserves an article? My grandpa killed 10 red russians before they killed him, should I write an article about it because its interesting and true? It's still OR and UE. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because it's not notable. Deserves maybe a sentence or two in the article on the novel, if that. Tuf-Kat 03:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Uppland 07:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The page title gives no warning to the content - I had no desire to learn this plot element; spoilers were not present. At the least this page can be merged into the spoiler protected section of the main HP page for this book. Toby Douglass 11:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So a merge would be ok with you? -- Joolz 14:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• I tried to merge it into Internet troll as the following sentence: Deliberately revealing the ending of a recent popular movie or book, such as the latest Harry Potter novel, as a spoiler. I wasn't aware that it was up for discussion here again, as I saw it on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. I think merging is still the best solution, and the redirect would do no harm. --Michael Snow 21:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, we now have two merge targets, I think the HP6 article is better suited because the bridge incident was not online. -- Joolz 00:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Trolling is basically online by definition, and that's why I think the redirect to Internet troll is better, given the title we're redirecting from. The bridge incident is not really trolling, it's a stunt. It might warrant mentioning in some appropriate article if someone cares to salvage it, as it's actually much closer to real significance than anything else in this article. --Michael Snow 01:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Michael: You didn't "merge" anything, and I don't know how you missed the AfD notice. —Lifeisunfair 05:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I didn't miss the AfD notice, but because I came to the article from VfU, I was under the impression that the notice was leftover from the previous discussion. And I did merge, after of course quite significantly condensing the content. Check the history of Internet troll. --Michael Snow 07:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm aware of your edit to Internet troll (quoted above). It's an appropriate addition to the article, but it doesn't remotely constitute a merger. I wouldn't even refer to that sentence as a summary of Harry Potter trolling (the content of which is referenced only in passing). —Lifeisunfair 07:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Considering the strong sentiment for deleting the page, it's a merger of the concept this page is really about, minus all the stuff people don't consider to be worth keeping. --Michael Snow 20:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Again, I'm not disputing the appropriateness of your addition to the Internet troll article. It was a reasonable edit, but it doesn't come close to being a "merger." "Strong sentiment for deleting the page" is an argument against merging — not an excuse to change the definition. —Lifeisunfair 20:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I don't really understand what the people voting delete here have against a merge being performed. Very few people are arguing to keep the article in it's entirety, a merge normally does not keep the article intact in it's entirety, the worthwhile bits (e.g. the bridge incident) gets kept whilst the other parts get cut down, I don't see why people are objecting to this. -- Joolz 23:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge some of this into Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince on a permanent basis. A condensed version of the first section (concerning online trolling) would be sufficient, and the banner incident seems notable enough. The radio incident and links needn't make the cut. Of course, all of this is merely my personal opinion. To be clear, I'm voting to turn the page into a redirect to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (with the full history retained, of course), thereby allowing editors to perform (and modify) the merger as they see fit. —Lifeisunfair 05:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: On multiple talk pages and project pages (including this one), Redwolf24 attempted to justify this page's re-deletion by noting that no merger had transpired. Lacking sysop status, how was a "Harry Potter" fan supposed to perform this task, given that the article was deleted less than a day after the AfD debate was closed by Moink? (I directed this question to Redwolf24 in the VfU discussion, but have not yet received a reply. "Something terrible has happened in [this user's] life," so I certainly don't expect one at the present time.) —Lifeisunfair 05:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry to hear the bad news about Redwolf24. Of course there is no speedy criterion "has not been merged yet as required by AfD". The deleting sysop had the option of either performing the merge himself or allowing someone else to do so, or at most relisting on AfD as a disputed AfD close. I decry this recent habit among some sysops of simply speedying articles, without even making any attempt at discussion, because they disagree with another sysop's close. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete HarryPorter Cruft --Aranda56 00:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 06:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big 20

I smell hoax did a google search and I found 1000 articles on Big 20 Volleyball Soccer and nearly all is unrelated or its from sites like Answers.Com who uses wikipedia Info Delete --Aranda56 02:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I too am now convinced it's a hoax (but only after 15 minutes of writing ever-more complex Google queries to exclude mirror sites etc.). Aranda56: well caught! Someone give him a barnstar (cos I don't know how).A bit iffy 02:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. --Apyule 06:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment this is a real game. i've actually seen this game played in pseudo-professional settings on tv before. that said, i have no idea whether or not Big 20 is its usual name. oh, and no vote. Nateji77 14:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Odd that it should be real and have such verifiability problems. We do need to keep an eye on WP:V, as well as wonder if perhaps it's some kind of neosport (like a neologism, but not with words) that hasn't crossed into the realm of notability yet. -Splash^talk 23:18, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Junk. -Splash 03:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interstate 644

Vandalism ReyBrujo 02:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy A6 Attack Page --Aranda56 02:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Placed the Tag Hope that Junk Get Gone Soon --Aranda56 02:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE and KEEP as redirect. Paul August ☎ 18:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Interdisciplinary Institute

Another Not Sure Speedy for lack of content Still NN Merge with Universitat Oberta de Catalunya if its not there or Delete --Aranda56 02:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Catalunya. DS 13:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Redirect as I am merging it. DDerby(talk) 21:31, 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. Postdlf 06:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notting Hill Hotel

Some students from Monash University wrote a complete load of dreck about their local pub. I cleaned it up and tried to salvage at least a substub out of it, but it's still utterly non-notable. Ambi 03:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No indication that this pub is notable other than it is popular with students. BTW, the vfd notice is missing. Capitalistroadster 06:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No notable quaffers frequented the place, despite the cheapness of the drinks and popularity on Uni nights. Alf ^melmac 11:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. I've added the missing AfD notice on the article. Owen× ☎ 20:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It exists, so it's notable, right? Wrong. Bart133 (t) 22:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nott nottable. -Splash^talk 23:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --TimPope 21:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This page and pub are definately notable, especially to locals of the area. The pub has been there for a very long time, dating back to when the area was still farmland, more than 70 years ago. It has been a second home many generations of locals, including students, even my father in his earlier years (around 30 years ago now). It is a very traditional pub which is still family owned, and contains no pokies, and even though it still looks the same now as it did 50 years ago, it still packs in the locals for lunch, dinner, and late drinks. Even 3AW, the states highest rating radio station has written about it (http://www.3aw.com.au/pub_of_the_week/Notting_Hill_Hotel.htm) with a few intersting facts, including that the female owner has been around the pub for over 70 years, and that she may be the oldest continuously licensed publican in Melbourne. The fact that what was written about the pub has been considered a 'load of dreck', does not mean that the pub is not worthy of noting. --User:Anon 19:48, 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 Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American Boonkiddie

Completely non-notable neologism. Google searches for "American Boonkiddie," "Boonkiddie," and "Boon kiddie" yield nothing substantial. Nufy8 02:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism, attack. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

*Keep A good definition. Rogerthat777 08:52 (PST), 14 September 2005

User's first edit. Nufy8 04:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

*Kept Realist True Fact, strong arguement. Finalfuryflash 10:10, 14 September 2005

User's first edit. Nufy8 04:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

*Voting to Keep Non-attack, strong ideology, well difined. Midgetman009890 10:55, 14 September 2005

User's first edit. Nufy8 04:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

:Above 3 delete votes will be disregarded when counting Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator.--nixie 05:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete attack, neologoism, lack of noteability, and possible sock puppetry. — Kjammer ⌂ 05:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please vote based on the article's merits and not based on the turnout of sockpuppets. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think he is, as he's stated attack and neologism as his primary reason. However, I've found that socks hound shite articles, and excessive sockpuppetry is an indication to take a good long look at an article. --Blackcap | talk 21:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism bordering on autologism. Nateji77 13:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. God, who cares? -- Last Malthusian 14:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a dictionary. Nice looking article though. Any new users tempted to vote keep shouldn't really waste their time, the votes won't be counted. Kappa 14:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP It's Interesting. Mikerson60 11:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

User's first edit. Nufy8 18:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

:Above 3 delete votes will be disregarded when counting Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism, too many sock puppets ruin most articles' chances, anyway, but in this case, it's not keepable regardless. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Hard strong violent delete. Neologism, worthless. --Blackcap | talk 19:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom (and block the four sockpuppets). Owen× ☎ 20:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the socks have spoken. Alf ^melmac 20:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, and that many socks usually means it should be deleted anyway. Bart133 (t) 22:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Attack page Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism (zero unique google hits). --Hurricane111 21:35, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. 22 - 1 in one day. Many speedies. Marskell 10:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xenu

The fundamental source of this article is a stolen unpublished document from the Church of Scientology, it is not reliable verifiable to the true Church document regardless of arguments over it by either side. AI 03:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unverifiable --AI 03:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Irrespective of the source, it is notable for being popularly associated with the CoS, and widely cited by CoS opponents; problems with verifiability can and should be addressed in the article. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't care about your POV. Arnie Lerma was tried and convicted of copyright violation because the document is unpublished. The actual church document is not reliable verifiable except through conmen such as Arnie and some other "associates" of his. --AI 04:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Can it be both a copyright violation of a CoS document, and unreliable (false, forged) at the same time? -- DavidConrad 05:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Your confusion may be based on the propaganda of Arnie Lerma or Karin Spaink or David Touretzky. The church won in it's case against Arnie Lerma then sealed the documents. Thus they cannot be reliable verified to the true source. --AI 06:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a former featured article! Please raise any specific concerns about verifiability on the talk page. -- Wmahan. 04:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter if it was a featured article and there's nothing to discuss. The church's documents are legally sealed because they were stolen unpublished documents. There is no way to reliably verify it. --AI 04:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Important Scientology concept. Crypticfirefly 04:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, the concept cannot be verified because it is unpublished and kept secret by the church. It is unverifiable which is the basis for this AfD. --AI 04:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. User:AI declares on his/her own user page that s/he is engaging in disruption. --FOo 04:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Fubar obfusco is a biased critic of Scientology and has just violated WP:NPA by making a personal remark which is irrelevant to the article being nominated for deletion. --AI 04:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, nomination made in bad faith by a contributor who has announced his/her intention to "Destroy Wikipedia". -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Antaeus Feldspar is a biased critic of Scientology and has just violated WP:NPA by making a personal remark which is irrelevant to the article being nominated for deletion. --AI 04:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Regardless of the primary source, I do not see why this page should be deleted. If the concept itself cannot be verified, there are still many sources available that show that this is a controversial or debated idea, just like any other alternative, speculative and disputed theory or conspiracy theory. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What don't you understand about unverifiable? --AI 06:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for all above obvious reasons. Postdlf 05:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually obvious reasons would indicate it should be deleted. --AI 06:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and refer nominator to WP:RFAR. Ambi 05:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Nice Try, but RfAr has been referred to this as evidence of my claims. I really don't care the outcome of the AfD, its more for Wikipedia's own sake in retaining it's credibility and other important issues which Wikipedia should not ignore. --AI 06:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, nominator contradicts himself! --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Voter makes personal comment in violation of WP:NPA instead of commenting on the issue as I stated above. --AI 06:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, I believe that the nomination was made in bad faith by a user who doesn't appreciate that not only is the publication irrelevant, but that their participation, having proclaimed that they have "turned on Wikipedia", is inappropriate. Ral315 05:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I could care less what you think about my "faith." This AfD is to give Wikipedia a last chance to prove IT is acting in good faith. Note the Voter's violation of WP:NPA by making personal comments instead of considering my initial statement above. --AI 06:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Let me also note that the nominator is undergoing an RFArb right now, that, when passed, will ban him temporarily, because of a legal dispute with Wikipedia, and would be banned indefinitely from Church of Scientology-related articles. Ral315 05:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no legal dispute. The arbitrator User:Fred Bauer has demonstrated his incompetence once too many times. He claims I have a legal dispute, but that is based on his misinterpretation of my statements and possibly his confusion thinking that I am Barbara Schwarz. I have asked him to be removed from the RfA. Also the filer of the RfA is MarkSweep who has lied in his opening statements against me and is defending David S. Touretzky. Interesting to note is that DST is one who has been spreading the Xenu documents around the world in defiance of the court's ruling against Lerma..--AI 06:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as spurious, bad faith nomination. Hell, it's even been cited as a source article! Agree with Ambi that this should go before RFAR. - Lucky 6.9 05:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: the Voter's violation of WP:NPA rather than considering that this article is based on an unverifiable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AI (talk • contribs) 06:24, 14 September 2005
• Keep - Nunh-huh 05:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Clear case for a Speedy Keep if any admins are passing by. Capitalistroadster 06:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: The the last few voters are probably sock puppets. --AI 06:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Why do you say that? Who are they sockpuppets of? I can see no evidence for this in their edit histories. --Apyule 07:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Other than the fact that they've never been photographed together, I don't see any reason to accuse Lucky 6.9, Capitalistroadster and Nunh-huh of being sockpuppets, AI. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep just like with Jesus. I think that this is a bad faith nomination. I would support putting this to RFAR. --Apyule 06:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Zzyzx11 --Irmgard 07:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep lots of reliable independent verification for this presented in the article, regardless of the legality of the Church's official documents. Ziggurat 07:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep no brainer. --Sgkay 07:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep we need this nonsense to be exposed --Crgn 07:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Xenu is one of the main aspects of the CoS, a notable church. Zach (Sound Off) 08:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. This VfD is nothing more than a troll, as User:AI has admitted that his only reasons for participating in Wikipedia at all are to disrupt it. Examples: here, here, and especially here.--Modemac 09:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: bad faith nomination coupled with ad hominem attacks on respondents AlexTiefling 09:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep -- good article Mgormez 10:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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) 21:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jibbering records

Nothing notable that I can tell. --Hooperbloob 20:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Note: re-listing, as there were no votes either way following the original nomination. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. The web site seems to paint them as simply a record store, not a record label. If they're a label of even modest signficance, I would include them, but I can't see proof of that. --rob 08:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising for a local store. No evidence of it being a label. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it is a single, non-notable record store. -- Kjkolb 09:42, 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. — JIP | Talk 17:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DBP

Appears to be a non-notable band. Wmahan. 03:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Based on their own web site, which says: "Yes, that's right. DBP is dead." --rob 04:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, non-existent band. Self-released does not meet WP:MUSIC. DBP is dead, long live DBP. --DavidConrad 05:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Delete. under A7. I've put up the tag. --Blackcap | talk 20:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, forgot A7 applies only to people. I just want to get rid of the vanity bollocks without having to wait for a week. I'll be more careful next time around. --Blackcap | talk 21:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nothing on allmusic.com, nothing of note on Google. Fails WP:MUSIC. Nnandity. -Splash^talk 23:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and Redirect Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Plymouth

Managed to duplicate HMS_Plymouth_(F126)

• Rather than deleting them, these duplicates ought to redirect to the more page with the registry number or whatever that (F126) is. --DavidConrad 05:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the external link and redirect to more complete article. Remove the line about other ships by that name from the article, until we've got them an actually need to turn this into a disambig. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Mgm. Alf ^melmac 20:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong disambiguate - it would be extremely remarkable for the Royal Navy to adopt a name for that has not been previously used. Someone needs to do some research to find a list, that's all. Dunc|☺ 20:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We only need a disambiguation if we actually have other articles about similarly named ships, but we don't, so we can wait and make the disambiguation later. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • No we don't. As explained below, the role of a disambiguation page is to disambiguate. Links to HMS Plymouth should be taken to a list of all ships of that name, regardless of whether or not those articles exist or not. That avoids creating link from an article which was intent on mentioning one vessel being taken to a page on an entirely different vessel. See allpages/HMS, and you'll find lots of redlinks to ships that haven't been written about yet. Dunc|☺ 18:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• This should be a disambig, ala HMS Orpheus. The Royal Navy just loves reusing their names, so good disambigs with the dates of founding are essential Ziggurat 00:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• This needs to be either a redirect or a disambiguation page. In several instances, I have typed in a name of a ship, without the hull number or pennant number (because I don't know it), and I get a page saying something that 'the page does not exist, would you like to create it?' I know it is there, but I am not being sent to the right place. Keep, and either use as redirect or DAB page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Woohookitty 11:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Onyx

Managed to duplicate HMS_Onyx_(S21)

• Redirect to main article. --DavidConrad 05:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to HMS_Onyx_(S21) unless it can be made into a disambiguation. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to HMS_Onyx_(S21). Dab as per Dunc. --Blackcap | talk 20:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Alf ^melmac 20:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong disambiguate - it would be extremely remarkable for the Royal Navy to adopt a name for that has not been previously used. Someone needs to do some research to find a list, that's all. Dunc|☺ 20:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • But there aren't any other articles regarding boats called HMS Onyx (search results). So, what would it disambig? It would just say, "HMS Onyx can refer to: HMS Onyx (S21). This is a disambig page." There's no point, unless I'm missing something. --Blackcap | talk 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • There are no other articles on other ships or submarines in WP. But that is irrelevant. The purpose of a dab page is so that if an article about something in the Great War links to HMS Onyx, they don't get taken to the 1960 built submarine, but a dab page explaining where the link ought to point, in this case, there was indeed another earlirr boat called Onyx, (see here), and others as well, such as a depot ship from 1892, and probably more even earlier than that. Dunc|☺ 23:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for clearing that up. There's no need to call my point stupid, just make yours. --Blackcap | talk 23:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• This should be a disambig, ala HMS Orpheus. The Royal Navy just loves reusing their names, so good disambigs with the dates of founding are essential Ziggurat 00:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Disambig, appears to be the standard for this kind of page - unless someone can come up with a counter-example. Megapixie 10:15, 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 Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darkstar One

From the article: "Darkstar One is a computer game currently ... in development .... It ... is scheduled for a release in the first half of 2006." There will be ample opportunity to write an encyclopedia article on the game once it actually exists. Delete DavidConrad 05:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete' WP:NOT etc. --nixie 05:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert for non-existent game. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, etc. Colinmac 15:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • 18 total edits, 14 out of which are all to VfD/AfD.

*Keep, it's not uncommon for unreleased games to get a wikipedia article (see for example X3: Reunion). Furthermore I don't think that the "Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball" criterion applies here, because preparation is in progress and merits encyclopedic inclusion (why else is the world full of game previews and developer diaries?). 84.61.30.153 23:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

disregarded by closing admin Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 23:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• • The user has 2 edits, both of which have been to this page.
• Delete, promo for future product which has no current encyclopedic significance and no indication (verifiable or otherwise) that it ever will have encyclopedic significance, even if it meets the stated goals. One more space-sim game will not be sufficiently noteworthy unless it gets literally millions of users or generates some controversy widespread enough to get covered in major mainstream media or a bestselling book or something. (No, a few bits in the morass of gamer sites isn't enough by itself.) WP:NOT a gamer's guide. And I'll vote "delete" on X3: Reunion if nominated, too, unless verifiable evidence of impact (not just "a new game engine") is provided. Barno 01:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Barno: I don't think there is a "...not a gamer's guide" rule at WP:NOT. And honestly I can't find a rule that talks about "impact on the masses" or something like that, either. Quite on the contrary WP:NOT states in Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia: "This means that there is no practical limit to number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." I really don't see why an empty Darkstar One page should be preferred over a page that actually provides some information, without violating the WP:NOT rules. 84.61.30.153 03:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • As of a couple of months ago, "Wikipedia is not a gamer's guide" was explicitly part of WP:NOT. I don't know when it was removed, but I didn't see any discussion of its removal. (That page gets edited daily or more, including non-consensus changes which are often reverted.) "Wikipedia is not a web guide" is another point that has been removed, and is relevant. Regardless of where or how it is communicated, Wikipedia:Importance still applies. There are disagreements about how to apply it; but the only reason that Pokemon characters, for example, are kept is that editors demonstrate that vast numbers of people in many countries pay attention to them, not merely because they're something verifiable on the internet. I agree with Dpbsmith's proposed wording for future stuff: "Information on unreleased products, software, games, or movies may be appropriate when the plans for the product are so notable that they are affecting many people in the present." Can you demonstrate verifiably that this is the case for Darkstar One? If so, I will change my vote. Otherwise, not until the program actually achieves the sort of status usually shorthanded as "notability". If a professor (someone with influence on human lives far less trivial than a video game) is required by WP:BIO to be "more well known and more published than an average college professor", why should games get a free pass from WP's general standards? Barno 23:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, does no harm. -- Vardion 01:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does no good. Quale 02:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It gives people information about something if they want it. That's always good. If we can provide this information, and it doesn't do any harm, why shouldn't we? -- Vardion 21:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If people would've wanted "do no harm" to be a keep criteria, I think it would've been included in the official policy. I think it was skipped simply because it includes anything. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamecruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:46, 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 DELETED as copyvio, by User:RedWolf. -Splash^talk 18:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Planet of the Apes Soundtrack

Text copied and pasted from the blog linked at the bottom of the article. WP:NOT for personal music reviews. Delete. - choster 05:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong speedy delete, Wikipedia is not a place for opinionated reviews, certainly not copyvio'd ones. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio, however if someone wanted to write an article about the soundtrack album that would be fine as there is plenty of precedent for such articles. Just write your own instead of cutting and pasting someone else's work. 23skidoo 19:36, 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 waskeep. Woohookitty 11:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Artworx

Non notable; advertisement. 24.54.208.177 05:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Not an advertisement, not sure about noteability but it is a real company. — Kjammer ⌂ 05:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, telling what the company did in the 80's doesn't read like an ad to me. 24.54.208.177, is this your newest attempt to get rid of the images in the article? --IByte 13:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP very notable early recreational software maker. 132.205.45.110 18:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep no evidence of advert other than hornblowing about witty comments, which can be edited. --Blackcap | talk 20:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems legit. I vaguely remember seeing that game around 1985. Owen× ☎ 20:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real company, sufficiently notable, not an ad. TheMadBaron 00:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If this is what I'm thinking of, I played it and may still have the disk for the Apple II+ version of the game in the basement somewhere. But why does the article not mention that it was a strip poker game? --DavidConrad 05:26, 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. Woohookitty 11:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The ghost next door

Bandity. Utterly unverifiable. Funny how someone who worked with Joe Satriani has no Google whatsoever... - Lucky 6.9 05:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - I've no idea what the article is talking about. It's totally incomprehensible . jmd

• Delete. One-year-old band article in very poor shape and with no indication of notability as per WP:music. As far as I can tell, one of the members studied guitar studied guitar with Joe Satriani. No allmusic.com page either. Capitalistroadster 06:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. vanity per above. Nateji77 13:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:57, 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. Woohookitty 11:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Dobbins

Delete - There's nothing mentioned about this guy that makes him notable. jmd 05:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, he worked together with Arnold Schwarzenegger for a book on bodybuilding as can be see here on Amazon.com and he has indeed other books on Amazon. I would imagine, while I know little on photography and bodybuilding that multiple books on the subject and having photographed some big names in bodybuilding would make him notable for an entry even though his website looks pretty bad. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, reluctantly, for Mgm's reasons. Plus, he's an inspiration to all those who want to turn their fetish into a career. -- Kjkolb 09:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, he is published, we have much more obscure published authors, at least he is notable in a 'pop-culture reference' sort of way. unlike some obscure theologians. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The guy has clearly had a cultural impact.Vizjim 16:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - certainly notable enough. 23skidoo 19:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- Reinyday, 00:16, 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. Woohookitty 11:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clancy James

Vanity AlistairMcMillan 06:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nom jmd 07:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete absent any indication of notability. JamesMLane 09:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. TheMadBaron 00:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

To Alistair McMillan, the Australian Mathematics Olympiad is held in February, and the Australian Mathematics Olympiad Contest is held in August. Blnguyen

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aleksei Boiko

Vanity AlistairMcMillan 06:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete self-promotion. --Ghirlandajo 06:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Similar case to Alexander Belikov which is on vfd and is likely to be deleted. Dlyons493 07:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, same author as Clancy James above. -- Kjkolb 09:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 00:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Retain. It is notable, he is the only Australian to have achieved this feat. Blnguyen 2.30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note zero previous edits. Although likely to be the User:192.43.227.18 who created this page and just made this edit... [4] AlistairMcMillan 03:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:00, 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. — JIP | Talk 17:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leroy Brown

patent nonsense CH (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• If we had an article on the notable song Bad, Bad Leroy Brown by Jim Croce which reached the top of the US charts in 1973, we could redirect to that. [5]. As it is, the article doesn't appear to be notable so delete. Capitalistroadster 07:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• It seems that there are a number of notable Leroy Browns according to What Links Here including a 1924 silver medallist in the long jump, a wrestler and of course Bad, Bad Leroy Brown as in the #1 US hit by Jim Croce. It was even the name of a horse in the 2004 Olympics ridden by a Russian equestrian competitor. It should be a disambiguation page. Capitalistroadster 07:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It should be a disambiguation page once articles on those people and horses are written. Right now it would be a disambig page with nothing but red links, and red links are dangerous vandalism fodder. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is nothing more than an elaborate dictionary definition to justify the last line. A scene from a game is not worth a seperate entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as patent nonsense. The guy who became a battlecry - who is notable, as the story about appeared in the PC Gamer UK magazine, if not others - is Leroy Jenkins. -- Last Malthusian 14:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Create disambig here, as per Capitalistroadster . --Jacqui M Schedler 01:30, 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. Woohookitty 11:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calle Ciega

nn band -- (☺drini♫|☎) 07:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as rewritten. Nomination withdrawn. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 13:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per info from BMG Music (with allmusic guide person written bio) and per allmusicguide entry. The CDs listed on allmusic are available at Amazon and BarnesandNoble.com. All in all it looks pretty notable to me. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup per Mgm. --rob 09:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable band. Needs cleaning up (or rewriting) though. — JIP | Talk 09:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Having a #1 in Venezuela certainly qualifies under WP:music as does having a gold and platinum album respectively in that nation. Apparently, their concert tours were well attended so they have a national tour to their credit. Capitalistroadster 11:12, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. --Durin 17:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 220 Oak Street Tenants Association

This is a non-notable tenant's association for a single building with only 50 members. It has a few unique Google results, but not a lot. Kjkolb 08:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comments only, no vote: does anyone has any clue about its notability and significance to be here. --Bhadani 17:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. a) It's a blatant advertisement. b) A tennant's association for a singly building has very, very little notability. If it was for a 5000 member project it might come close, but this misses that mark by a couple of orders of magnitude. --Icelight 17:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important to both its members and to potential members.Gateman1997 18:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the cafeteria in the building I work in is important to the people who work there, people who will work there and people who walk in off the street, and probably more people care about it than this tenants' association, but that doesn't mean it should have an article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Icelight. Owen× ☎ 20:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity advertisement for the association (note the use of "We"), with no reliable 3rd party sources to back it up. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely unimportant to most of the 6 billion people on earth who are not members or potential members. Probable copyvio. Probably does violate WP:NOT and absolutely does violate common sense to keep this. Gamaliel 05:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Notable to Toronto, less so to Canada. I've only heard of them through documentaries on the notorious Regent Park. This is only a comment because secretly I would like to see it cleaned-up and stay even though it doesn't meet notability standards. If tenants associations ever do get included into Wikipedia this one should first in. --maclean25 06:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, your secret's out now! Mindmatrix 17:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable; reads like they think of Wikipedia as free web space. (Full disclosure: I can almost see Oak Street from the roof of my building. But then, I wouldn't support an article for the Winchester Square Residents Association, either.) Bearcat 08:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It's an ad right now, and even if it wasn't, I don't think it merits inclusion in WP. However, if someone can re-write this to be more informative and explain its significance, I may change my vote. Mindmatrix 17:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement. Zhatt 20:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --TimPope 21:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: This page was previously VfD'd. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/220 Oak Street Tenants Association. I've removed the content, and placed a {{deletedpage}} tag on it. --Durin 17:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. As per Durin. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:00, 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 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. Woohookitty 11:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trung-smith project

A band with zero Google hits either doesn't exist or isn't notable. Kill. sjorford #£@%&$?! 09:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• "one of the most influential contempery band of the 21st century". Smells like a hoax to me. Delete. - Demogorgon's Soup-taster 10:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. If the assertion was true, they would've garnered Google hits. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 00:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Our_tree from September 13. --MCB 01:41, 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. — JIP | Talk 17:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jayanth Ganapathy

I can't tell whether this particular guru is notable; the article seems to be a rambling discourse on the role of gurus in general. Delete. JamesMLane 09:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no non-wikipedia results for '"Jayanth Ganapathy" guru' on Google. -- Kjkolb 10:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We already have a page for Gurus. TheMadBaron 11:31, 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. Capitalistroadster is effectively a keep and verify. -Splash^talk 18:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star 106.9

• Delete. Completely non-notable, and a huge lack of information.--SoothingR 09:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: there seems to be a wide consensus that all radio stations are notable. Once a radio station goes under, does that make it instantly non-notable? See Category:Australian radio stations —Wahoofive (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, licensed radio station. Kappa 22:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. According to the article, this station is now Nova 106.9 in Brisbane see website. [6]. However, my understanding is that the station was set up as a result of Nova acquiring the website in an auction which is confirmed by this 2004 article in a media magazine. [7] According to this website, Star FM was located in Ipswich, Queensland although it would probably be heard in Brisbane. The topic is notable but the article needs verification. Capitalistroadster 00:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable radio station. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:12, 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. — JIP | Talk 17:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Molly bolly

Surely if this info needs to be recorded anywhere it could be included on the molecular biology page? Alternatively an entry on academic slang could be started instead, but I'm not sure what use or interest this would be. Demogorgon's Soup-taster 10:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'm studying biochemistry at Utrecht University and I have never heard of such term. If it can be documented, by all means, include it in Molecular biology, but it's not worth a seperate entry.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete on general principles as a slang dicdef. That said, I'm also a biochemistry student at Williams College, and I've never heard it. (But it sounds vaugely Australian, and I'm not from there.) We do use "PreMees" for pre-medical students, but I don't think that needs it's own page. --Icelight 17:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Still not an urban dictionary. Don't start any joint pages for this stuff. We have the Wiktionary for that. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transit of UFOs

Strange garbled stuff about UFOs -Moogsi 10:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Mish-mash of non-notable "sightings." Marskell 11:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete odd ramblings which have presumably been entered here in order to drive traffic towards the website to which the article links. CLW 13:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia is not a tin-foil hat convention ;) --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverified/unreliably sourced. --MCB 01:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, with some users recommending a move to [[Islamization. -- Joolz 00:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islamicization

Non-Notable neologism, which if it belonged anywhere would be wikitionary. Irishpunktom\^talk 11:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Conform what Irishpunktom said. --SoothingR 12:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Not a neologism so much as a bunch of recognizable lexemes stuck together to make a word that's not really a word, but comprehensible to many, many people. But Delete it anyway. Nateji77 13:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In the field where I have been working, the history of Sudan, Islamicization is a much discussed and important notion. - SimonP 13:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

keep as the transitive Islamicization, or move to the intransitive Islamitization? Nateji77 13:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I have mentioned on Darkfred's talk page that there are a number of parallel forms e.g. "Anglicisation", "Commercialisation", "Industrialisation" etc. (Or spelt with a "z" if you're that way inclined in the first case. --MacRusgail 13:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This is my new 'Made up word of the day'. This word will obviously never be used in any real sense; It is impossible to pronounce. Plus it doesn't really do anything new, its a stub. 'When' an actual article is written consider placing it at Spread of Islam or in the already existing History of Islam. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per SimonP. Move to Islamization. This is a real word. This stub must be expanded so that it is something more than a dic-def, though. Perhaps something could be incorporated from the History of Sudan? Ground Zero | t 15:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — 18,000+ google hits. (Compared to 200,000+ for Christianization, &c.) — RJH 15:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. Who cares how many Google hits it has? Ground Zero, do you really think "being a real word" is the only necessary criterion for inclusion in an encyclopedia? Why is it that every damn dicdef gets so many "keep & expand" votes? Sometimes there's nothing to expand.—Wahoofive (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Wahoo, please reconsider you tone. It is unnecessary. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Can't we all just get along? If you re-read what I werote, you will see that I do not "think "being a real word" is the only necessary criterion for inclusion in an encyclopedia". I think that this is a real word about a concept that deserves an encyclopedia entry. This stub is the beginning of that entry. Ground Zero | t 16:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Who cares? I do. Google count is one measure of notability. If this article is not simply a dicdef, then clearly it should remain. My vote stands, and you need to work on ameliorating your anti-social attitude. :-P — RJH 15:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. "It could be expanded" is not an argument against deletion, though "It has been expanded" is. If someone really feels like writing a proper article after this dicdef has been deleted, nothing's stopping them. As far as Google hits go, the 'word' abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz gets 500,000 hits, twice as many as Christianization. But is it a word? Nooooo. -- Last Malthusian 16:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz is a short article on wikipedia, so I'm not sure your example stands up. --Quasipalm 17:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Expand used in press, several different issues here. A redirect "Islamicisation" should also be in there. Ref. also "Umma" --MacRusgail 16:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, real process. Kappa 17:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it's a stub waiting for more content, and I think that's it's reasonable to assume that more content could develop, given time. --Quasipalm 17:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't know what the case is in America, but this concept has all kinds of ramifications (beyond a simple dicdef) in Europe. I've added some content, but it really needs an expert's contribution.Vizjim 17:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'll say keep. LexisNexis gives it over 300 uses in periodicals (and another 230some uses as spelled "Islamicisation.). Important concept, but if kept must have a close watch for POV. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm... now I'm torn. "Islamization" seems like a more commonly used word, but also "Islamification" shows up as valid usage. I don't really care where this ends up, but create redirects from the rest. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 13:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Islamization (see here, for instance) and expand. We already have a quite lengthy, though untidy article on the islamization of knowledge. This page can potentially have information on the historic islamization of Sudan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, to name a few, and on more recent topics, such as the islamization of terrorism, women's human rights, and Europe. The lack of these topics on Wikipedia is not a reason for deletion. Karol 22:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep plenty can be said on this subject in various contexts --Doc (?) 00:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Islamization. TheMadBaron 00:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Islamization per Karol. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but I would be happy to see all similar words for the same concept merged together with redirects. --Apyule 06:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Islamization. Notable process. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Islamicization Is the common european term for a variety of phenomena. I wish WP would work out a satisfactory way of reconciling the different usage that exists in the u.s. and europe, often the assumptions of similarity made by u.s. contributors can have the result of making whole entries unreliable to european users. In this case someone looking for info on a legitimate word will not find it if the page is deleted, even though the content may exist under Islamization. Seems we really are divided by a common language - I would like to see an alternative to disambiguation for cases such as this (a word which in itself sounds strange to european ears where 'clarification' has served as a good verb to counter 'ambiguity' for many years) - any ideas on how to go about suggesting such a process? 80.0.168.8 12:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC) not logged in usual username is ttifrap

Wouldn't a redirect do the trick? Karol 14:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

But Islamicization and Islamization are not necessarily the same thing. Islamization is a philosophical process - so, for instance, you can Islamize the study of physics. Islamicization is more geopolitical in meaning (e.g. the "creeping Islamicization of the inner cities" was a phrase I read recently in The Daily Telegraph). Vizjim 14:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose islamization covers both meanings, with islamicization being an alternate spelling (very unfriendly to the tongue). Please refer to the links I gave in my vote to see both meanings in various contexts. Karol 19:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• And Google says: Islamization (215,000) plus Islamisation (153,000) = 368,000. Islamicization (18,700) plus Islamicisation (629) = 19,329. I think that the geopolitical use of the word is probably far more likely in English-language media than the philosophical process, but "Islamiz/sation" is the word that is being used, not "Islamiciz/sation". Ground Zero | t 15:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Karol 19:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Fair point (though it reflects American dominance of the Internet).Vizjim 10:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Dicdef neologism. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Dicdef or not is for the group's votes to decide. However, Islamicisation is not a neologism. Use stretches back at least 20 years (to describe Zia-ul-Haq's Islamicisation process in Pakistan).Vizjim 10:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, time for a reality check; Wikipedia does not determine what constitutes a dicdef. We can sure vote to keep them and expand them, pretending that they're encyclopedic articles, but that's just pretending. Try to remember that a Wikipedia decisions are only relevant to Wikipedia, not the real world. And what exactly is it about this article that can't be described in any other article? And lets face it, this article is going to be used to complain about the influence of Islam in non-Islamic culture; the perfect POV-magnet.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. "Islamicization" may be a neologism, but it means the same thing as "Islamization", which certainly isn't. According to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, the verb "Islamize" was first used ca. 1846. I think after almost 160 years this is no longer a neologism. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Fine, it's not a neologism. It's just a plain dicdef.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:20, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Coorey

• Google gives no results on him, so I guess he's either an amateur player (therefore non-notable) or non-existant, which also means we should put this article up for deletion. Either way, let's get rid of it. --SoothingR 12:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - has already been deleted once before, and contents have now been blanked out by original creator of entry CLW 12:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If the first article's content was substantially the same as this article, that would be a speedy delete criteria. And if the original creator of the material blanks it, that would also be a speedy delete. In short, speedy delete. Wow, that was a lot of boldface. Lord Bob 18:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Well, the original speedy deletion was "CORY DOWNES RULESSSSS YEHHH THIS PAGE IS DEDICATED TO THE COOLEST GUY IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!", so the fact that this version actually had something in it means that it is not a recreation. However, the originator of this version also blanked it. So speedy delete would be appropriate. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete template added CLW 07:19, 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 delete -- Joolz 00:50, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New_marketing

This appears to be a vanity page 213.199.128.156 12:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Presumably created in order to drive traffic towards Jaffe's blog - advertising. CLW 12:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Al Gore invented search marketing. Nateji77 13:52, 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. Not enough debate, but it's almost an A7 speedy anyway. -Splash^talk 18:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magnus Aronson

Vanity - previous edit included his Hotmail address in case you wanted to contact him. Entry doesn't give grounds for notability, and I've not found anything myself. Entry states that he "was involved" in a few short films shown at film festivals, but the films aren't named and the extent of his involvement isn't detailed - may have worked for the catering team for all I can tell. CLW 12:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

His own presentation here, still not notable in any sense. Thuresson 14:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nominated. TheMadBaron 01:01, 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 -- Joolz 00:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mama Viol

Vanity? Contains no real information about the band, who do not seem to be notable. Presumably the entry was created to drive traffic towards their website. CLW 12:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

delete nn - vanity --Terry ^{T | @ | C} 15:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete any band that can't spell 'prog'. TheMadBaron 00:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of meeting WP:MUSIC. Friday (talk) 15:47, 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 -- Joolz 00:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Violent Silence (band)

Vanity? Contains no real information about the band, who do not seem to be notable. They have supposedly recorded one album, but the lack of a name for this album suggests that it has not actually been released, let alone enjoyed any success. Presumably the entry was created to drive traffic towards their website. CLW 12:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Nateji77 13:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with excessive force, but quietly. TheMadBaron 01:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday (talk) 15:47, 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. The non-specific comment certainly reads like a delete. -Splash^talk 18:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leif Martin Tobias Sjödin

Vanity? Article does not establish notability CLW 12:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I searched Swedish websites for this "musician" but found nothing. Apparently not a musician in the sense of a record contract or chart success. A joker with a broadband connection and too much spare time? Thuresson 14:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. TheMadBaron 01:08, 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 -- Joolz 00:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bibyu

non notable neogolism. --SoothingR 12:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. tho a high school with a playground might be notable. Nateji77 13:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kappa 14:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - dic def, and a piss-poor one at that. CLW 14:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologistic dic-def, can't see any room for expansion. Alf ^melmac 20:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, seems to be invented by the author. Bart133 (t) 22:58, 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. — JIP | Talk 17:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Reynard

This "famous" film director and producer is apparently not famous enough to be listed at IMDb (search), neither is his work. I wouldn't be surprised if the only contributor, User:T1v37r, is Tim Reynard himself. Thuresson 14:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

imdb imo isnt a very good criterion of notability. on the one hand, if a film screens at a festival, it qualifies for an entry. on the other, a lot of notable work just isnt there, simply bc imdb--like wikipedia--depends in large part on volunteer contributors. Nateji77 14:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete notability not established. Nateji77 14:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment - If this gets deleted then Holly Mann Should be speedy as her only claim to fame is being an extra in a Harry Potter movie and being in the above Person's creations. And she is his cousin. Terry ^{T | @ | C} 15:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

delete nn - looked for this director and only found to links to mirrors of wiki. Terry ^{T | @ | C} 15:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Yes, IMDB depends on user input but if the guy was in any way famous as claimed, he would've had an article by now. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

About Holly Mann: The article also claims "Holly is most well known for her star roles in many pantomimes across Britain". Theather appearances are a lot harder to check online, I think, but she should definitely not be deleted because she appears to be related to this guy or for having only one very minor film credit to her name. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, probable nn. Comment:Creator's name, when de-leeted, is "Tivelr", I think. Bart133 (t) 22:55, 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 -- Joolz 00:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yucky erika

nn-band, never signed, never published, not even notable indy work, currently disbanded Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 14:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Nateji77 14:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn, and the entry itself confirms this. How considerate. CLW 14:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Bart133 (t) 22:53, 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. — JIP | Talk 17:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mutya Buena

I was thinking that this was on the razor's edge of notability, and then changed my mind. She was a friend of a notable musician or two, and a song on one of their albums was dedicated to her, but that, in and of itself, isn't enough. We may have an entry for Julian Lennon (to whom Hey Jude was dedicated), but he was notable by himself. Mutya Buena is more like Julian Lennon's kindergarten classmate Lucy, subject of Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. DS 14:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)Ah, okay. The version of the article that I saw didn't mention that she was part of the band; as such I thought she was just some random person who happened to know the musicians. Vote changed to keep (actually, can I withdraw my nomination?). DS

delete if it is considered for keep, recommend that more connection to notability is made. keep and partial merger of the on-topic information with an article on the song/album that was dedicated and this person's significance with it. keep and expand as per Fred's find below. Terry ^{T | @ | C}

• Comment: What are you talking about? She is a member of the band. Her sister Maya died. Fred-Chess 17:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Fred, if you go add something to the article plz do not come back here and post as if it was there the whole time. Tell us what you found and why we should change our vote. Since you did find notability I will change my vote. Terry ^{T | @ | C} 17:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

keep and expand, but I was the one who redid it to the current version, and it is next to impossibile to find out anything else on the person on google. It would probably be best to find a fan of the ban to help expand this one Trjn 03:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep now that notability has been established. CLW 07:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Sugababes. She's notable because of her affiliation with the group. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I disagree with the suggestion to merge to the Sugababes article - keeping a separate entry means that she can be categorised by year of birth. CLW 12:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

There's no point in keeping articles just to sort them by birth. If she's not even interesting outside of the context of the group, she's certainly not worth categorizing.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:22, 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 BJAODN and DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of peaceful wars

This list seems to have been created simply to include a reference to the Three Hundred and Thirty Five Years' War, an anomalous diplomatic situation between the Isles of Scilly and the Netherlands. This 'war' seems only to be known by that name on Wikipedia and its mirrors, and to fail more or less every criterion for being a war. As the article on the war notes, Guinness Superlatives have not recognised it as such. I think the '335 years war' article is on very shaky footing (Scilly and the Netherlands were united in a personal union during the reign of William III, which makes it unlikely they were at war, to put it mildly.) Creating a list to hold a reference to this scarcely-notable non-event is pointless. 'Peaceful war' seems oxymoronic. I'd like to suggest that the 335 years' war article be deleted too, but that may be a bit too Bold. AlexTiefling 15:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The title in itself causes potential POV problems. It's also very vague. Would the Cold War count?(overall, not the ancillary wars such as Korea or Vietnam) Does that include non-military "wars" or rivalries? How about War Games? I could go on. Alex is right, this article just seems to be a way to get notability for a barely notable situation. Karmafist 16:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for many reasons. First, what Karmafist says, especially regarding vagueness (is this only declared wars, for one thing? Do deaths from non-military action such as blockades and embargos count? Are there enough non-violent declared wars to make a list worthwhile?) and hard-to-escape POV issues. Plus, even if such a list were worth keeping, it's hard to picture what useful, brief annotation one could put beside each peaceful war, and it would thus probably be better served by a category. List of peaceful wars, huh, yeah. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Lord Bob 18:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteThe Soviet invasion of Japan was part of WW2.Dudtz 9/14/05 4:49 PM EST
• Delete, oxymoron. Also, list fails to include the ongoing good-natured war between Guatemala and Uzbekistan, or that nasty-but-bloodless conflict between Namibia and East Timor. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN Deserves deletion - but the siliness of the concept of "peaceful wars" - as there are none - make me want to keep it somewhere. Unsigned by User:V. Molotov
• [[BJAODN should be deleted, but it's BJAODN material. Bart133 (t) 22:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because Wikipedia has multiple wars that fit this description. Gazpacho 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - no BJAODN, I didn't laugh (which is my only criterion for a BJAODN) --Doc (?) 23:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN, I guess, because it's far too brilliant an idea to just delete it. Better still would be to give it a less oxymoronic name (List of bloodless wars?), include criteria for inclusion, expand, restructure and keep it. I've added a link to Berwick-upon-Tweed at war with Russia, and I can see this growing into something wonderful if given a chance. TheMadBaron 01:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what to do with this. First off, the whole concept of a peaceful war is difficult. This leads me to think that renaming to something like "Bloodless Wars" might be a workable idea, but that doesn't really cover the fact that some of these were part of wars that were far from bloodless (Civil War, Crimean War, WW2) and the others were mostly minor border conflicts. I guess that leaves me with no option but to go with a Delete. --Apyule 05:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral The idea of a peaceful war isn;t so strange. For example, during the Napoleonic Wars, Sweden declared war on Britain to keep Napoleon happy but told the British privately not to worry about it, they weren't serious about it. However, I'm not certain whether or not a category is better than a list in this case. A list potentially could include a brief one line explanation of why the war was peaceful. Caerwine 11:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I just don't know that any brief one-line explanation could do the reason justice. It would obviously be explored in the article, but the reasons are likely to be somewhat complicated. Although I admit that the Swedish-Napoleonic-Wars thing could probably be briefly explained in a line since, well, you just did. Lord Bob 16:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or BJAODN I have no problem with the concept of peacefull war primarily because war is a diplomatic condition that must be declared by one or both of the warring parties, therefore as in Berwick-upon-tweed the two parties can be technicaly at war while not actually undertaking hostilities. I agree with the comments by MadBaron above. not logged in, usual username ttifrap 80.0.168.8 12:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN 131.247.118.128 23:12, 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. — JIP | Talk 17:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silos message

This is not a proper Wikipedia article: instead somebody apparently just copy-pasted a tidbit of information, which now appears in the encyclopedia without any context, and which merely serves to advertise the embedded hyperlink. --Maikel 15:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• ... plus, even the title is grammatically incorrect (missing hyphen)! --Maikel 15:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• This is a direct copy from the website rferenced in it, and i have tagged it as a copyvio. If it is released, or rewitten not to violate copyright, a check should be made to see if this "message" has any widespread notability. if it does it should be kept, otherwise it should be deleted. DES ^(talk) 18:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • this site seems to suggest that this subject may be notable enough for an article. If kept, should be moved to Silo's message. DES ^(talk) 18:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't question that Siloism merits an article, but that the existing article is an adequate Wikipedia article. --Maikel 09:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wait until someone writes a proper article which would go on Silo_(mystic) or Siloism. We would not even need this as a redirect. -- RHaworth 22:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete it and forget about it. If there's any notability in this supposed "message", this article entirely fails to communicate it. TheMadBaron 02:08, 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 NO CONSENSUS, especially given the merciless rewrite. As pointed out, the earlier revisions are copyvios, and so I will delete them and leave the non-infringing revisions. -Splash^talk 18:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Synergetics

This article is total nonsense, probably computer generated. The only true thing here is that synergetics is a field invented by hermann haken. Synergetics is a branch of physics that deals with the self organising properties of matter in thermodynamic gradients. I'm not saying that I disagree with what is in this article, I am saying it is literally nonsense - its a hoax Duracell 15:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I have left a message on the Bucky Fuller page and with some its editors who, hopefully, will be able to clarify the situation. Alf ^melmac 20:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Simply needs more wikification. The article currently uses some Fullerisms ("omnihumanity", "comprehensivist", etc.) and Fulleresque prose. I believe it can and should be cleaned up, to describe Fuller's (and Haken's?) synergetics without using Fuller's dense lingo. Harris7 09:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Owen× ☎ 20:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment please note the nominator's edits to the article here and here. Synergetics is a valid topic needing more eyes, it does not read as "literally nonsense", the syntax is very extended, obfuscated even, but it's not nonsense. The nominator states "probably computer generated": computers like humans and furry aliens, maybe, apologies to any other undisclosed life form editors, but it was not written by the electric, chips and bytes type (mmm... chips). Alf ^melmac 06:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete A large number of scientific publications shows, that Synergetics is the interdisciplinary field started by physicist H. Haken (1969). See the Springer Series in Synergetics - or any other scientific publication on Synergetics (try Google...). 17:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• yes, on second thoughts it is not computer generated. I came accross this because I wanted to link to it from an article I was writing, and pressed for time I only skimmed the synergetics article. But the article seemed to me so bizarrely off the point of what synergetics actually is (and it is not about omni-humanity, nor is it a self-discipline, whatever those things are) that I imagined that some algorithm had plugged in some synergetics terms and people to a random post-modernist bit of text. On a proper reading, it does not seem as bad as I first thought. However, it is still *terrible* and if it remains, people will be miseducated by it, which is bad. Even worse, serious scientists who might be interested in haken's work might gather the impression that it is quasi-philosophical fluff, which it is not. So, delete, and since I work in an institution where most faculty were taught by haken, I will try to put together something better when I can. Here, for completeness, is a course description fro the center for complex systems and brain sciences at Florida Atlantic university:

Synergetics

An introduction to Synergetics, the theory of self-organizing structures, will be given along examples from biology, chemistry and physics. Deterministic and stochastic models will be studied, e.g. Laser equations, Navier-Stokes model, Ginzburg-Landau systems, Fokker-Planck theory, master equation. Prerequisite: Introduction to Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos. ISC 6464

Duracell 17:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your re-appraisal, Duracell, a better option than deleting maybe to put a fix it/contested information notice on the page until your good self and/or other editors can do a good re-write. What does apply to the usage by Bucky can be severely pruned and included in a seperate section, as it is, as you say, philosophical. We need to de-fluff and un-quasi that bit so at least readers can understand what's going there. I would venture that a true encyclopedic entry would have it's scientific and philosopical values equally well explained. I would need some time to review Bucky's side, as you and others would Haken's. Alf ^melmac 20:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • I've had a chat with someone who has been working with Haken for a long time, and it seems that the situation is: synergetics is indeed the study of self-organisation in physical systems. And of course, we can use this theory to study other (related) things such as neural dynamics (which is what I'm starting out in right now). *But*, it is also the case that haken himself, as well as BF, used the concepts they devised to promote a braoder philosophical outlook, as well as specific conceptual applications that go beyond physics, and even beyond experiment. I read a nice article last year actually in which Haken took the notion of an affordance and suggested that there is a (somewhat mysterious) "cognitive gradient" (because the organism *needs* something*), after the manner of a thermodynamic gradient, in which the brain self-organises to detect the affordance. I'm all for this stuff, I really am, I was just a bit shocked by the aparent randomness of the orginal article on here. I go along with the idea of two articles, one for the well defined physics stuff and one for broader "world view" type stuff - and I think both Haken and Buckminster-fuller would agree.Duracell 22:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Certainly the existing page needs much work. Note that there seem to be two separate uses of the term "synergetics" — perhaps that is why there is an apparent dispute. There may however be connections between them: for example, Gibbs' phase rule is involved with phase transitions at which self-organization may occur. I think there's potential for a very interesting page (or two pages with disambiguation) to come out of this over time if enough people work together. Supporting Alf ^melmac's suggestion, I vote to keep the page, add a cleanup tag, and see what develops. -- JimR 01:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This article is a complete plagiarism from [8]. Word for word. S.N. Hillbrand 13:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for finding this, S.N. Hillbrand! There is no point Wikipedia carrying the text of Kirby Urner's page (though not copyrighted) when a link will suffice. I've been bold and replaced the article along those lines. -- JimR 23:44, 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. Postdlf 05:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Centipede on the Roof

unverifiable information, appears to be a hoax created with regards to the AfD-listed Rory Conroy article. Rynne 15:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

These guys are not a hoax. Rory Conroy is the singer. Do not delete please. Bikes 17:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Bikes doesn't actually exist - the comment above is courtesy of 13.8.125.11 CLW 18:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that 13.8.125.11 (aka "Bikes") is the sole author of this article. Rynne 21:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable (Google returns zero documents for "centipede on the roof") and possible hoax. There's also a sock-puppet campaign to keep these pages listed, which should be discouraged. | Keithlaw 17:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Band either doesn't exist or might as well never have. Either hoax or vanity, no need to decide which. Postdlf 19:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Please note that 13.8.125.11, who tried to cast a false vote as Bikes above, has been adding this spurious perosn and their spurious lead vocalist Rory Conroy all over the place. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and block 13.8.125.11 TheMadBaron 01:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity article.--Kaonashi 02:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real band of moderate fame in Ireland, moreso Dublin. Seems inflated, basically true.--Rude Toes 17:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No such user; comment actually by 159.134.77.51, whose only other edit was to vote as "User:Cat With Goggles" in the Rory Conroy AfD.[9] Postdlf 16:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE ALL. The redirect suggestion is not appropriate since this is the English Wikipedia! -Splash^talk 18:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kiril, Raghnall, and Heaven Sect

Fictional characters in the PC game All The Knights. Since an article on the game didn't show up during the almost 3 months these have been around, I guess the characters are not needed on WP as well. Nabla 16:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect "Kiril" to St Cyril, as this is what he is known as in Russia I think! --MacRusgail 17:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all as nominated, or create All The Knights and merge. TheMadBaron 01:57, 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 Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erasmus mafokepolos

Delete as most likely a very elaborate hoax. One finds a total of zero (!) hits for "Mafokepolos" even by itself. In case that was just a misspelling, Erasmus + Dante + various terms yeild no likely looking pages. Surprisingly detailed, though. Icelight 17:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain hopefully somebody can do something to it. Molotov (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - if he were notable, Google would surely dredge up a hit or two. CLW 07:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain How would you like it if, when you went to go get a copy of your birth-certifacte one day, and the office told you that it had been deleted because your life was judged a hoax? Sheesh. Google isn't the whole world, you know. Try finding any information on Jibuzaemon Gonnosuke, for example.

(Tolal of three edits three edits, two of which were to the aticle, adding a lot of detail. Paul August ☎ 22:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC))

• Abstain-sustained. i've seen him referenced in an anthology of greek poetry, but it was in greek. "Mavrokefalos" is his the closest approximation of the greek sirname. I believe the name originated in the greek island of cephalonia, third largest in greece, from geneological data. - A poet and part-time geneologist in Boston, MA.--RBWiseman Souyore 01:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

(Only edit. Paul August ☎ 22:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC))

• Delete. Unverifiable. Paul August ☎ 04:04, 25 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 BJAODN and DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WCQ

Self-evident hoax. BJAODN material Grobertson 17:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete as hoax, after optionally putting a copy on BJAODN. DES ^(talk) 17:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Brilliantly written, but without references cannot be kept. Owen× ☎ 22:23, 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, default to keep Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phenylbutazone

This article should be deleted so that Benzone can be moved to it and Bute (horse) can be merged into it Malcolm Morley 17:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete would be my vote. Please read Talk:Benzone if you are going to vote on this. Thanks Malcolm Morley 04:06, 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 No Consensus, default to keep Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dreyfus and Dreyfus model

Looks like an essay, should be deleted or throughly rewritten. - Laur 17:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, original research/essay. --IByte 18:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition and rewrite as a sourced article. Apparently the Dreyfus Model is real and the subject of numerous academic, etc., articles. Google search "Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition" (without quotes) is 43,700 hits. "Dreyfus model" alone yields 483,000 hits. --MCB 02:01, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ethan Vaughan

No google hits for "Ethan Vaughan", the only assertion of notability in the article is newspaper coverage (otherwise I would have tagged this as a speedy). Does not seem notable, unless there is info about this person not included in the article. Delete unless expanded with verifiable indications of notability. DES ^(talk) 17:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Baltimore Sun thing's has got to mean something. Also, the law thing seems important, and his cousin is intriguing. Does she exist? Is she really a Conrad staffer? I'll look it up, but if most of it is true I'd say keep. History21
  • http://vocusgr.vocus.com/grconvert1/webpub/ahcal/ProfileLegislator.asp?LegislatorID=1279%7CS&XSL=ProfileLegislator&Menubar=Staff
  • Alright, his cousin is a Conrad staffer. History21
    • Not everyone who is mentioned in a newspaper article is noteworthy or should have a wikipedia article. The article does not indicate why the Sun coverd this person, assuminmg that to be true. Being a staunch critic of Bush is surely not notable in itself. Nor does having a cousin on a political staff mean a person is himself notable. DES ^(talk) 17:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
      • ^{Note: History21 has 25 edits as of this post, of which 17 are to AfD/VfDs. -- BD2412 talk 20:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)}
  • History21 (talk · contribs) has had an ID since February, but in fact only has 5 edits to article space. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete "Ethan Vaughan" + baltimore gets one non-related hit. At best he had an op-ed piece without his full name in it. No verifiable assertion of notability. --Icelight 18:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, smells strongly of personal flattery. Mr Bound 20:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the article doesn't even try to allege notability. Is everybody who went to the same camp he went to supposed to get an article? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a second cousin of George W. Bush shouldn't even be enough to get someone an article -- much less being the second cousin of a senator's mailroom director. Nor is having a poem printed in a newspaper, nor is going to summer camp. --Metropolitan90 01:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• I know I'm going to be alone here, but Keep Even state-wide recognition is notable enough for wikipedia. Any Marylanders out there? Yes? No? Maybe? nanaszczebrzeszyn
  • Sure, but does he really have "state-wide recognition" Pleanty of people have appeared once or a few times in a newspaper, but two weeks later nobody remembers them. If this guy is actually widely known in one US state, sure keep the articel, but i would link more than a satemetn that a poem of his was published in the Sun to show that he is at all widely known in maryland, or even Baltimore. My name has been published a few times in a regonal newspaper, my picture too, but i wouldn't claim that I was widely known. DES ^(talk) 20:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • User's third edit (first since March) and all to VfDs. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if he is famous locally, it doesn't suffice to be considered notable. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO, and no sources for any of the claims. Quale 03:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Definitely, as per above. Caerwine 09:11, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darrant

Wikipedia is not a (webslang) dictionary. Bunchofgrapes 17:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Wiktionary. Owen× ☎ 22:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete, no transwiki. I don't think this is real webslang. Kappa 23:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, wiktionary won't want it. --Carnildo 23:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Not the kind of thing for wiktionary either Dismas|^(talk) 00:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Valeoism

This seems to be a vanity page, devoted to a non-notable, if not barely existent, political "movement" invented by the article's creator (Google search). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless significant evidence of notability is added to the article. DES ^(talk) 18:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• I suggest people refer to my entry on compromise posted on the article's discussion page. If what I suggest is for some reason impossible then my verdict is delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.8.87 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 16 September 2005
• Delete this mofo. Dude can get a website, but this article ain't knowledge.--Pariah 05:25, 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 Speedy Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Americo-polo-jew

Is this an actual word? I think not. -- Aleph4 17:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to be part of an attack on some student. See also related article Aric Gillinsky. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-widespread neologism, seems to be primarily used by one person. DES ^(talk) 18:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "Your search - 'Americo-polo-jew' - did not match any documents." First time that's happened in a while. This isn't even a felicitous neologism. Why wouldn't someone just say "Polish-American Jew?" (Was I the only one that thought it was a reference to Jews that play polo?) Dpbsmith (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• De-lete. Neo-log-ism. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as an anti-semitic attack page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:51, 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 - Joolz 00:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Instituto de empresa

Delete. The whole thing reads like an advertisement (WP:NOT violation). --IByte 18:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as ad unless someone can rewrite it. Gateman1997 18:49, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Reasonably notable European business school, and certainly one of the top few in southern Europe. This is a university-level institution with a pretty good pedigree; I've a feeling Novales ( the strategy guy ) is something on the faculty, and I imagine they have some notable alumni ( probably running Spanish corporations ! ). I'll try and tidy up the article to make it less like an advert ( though it's not my baby, so I'm not doing too much ! ). WMMartin 20:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Tidied it up a little, though I forgot to put in the Forbes' list ranking. Job for someone else, I think... :-) WMMartin 21:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is down there as one of the worst article stubs I've seen, but it was just created today (give it time) and it is a notable university-level school. If there is no content of value in a couple months, then AfD it. Cmadler 20:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. A leading international business school. Per their page, their MBA program ranks 6th on Forbes' list of non-US MBA programs. Fact based articles are NOT advertising. This is clearly a notable school, and should be expanded, not deleted. Unfocused 20:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't just vote keep because it's a notable school. Take a look at the article and see if the content it has is worth keeping. The school may be used by the Queen of England but if it's an advert it needs to go, regardless of what it's about. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Your comment is contrary to the deletion policy. Voting to keep is completely in line with the deletion policy if the subject is worthy of an article and if the article clearly identifies the subject and contains enough to demonstrate that it is worthy. This is obviously such a case. Unfocused 13:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete spam; but keep a decent rewrite. Dunc|☺ 21:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep nice rewrite and thanks WMMartin. The original version is a copyvio [10]; someone might want to zap it. Also belongs at Instituto de Empresa Kappa 23:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewrite and move per Kappa.BillyCreamCorn 23:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per WMMartin --Vsion 00:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this is a school.--Nicodemus75 05:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • See my reply to Gene Poole below. --IByte 23:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Appears to be a tertiary business school, and such schools are notable. If there are copyvios in the history those should be eliminated. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, I've removed the copyvio from the history and made a note in the history explaining why the deletion tag was there. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please we also do when they are third level schools unless something has changed but probably not Yuckfoo 07:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and please stop nominating schools. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Obvious bad faith nomination. Keep, and censure nominator.--Gene_poole 13:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? May I remind you of the policy Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Please read the rest of the page; the page you voted on is a rewrite of what I originally nominated. This also means that my VfD was based on the way it was written, not on the mere fact that it's a school, which I thought was clearly reflected in the text of my nomination (but perhaps an {{advert}} tag would have been better). Since when is expressing your opinion on whether an article appears to comply with Wikipedia policy an "obvious bad faith nomination"?
    (and you can keep the rewrite) --IByte 23:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and congratulate nominator for bringing a horrible stub to the attention of editors willing and able to make necessary improvements. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The stub for this university-level school appears to have been removed from the history, but it seems to be agreed upon in a unanimous fashion that articles about schools at this level should be unquestionably retained. Silensor 19:49, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] G0ys

Delete neologism with a website and ~130 unique google hits. If someone really feels keeping some mention of it, make it a redirect to a more complete page (I'm sure there's one somewhere) on the subject. That said, we don't need to keep every splinter group of an ideology. Icelight 18:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism for the time being. -Splash^talk 23:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Quale 03:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stylebiter

Aparrently it's an irregularly updated music blog, though currently the contents seem mostly to be about a goat. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 17:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Author blanked the article after deletion notice was added. jni 18:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. I'm tempted to speedy it under WP:CSD A1 (lack of content). --IByte 18:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday (talk) 15:54, 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 History Merge Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 16:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brothers In Arms/Temp

strange article about the game, way before release, main article is now Brothers In Arms: Road to Hill 30, this article is now redundant Beanbatch 18:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Content was probably merged and thus needs to be preserved per GFDL. Move and merge with the history of Brothers in Arms. Delete the temp redirect, and keep the one on Brothers in Arms as it's quite useful. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Given the likelihood of us having an article on the Dire Straits album, would this page be better as a disambig? Grutness...wha? 04:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Spod. Forget that - having just looked at Brothers in Arms I see you're waaay ahead of me. Grutness...wha? 04:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, disambiguation between the game and the album is a good idea. Just don't delete the history of the temp page. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:32, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Podestrian

Delete, non-notable neologism dicdef coined by a humorist for whom I can find no references. --IByte 18:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Molotov (talk) 22:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Apyule 05:27, 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. – Rich Farmbrough 14:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Gauci

Delete or reduce drastically the content. Who is this man? Is he worth an entry in wikipedia. What is the last line in the article? The article proofs to be very long, yet the encyclopeadic content is very limited.. the content is a series of dates and events which are irrelevant to the Wikipedian concept. Maltesedog 19:18, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Molotov (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There seems to be a reasonably notable man named Charles Gauci, a stage magician, but this article isn't about him. 68.20.28.234 02:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Maltesedog you really show how silly you are. If you go to the history books at the University you will find a number of books written by Dr Charles A Gauci. Also before you get crafty MAKE sense. You want to delete but also say reduce. Make your mind up!!! Here are some links of who this person is. [11];[12]; [13]; [14]. It seems the Maltese Government knows who he is. Lastly if you do happen to have a copy of the Maltese Coats of Arms, guess who its been written by? You guess it, none other then the person you want deleted.Tancarville 15.00 15th September 2005 (EST)
  • You have a strong interest in keeping articles concerning Maltese Nobility online, even though they are of no importance whatsoever. I look forward to the view of others concerning deletion of this article, whose encyclopeadic content is barerly none, since the article only contains figures and date. Tancerville, please stop accusing me personally.Maltesedog 06:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I do have a strong sense of the Nobility as if you refer to your deletion to the Maltese Nobility, there is an essence of recording history. Dr CA Gauci biobraphy does need to be cleaned up especially with those titles, but I dont agree his biography should be deleted at all.In future you should place a cleanup tag and note reasons for the clean up, then make communications with its author, and if its not to the satisfaction of Wikipedia, then proceed to deletion. I find this very unfair that you simply strike something rightaway to deletion when this biography was simply published only a week ago. Be fair and give others a chance. .Tancarville 08.49 16th September 2005 (EST)
      • Given the size of Malta and the number of Maltese nobles, having an article for every Maltese noble in Wikipedia would be like having an article for every city councilman for every medium size city in the world, and the Maltese nobles don't even have any real power. None of the accomplishments listed in any of the links provided above strike me as notable. At most, authoring a directory about Maltese nobles merits linking to his website from an article about the Maltese nobility and including his name in the description of the link. Caerwine 05:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep My my my, Maltese Dog, you are such an important fellow! Whether you keep me on Wikipedia or not is of no real consequence; for your information, I am a Senior Consultant in chronic pain management based in London with two textbooks to my name (the latest is being translated into Spanish, Korean & Japanese), I am a Member of the Board of Directors of the World Institute of Pain, a member of the Board of Examiners for the FIPP Diploma, an author of many medical papers, an international lecturer on chronic pain (Europe, Asia, USA & South America) and also happen to be a visiting consultant in Pain Management to St. Luk'es Hospital in Malta. Have written several books on Maltese Genealogy and Heraldry which have become the standard reference works. I'm sure you can think of many other people who have achieved more than me; maybe one day you will too; until that time, learn some manners, this will serve you well when you graduate.Dr CA Gauci MD...(ps I'm not the magician!)
• Delete Holding a non-exclusive title of nobility from an extinct state that possesse no de jure power deriving from that title is not enough to warrant being notable and I don't see anything other than that in this lengthy article that is a claim to notability. Caerwine 11:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Is having a noble title sufficient to have an article in Wikipedia? If no delete Maltesedog 17:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Refer to the deletion of Maltese nobility. Do you read anything and understand any comments made by others in previous attemps for deletion??Tancarville 08.49 16th September 2005 (EST)
    • Maltesedog you should really take note of comments made in the deletion of the Maltese Nobility. You are unjust with your comments and most importantly if you even look at the who's who in Malta you will find me there. Over time you shall locate just about everyone in the who's who of Malta in Wikipedia.Dr CA Gauci MD 09.49 16th September 2005 (EST)
  • Comment (Hopefully my last) I see three claims to notability that Dr. Gauci and his supporters are making

1. He is a Maltese noble. Problem: Simply having a noble title is not sufficient to make someone notable.
2. He is the leading expert on Maltese nobles. Problem: The number of people interested in Maltese nobles (at least in an English encyclopedia) is almost certainly below the 5000 person threshold to make that notable enough for Wikipedia. Probably would be enough to justify an article on the Maltese Wiktionary, but there doesn't seem to be one there. (Which I readilly admit doesn't mean much since there are less than 1,000 articles on the Maltese Wiktionary, but perhaps if the gallant defenders of Maltese nobility would make an effort there would more articles there.)
3. He is a notable practioner in pain management. Problem: While I can't speak of his second textbook, I can find a great deal more information on the co-author of the first J.R. Wedley (who happens to have first billing on that textbook by the way) than I can on the Dr. Gauci. Unfortunately for Dr. Gauci, what I can find on him indicates that he is not any more notable than an average professor. Now if Dr. Gauci has developed a bold new technique in pain management that has become a standard approach in that field, that would certainly make him notable, but it's not in the article and I haven't found any indication that he has.

In short, I stand by earlier view of this article, that it is a non-notable vanity article and should therefore be deleted. Caerwine 14:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi ,

I was searching the site when I came across this articly, and I must say I was quite impressed by it.

How come that this Lt. Colonel Dr Charles A. Gauci, a totally irrelevant person to Malta is featured here? I find it to be a very misleading article as readers who are not familiar with Malta are inevitably induced into believing that he is somehow to be considered important, whilst in fact he can be considered anonymous!

I don't think that this person, whoever he is [with due respect], should be mentioned here, and thus this article should be removed.

Maria P.

• Hi there Maria., you failed to provide Facts to why Dr Charles Gauci shouldnt be listed here. Charles does come from a very historical and influence Maltese family. His sister (Mrs Zammit Cordina)only just received the Highest Order in Australia for her work in Malta and Charles will soon receive one of the Highest orders by the Republic of Malta for his efforts to Heraldry and Genealogy. Please be sutle and respect those who have achieved. This gentleman does deserve the honour of being listed on wikipedia. If not then we might as well delete all Maltese biographies including former Primeministers. Maria you also failed to provide a User name and also proof of membership. On that account your words are meaningless. Maltesedog has always failed in his attempt to provide FACTS other then a reduction to Dr CA Gauci's biography. .Tancarville 07.00 17th September 2005 (EST)
  • That his sister may be notable, does not make him notable. That his familiy may be notable does not make him notable. That he may receive an award, may make him notable once he has received that award if the award is notable and that fact can be verified. The onus of demonstrating notability is on those claiming that he is notable as if he is notable, that fact should be easy to show. Caerwine 03:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tancarville has created a bunch of troublesome articles on persons who are allegedly Maltese nobility. Against Wikipedia norms he signs the articles, and they are generally taken directly from web pages Tancarville authored. Original research, verifiability suspect, notability unclear. Finally, the article is a dreadful read. If you had been interested in Charles Gauci before, you won't be after trying to read this article. Quale 03:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You hit the nail on the head.. that's what i'm trying to say.. !! quale.. I don't know, but the same matter applies to whole list of articles listed in Maltese Nobility. I insist upon deletion. Noone is going to threaten me by calling me stupid or silly. Personal offences are also against the wikipedian policy. Maltesedog 13:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I insist upon deletion. Hmmm. Rich Farmbrough 19:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• If this is a valid title, then keep, but I suggest keep it short. Move the material on the title itself to another article. Rich Farmbrough 19:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support Farmbrough., Dr Charles Gauci does have a legitimate noble title, though I do agree that his biography should be shorten. But I dont agree that it should be taken down. I am persistent with this as I am the author who placed this on wikipedia. Many thanks. Tancarville
• Caerwine said it all. Just because you're noble is not reason for retaining an article. Tancarville, you should understand the scope of wikipedia.
  • Just to be clear on my point of view, I feel that modern nobles, who have no political powers deriving from their status are not by default notable. Charles Gauci is just such a modern noble, and as such the fact that he is modern noble does not make him notable. It doesn't preclude him being notable on other grounds, but none of the other facts presented about him are sufficient to warrant him being called sufficiently notable to have an article of his own in a world-wide English-language comprehensive encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. A brief mention that he is the sole and current holder of a particular noble title would be appropriate in an article about that title, assuming he has such a title. The text of the article makes it sound like his brothers and sons (if any) also qualify to concurrently hold those titles that he does possess. Caerwine 18:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Caerwine that noble Titles are not sufficient for someone to have a biography on wikipedia, though has any one read what Dr Gauci is, other then his noble connection?? He is one of the world specialist in Pain management. Does the annoying User:Maltesedog understand this or is it as silly as the dog is? At the end of the day, common sense should prevail, not studipity because one has a disliking to those who were born with a silver soon. Please view Dr Gauci's biograpghy from the first two paragraphs and comment on that please. With respect Dr Gauci is connected to a title which I am also connected to Vassallo-Paleologo which is extended to all descendants through the male and female lines. This does give those the right to style the title of Count or Countess. HM, Queen Paola of the Belgiums is also a descendant. Importantly, only a small faction really style themselves a title, as there are descendants all over the world and can run into the thousands of living descendants. Tancarville 14.15, 21 September 2005 (EST)
      • I already addressed the other points raised as arguments for Dr. Gauci's notability in my comments of 14:43, 16 September 2005 and 17:51, 20 September 2005 and said why I found them lacking. Caerwine 09:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all the folderol that's now in the "Count Gauci" section as of vanity significance only. I'm unenthusiastic about the rest, too. But is this Gauci the junior author of A New Guide to the Birds of Malta (Valletta, 1982)? If so, then he starts to sound interesting. Anyway, he's said to be an expert on pain. Is he an expert on pain? I am not qualified to judge. -- Hoary 04:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC) PS The reek of vanity is overpowering, and the sockpuppets don't help. USERFY, or rather, let Dr CA Gauci MD add as much as he wants to User:Dr CA Gauci MD. Incidentally, I note that all the contributions to Wikipedia by Dr CA Gauci MD are in one way or another directly related to Dr CA Gauci MD. -- Hoary 09:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have all of Charles Gauci's books and he is a man of talent and genius. I believe he should be kept. Also a renown doctor and specialist in pain relief. Preziosi 04:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Remarkably, this is Preziosi's very first contribution to Wikipedia. -- Hoary 09:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Hopefully not my last either. Seems I support User:Tancarville original work and I strongly believe that User:Maltesedog should take a strong look at itself. Very sad day indeed defending other Maltese from Maltese themselves. Incidentally, I am a second cousin to the Count Preziosi which makes me very proud to be connected to the Nobility. Half of the present members of Government in Malta are of noble descent. So good work Dr Gauci. Preziosi 1100, 21 September 2005 (UTC).
      • Half of the presenet members of government are of noble descent. I doubt whether you are living in Malta. Details please. 10:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Dear Dog., I do indeed live in Malta, actually I live at Portomaso. Its all nice here in a modern village. I hope you are in refine quarters too. Here is a list of those on both sides of the Government of Malta that are of noble descent.- Abela Anthony; Abela Carmelo; Agius David;Abela Joseph;Arrigo Robert; Brincat Joseph; Azzopardi Frederick; Azzopardi Jason; Deguara Louis; Debono Grech Joseph; Galea Ċensu; Galdes Roderick; Galea Louis; Herrera Jose; Gonzi Lawrence; Parnis Silvio; Gonzi Michael; Refalo Anton; Mifsud Bonnici Antoine; Sammut Joseph M; Mifsud Bonnici Carmelo; Sant Alfred; Vassallo Adrian; Pullicino George; Pullicino Orlando Jeffrey; Vassallo Edwin; I hope you now fully understand (Maltesedog).,Preziosi, 14.00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Suppose what you said is true, i'm quite sure nobility is not what made them notable.There is no proof. In no electoral description prior to election reference was made to their noble birth. So nobility does not imply being notable. Anyway forget it, I leave the deletion thing up to the administrators and other wikipedians. I look forward from other comments from other wikipedians. Maltesedog 17:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Thats true, half of the Politicans in Malta are of noble descent, but are famed for their elected position as politicans. Though Dr CA Gauci is a famed person for his works to pain management and also to their nobility and historical works he has achieved in his life. I also believe he published a book on Birds as well. Maltesecount 19:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
        • [the contributions by "Maltesecount" so far] are to this AfD and to his or her own user page. -- Hoary 02:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I am told that [User:Maltesedog] was rejected with his application when he presented his lineage to become an Associate member of the Foreign Titles Assocation of Malta because they were self styled and false. Is this really a get back against the Author who is also the Secretary of the Assocation? A personal attack on Gauci and all the Maltese Nobility as a whole?? You certainly have put the Maltese people in general down for a lack of pride. Dr CA Gauci MD, 900 21 September 2005.(UTC)
  • This is stunning news, Dr CA Gauci MD, especially considering that Maltesedog doesn't reveal any other name on his or her user page. Was the FTAM approached by somebody calling him- or herself "Maltesedog", or how do you know his or her name? And you are told this -- by whom? (That is, if you really think this is significant.) -- Hoary 09:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment' I never applied to become a member of the Foreign Title Association of Malta. Please proof your statements and do not invent on persons who have nothing to do with the matter just to gain personal advantage. What you stated was a pure lie. Maltesedog 09:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Reply I dont believe that wikipedia would let me place your name here, or you (maltesedog) would use that against me. So to protect myself, I have made a statement but to not inclur an upsetting of the (maltesedog) I shall refuse to comment further. Dr CA Gauci MD 1025. 21 September 2005, (UTC).

• • I don't think you have to worry about the last line or any other part of the article M-dog, as the article is surely doomed -- either to be userfied or to be utterly deleted. -- Hoary 13:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Very mild intimidation - ignore it. Argue solely on the merits of the case. I'm interested in knowing more about these "founts of honour" - they seem worth documenting. Furthermore if titles are legitimate enough for Burkes Peerage, they should probably be on Wikipedia. If not, then there is a good chance we should document the various "founts" of these titles, in order to clarify for users their relative obscurity and unimportance. What, for example is a Hereditary Patrician of Rome & Messina? Is it a title in an disetablished nobility? Or is it a Green Shield stamp title like some Lord of the manor titles? Or is it a bunch of people who have found what they believe is a legitmate way to confer honours on each other? It appears that there are several categories of "Maltese noble". Firstly and secondly those whose title stemmed from the Maltese state/kingdom, living either before or after the titles were disestablished. Thirdly those whose titles are from some other court. The number recognised by the state as legitmate forms for "social use" seems small enough to document exhaustively, the last group is less certain, and may not be bounded, depending on the answers to other questions psed earlier. Rich Farmbrough 15:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Roderick Mallia 16:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • • Comment'

It's sad to see that a simple discussion and exchange of opinions has turned into a barrage of personal attacks of the base kind. You would expect a little good taste from such 'notable' and 'reputable' figures. All this 'mud-throwing' going on in here in an attempt to dirty the other side's reputation and make him seem less credible is really childish. Unfortunately, those in favour of the article seem to have picked on Maltesedog and haven't really answered the comments of the other Wikipedians who are opposing the article. But I digress. The article, IMHO, should be deleted for all the reasons stated by Caerwine. Being mentioned on a website or publishing a study doesn't make you notable; and neither having a title with no particular significance. We've got renowned specialists as well in Malta apart from Dr. Gauci. But are they notable? Of course not. Maybe if they took part in some ground-breaking research or came up with something original and innovative it would be a totally different story. Unfortunately Dr. Gauci doesn't seem to fall in any of these categories. --Roderick Mallia 16:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Further reading of what Tancarville said above (see Vassallo-Paleologo) this "style" of Count is not what we would normally consider nobility, as it passes to all descendents. So remaining claims to notability are that he is an expert in pain and nobility, which makes it marginal. Rich Farmbrough 16:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Totally disagree with your comments regarding Dr CA Gauci, and your a lecturer at RMA. Take pity as you dont know this distinguished man. In many eyes he is similiar to Dr Debono. Maltesecount 19:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Dr CA Gauci is also a part time lecturer at the Royal University of Malta and is well known not only in the shores of Malta. So I believe he should be left as is. Maltesecount 19:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep CA Gauci has keep us Maltese in tact as a nation with his books on birds and of those on the Maltese surnames of Coat of Arms. Keep his profile in tact please. Zepplin 22:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This is getting rediculous. Both Maltesecount and Zepplin are brand new accounts with 3 edits each, to this AfD and their user pages. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so creating new accounts to flood this discussion will not affect the outcome as any competent administratior will discount both of these "votes" as per Wikipedia policy. Caerwine 20:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Aparently there is some foal play over here. Most interesting is the talk page of Maltesecount. "Born with a silver spoon my desires are to ensure the Maltese nobility are given a fair play in this wonderful world we live in.". The underlying meaning within this user is to prevent deletion of this article!! Admins, take notice of the three users which posted DELETION notification who are brand new entrants to wikipidea. Maltesedog 06:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment This is very unfair and importantly the discussions should be based on Dr CA Gauci not other users? --Zepplin 08.09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment It seems that all of a sudden we're getting flooded with "Counts" and "Dukes" and whatnot. This is SO pathetic. I really can't decide whether to laugh or feel ashamed at this childish behaviour. --Roderick Mallia 21:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment No law against the Nobility from responsing is there?? Also why cant we support people we admire that are of merit?? Maltesecount 07:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Keep in mind that this is no election. This is just a discussion amongst Wikipedians where anyone can voice his/her opinions in a civil way. But we have all noticed (and I hope the admins have too) that there have been three users who are supposedly 'noble' who have registered and whose first (and possibly last) posts where made in this discussion. Coincidences don't happen that easily. Also please do keep in mind that we're all equal in here so forget the titles, whistles and bells you're accustomed to. Being of noble descent doesn't entitle you to any privileges like flooding a discussion (which in a way is vandalism). --Roderick Mallia 07:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment This is absurd, Roderick Mallia. I now cant use my surname as a username? Lets remember this forum is about Dr CA Gauci MD, not about some of us that are of Noble Maltese descent. Roderick and Maltesedog - Get a life. --Preziosi 08:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment It seems that Roderick Mallia and Maltesedog have teamed up to fight for the deletion of Dr CA Gauci, but it doesnt seem ok for others to support it? Even if they logged on to support such works?? Wikipedia is about democracy, not socialism or communism, which you both seem to argue deletion!!!!. I really believe that Wikipedia should take a strong look at Maltesedog and Roderick Mallia as they have demostrated foul play in a constant arguing about everything other then the subject we are here to discuss, which is Charles Gauci. --Tancarville 18:23, 22 September 2005 (EST)
• Comment Wikipedia is not a democracy as Caerwine said. You have to abide to the rules. Did you read the wikipedia rules on Biographies? Nobility does not fit under the category. Btw, I have not teamed up with anyone. I just suggested deletion of the article, and 7 persons voted for deletion. This is no democracy, however if you beieve there is democracy, there is always the majority rule. Any votes placed by the same users are invalid. Maltesedog 11:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • Comment Preziosi, I'm not implying that you can't use your name and surname or title; it doesn't really make a difference to me or to anyone else. I'm just saying that I find it strange that all of a sudden the Wiki is being overrun by Maltese nobility. And please stick to the facts and to what I stated instead of attacking me personally. Other people who share my opinion have stated this fact before me, and yet it seems like I'm the only one who said it. And even if there was only one person who said it, you still haven't got a right to attack him like that. Tancerville, I haven't teamed up with anybody. I'm just another Wikipedian who, while doing some interwiki work between the en.wiki and the mt.wiki (of which I'm an admin), happened to stumble on this discussion (if you can call it so) and decided to leave his two cents. I just stated an opinion, which I'm entitled to of course, as have all the people here. Why you're attacking me and Maltesedog personally when there are others who oppose the article is still beyond my comprehension. And what is all this talk about foul play? If I have committed any wrong in stating what I think, I honestly invite the admins to take actions. Tancerville, you seem to preach so much about democracy and yet you can't accept an honest opinion or point of view from anybody else if it differs from what you think. You really should get *at least* a crash-course in manners, etiquette and Wikipedia policy before posting anything else. --Roderick Mallia 11:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Roderick Mallia, maltesedog's two cents are worth just that. No thing more. His initial comments were "Delete or reduce drastically the content".--Tancarville 22:45, 22 September 2005 (EST)
        • What do you expect the first line on the afd page of an article proposed by me for deletion to be? Keep? Anyway. Maltesedog 13:05, 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 REDIRECT to University of Nottingham Halls of Residence. It's covered much better in that article than the other suggestion (oh, and there's nothing to merge). -Splash^talk 18:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bonington Hall

This individual hall of residence is not notable. Besides, Bonington Hall is already featured (in greater depth) in the University of Nottingham Halls of Residence entry, making this stub redundant CLW 19:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to University of Nottingham Halls of Residence. - SimonP 19:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (not much to do there) and Redirect to Sutton Bonington Campus. Alf ^melmac 19:57, 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 Speedy Delete via Zoe Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aric Gillinsky

Come on, this must be a hoax. Class taken hostage, 2 people killed, all of it happened in August 2005, and Google does not find them? Aleph4 19:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• 'Speedy delete' - fifteen year old boy wants to impress by inventing a whole story. What is this? Check out with Polish News websites.. nothing.. failed Google test.. Maltesedog 19:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (Not a speedy, statemetns would surely prove notability if they were true.) No sources or references provided, none found on google search. Also, trials for killings are oveer within two months? Improbable. DES ^(talk) 20:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy deleted. This person was mentioned in the anti-Semitic Americo-polo-jew, which I have already speedy deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] China House

Not notable. Grade II listing is common, so this in itself is not grounds for notability. CLW 19:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Just not notable enough Malcolm Morley 21:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn Molotov (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just add a one sentence mention to the Uni's article. I'm reluctant to retain a redirect since I'm sure there must be at least several places that this could refer to, although I don't know what they would be (though Google gets about 126,000 hits).
• Delete nn --TimPope 21:13, 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AUI (language)

Delete this nonnotable conlang imparted by an alien. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Provisional keep, no evidence of non-notability. Kappa 22:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe the burden of proof is on the author to provide evidence of notability, not on the AFD-initiator to provide evidence of nonnotability. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Molotov (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Provisional keep? I like that. OK, provisional keep, because based on a reading of The "Language of Space", the article which this article references, it sounds like it might very well be an interesting and notable conlang. It's not the usual constructed-in-2003-by-a-grad-student-in-linguistics-and-spoken-by-his/her-small-circle-of-friends thing. On the other hand, I'm not too happy about the way Googling on "aUI Weilgart" seems to turn up mostly conlang sites and lists of conlangs. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know much about this type of language, but I have to say that: 1) a book was written about it; 2) it has received considerable attention in the popular/scientific media, 3) there has been quite some discussion about the language (independent of its author); 4) definitely has an established notability inside (and probably also outside) the conlanger community; 5) the language has inspired other conlangs; 6) it takes the 66th place in Langmaker's Conlang Top-100 (2005; 31th in 2003); 7) the language definitely scores also in the field of uniqueness (which according to some can also contribute to notability). It's true that the number of Google hits is not impressive, but keep in mind that the language was created in 1950, long before the Internet ever existed (Weilgart himself died in 1981). All in all, the language surely is notable. If anyone votes for deleting, it should be for the stubby character of the article, not for the non-notability of the language. --IJzeren Jan 05:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Based on IJzeren Jan's comments, keep. Does anyone want to include this info in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per IJzeren Jan, but if kept it needs much expansion. If deleted there's not enough content to bother transwikiing to the Conlang Wikicity. --Jim Henry | Talk 02:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It's only based on one source and hard to verify, and it's confused with the computer science language "Abstract User Interface" --Vsion 09:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable conlang. While the nominator might be excused for thinking this non-notable based on the poor references in the article, they should at least have tried a Google search. arj 20:01, 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 18:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NextBBS

Blackcap tagged this as speedy for advertisement, but that's no criteria for speedy, so I moved it to afd. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 20:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertisement. --Blackcap | talk 21:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Such stuff is often a copyvio, but I was unable to locate a source. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:45, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MMOFPSMUD

The ultimate in crystal-ball gamecruft. Zero Googles. ~~ N (t/c) 21:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Molotov (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Concept is not notable (zero google), article admits no real game exist that suits this category. Provided link is broken. --Hurricane111 00:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Once the obviously inappropriate content (that is, the broken link and the prediction of future gaming trends) is removed, there's nothing left. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Is there a reason to drag this through Afd? Friday (talk) 01:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It doesn't fit any speedy criteria that I can see. However, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Non-notable Internet entities, inspired by this very article. ~~ N (t/c) 01:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable JoJan 15:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a notable concept, by the contributor's own statement. ♠ DanMS 03:24, 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, but for some reason the page redirected to a red link, so it was deleted. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Elvis_Presley/Homosexuality

Abusive, stealthy fork created to evade a current RfC and trigger keyword hits on Google, could be a speedy Wyss 21:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• Notice. As administrator User:DropDeadGorgias has suggested on the Talk:Elvis Presley page, I have created this new talk page summarizing the claims that Elvis had homosexual leanings in order to exclude this material from the main talk page. Onefortyone 21:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That's a distortion. I suggested that if Wyss wanted to create an RFC about this subject, a subpage of the talk page should be created with the discussion points, rather than forcing new editors to look through the talk archives. Delete. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

You said,

I suggest that, rather than archiving the same recurrent discussion over again, we create a dedicated sub-page for the debate, like "Talk:Elvis Presley/Homosexuality," or something. That way, the discussion can rage on without cluttering the talk space and precluding any other discussion. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

See [15]. Sorry, if there was a misunderstanding. Onefortyone 23:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Userfy to the editor's userspace Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment/request: please explain context why this is not appropriate for Talk space, and also note that one of the arguments for the move from VfD to AfD was that non-article-space pages would not have to be dealt with here. --MCB 02:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• Note this was originally located at Elvis Presley/Homosexuality. If at all important it should've been mentioned in the main article. But I don't see how his sexuality is in any way relevant apart to those obsessed with the sexuality of celebrities. "I have seen evidence Bill Clinton was heterosexual. So what? I don't see the relevance. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

If David Bret is right, Elvis's homosexual leanings explain why his manager had such a strong influence on the singer. Onefortyone 21:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)