Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 24

< September 23	September 25 >

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

The result of the debate was Treat as a copyvio (i.e. only delete the versions that contain the violating material. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chad Schmidt

I'm just fixing an incorrectly formatted AfD nomination. No vote. --Metropolitan90 00:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio direct cut+paste of part of the movie's IMDB entry. It does credit IMDB as the source, but that isn't good enough. I would say, though, that as a film it probably deserves an article, even though it isn't out yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Delete the copyvio, and recreate the article again. Jaxl | talk 01:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio --Mysidia (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete copyvio and recreate per Jaxl. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 17:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I rewrote the article as a stub and removed the copyvio material. Keep.Chick Bowen 21:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Chick Bowen's article is worth keeping and expanding. If copywright laws make retention of the original article in the history problematic, perhaps Chick Bowen's rewrite could be copied to the temp page and copied over when the original copyvio is deleted. Capitalistroadster 05:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Etch-A-Sketch Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Etch-a-Sketch Animator 2000

Unnotable, discontinued product with little or no historic or encyclopedic value. Received less than 100 google hits (how unnotable is that?).

Delete. Toycruft. --SuperDude 03:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep or weak merge with Etch-a-Sketch. Cartridge-based gaming systems, even obscure/unsuccessful ones, are of considerable interest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment, no vote. I'm unsure about this. This could be worth something if expanded. However, the article has been posted since August 3 and no one has added anything since then. Perhaps merge, per Andrew above, would be best. ♠ DanMS 00:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with article on parent toy (Etch-a-Sketch) which is the only possible source of notablity for it. WCFrancis 00:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Etch-a-Sketch. -R. fiend 00:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Etch-a-Sketch. Jaxl | talk 01:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Etch-a-Sketch. Type O Spud 02:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I have never heard of this product. Delete. Denelson 83 05:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Denelson, there's a lot of stuff I haven't heard from, but that doesn't mean none of it warrants an entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Etch-a-Sketch as per above reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable. Kappa 10:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Etch-a-Sketch. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Etch-a-Sketch. --A bit iffy 11:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per all of the other mergers. --Celestianpower ^hab 12:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Etch-a-Sketch. Stu 17:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge w/ Etch-a-Sketch. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 17:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete I doubt anyone cares enough about the topic to take to effort to merge it. By voting to merge it, someone has to do the work of merging content of one article he/she doesn't care about to another article that he/she doesn't care about. I have done that a couple of times. If anyone else cares about the topic, let them merge it, otherwise delete it. --Rogerd 18:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Support Brighterorange's merge and redirect--Rogerd 03:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

boldly speedily merged/redirected since I care enough to do it. I had one when I was little, and although it was a totally unusable piece of junk, it still holds a special place in my heart. If someone disagrees, feel free to reopen the discussion. — brighterorange (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. If is easy to say "someone should merge this", and harder to be that "someone". I am not talking about this article in particular, but merge requests in general. Again, Thanks--Rogerd 19:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge w/ Etch-a-Sketch. Job E 6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Toycruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 03:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Support Brighterorange's merge and redirect. Not separately notable enough for an article, but worth keeping as a section in the notable Etch-a-Sketch. If Kappa or Andrew have historical references, there's room in the Animator 2000 section to add citations about technical advancements or impact on the Etch-a-Sketch hobby (?) without needing to break it back out into its own article. Barno 02:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted at 00:27, 24 September 2005 by User:Starblind. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: Content was since restored and userfied by User:Jnc to User:Kyla. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Liao

Looks like a really thought out case of vanity. Job E 6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as i put it up for deletion. Job E 6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedied I have speedied this under criteria #A-7, no claim to notability in article, nor anything even close. Example sentence: Her hobbies includes taking care of her plant, reading and playing Solitaire on the computer. Further features included her class schedule and a diary entry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per all above. Shauri 03:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biolich

Non notable neologism. A few hits on Google [1], but related to some unknown music band, not to the term. No online references to the sense assigned by the article. Shauri 00:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The page has been modified after posting this AfD, and now it seems to refer to the afforementioned band. I still mantain the position to delete the article, now on the basis of non notability (see Google results above). Shauri 01:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Since it is made up of two incompatible root words, wouldn't this meet speedy delete as nonsense? Living-undead. Pure-contaminated. Although we do use the combination wet-dry ( with the connective or implied). WCFrancis 01:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, technically "living dead" is a common contradictory-sounding term for zombies. Still, I'd say delete as neologism, based on Shauri's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as a word I have never encountered before. Denelson 83 05:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment change made it meet criteria for speedy delete. WCFrancis 05:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete and gimme a break Paul 05:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN Olorin28 12:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete band vanity ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 17:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 18:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pilgrims lane

Non-notable, orphan -Nameneko 00:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Mysidia (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Charming collection of very desirable residences but non-notable. -- RHaworth 07:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Agree, nn. --A bit iffy 11:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non notable. Shauri 15:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 17:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adobe LiveCycle

Information doesnot relate to the article, Sandbox should be used for testing. .::Imdaking::. ^{Bow | DOWN 00:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)}

Delete no question about it. it says right on the page "this is a test.--Alhutch 00:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)"
Speedied as a test. Entire content was "This is a test" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Neutrality^talk 22:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ginkworld

non-notable, possible promotion WCFrancis 00:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Alexa rank 896,227 [2] --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete; googling for "Ginkworld" "pointx" gets 5 hits. Jaxl | talk 01:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jaxl is correct, and 2 of them are the same text as this article Not Notable--Rogerd 01:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Type O Spud 02:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable, not encyclopedic.--Alhutch 04:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Mysidia (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I may be doing a sheep vote here, but delete this anyway. I've never heard of a "Ginkworld." Denelson 83 05:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopedic or verifiable ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 17:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete — per above.
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Global Institute for Emerging Matters

requested verification 3 days ago, non placed. Cannot find on google (although bank is real) - possible hoax WCFrancis 00:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete unverifiable and nn global institute. Dlyons493 07:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
If it isn't a hoax they've chosen a stupid name for their outfit. Delete unless verified. Marskell 10:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete:Hoax Cannot be verified Olorin28 16:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 17:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 18:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable. Shauri 23:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of main streets for major cities

Another List that if it stays it probaly going to expand until there is no expanison left. And it is also a weak page.EX: click Orange Avenue and it take u to orange (fruit). and also Miami Avenue is not a major street in Miami Delete --Aranda56 01:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ouch. Delete and make into a category instead. Such a list is by nature unmaintainable. Besides, this sentence "The first street listed is the major north-south street …. The second street is the major east-west street…." is perfectly US-centric; in cities not built on a square grid there are either many or just one "main street". Pilatus 01:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- There are many, many, many cities in the US that are not built on a square grid. And I'm sure there are a few cities outside of the US that are. Your anti-Americanism is inappropriate. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Based on the fact most street articles are about American and Canadian streets, I don't find it entirely surprising he made that comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Most cities on a square grid are in North America due to the way the continent developed. Off the cuff I can come up with just two cities laid out in a square grid in all of Europe, which are the Baixa Pombalina in Lisbon and Mannheim in Germany. The whole entry feels as if it never even occurred to the author that a town might not be laid out in a square grid. Anti-Americanism is something else. Pilatus 11:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, this information should go into the articles on the cities. -- Kjkolb 02:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete before it grows. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Deleteas per Kjkolb Dlyons493 07:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. TheMadBaron 10:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, a user looking for this information should not have to visit several hundred or thousand separate articles to find it. Kappa 10:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No, such users would consult Wikiatlas or Kappapedia. Pilatus 11:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete: it doesn't work for non-square-grid cities, the information means very little out of context and the list will always be incomplete (and/or huge). Loganberry (Talk) 13:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Make into category. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Make this a catagory but begrudgingly so Stu 17:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Categorify actually quite useful but not as a list. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 17:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- What would you possibly categorize? Every street in the world? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Categorify. It's every major city's main street. Superm401 | Talk 22:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete and do not make into a category as per Kjkolb. --Metropolitan90 23:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Categorify or keep, for that matter. If this category turns out to be impossible to maintain (a strong possibility) I'd reconsider the issue after giving it a chance to develop. It should also be noted that a city hardly needs a square plan to have a main north-south thoroughfare and a main east-west one. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but many cities (eg in Britain) have main streets that wiggle around so much that they can't even be said to be roughly north-south or east-west. And what if a city's main street is exactly NE-SW or NW-SE? Loganberry (Talk) 03:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Some cities don't really have a main street anyway, even those with a historical main street. Boston, Massachusetts for example -- while the historical main street was Washington Street, Washington St is now mostly one-way through most of downtown, and there are at least a half a dozen streets that could qualify as a main street but for one or another failing (don't pass through downtown, don't even make it to downtown, don't go all the way through the city, what have you). Across the river, Cambridge, Massachusetts has a Main Street that acts as a mostly-irrelevant westbound feeder road to the real main street, Massachusetts Avenue. And New York City, though its historical main street is Broadway, has so many major streets that it cannot be meaningfully said to have a main street at all. Haikupoet 05:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Under the definition that this article is using, Fifth Avenue is the main street in Manhattan for dividing the "east" streets from the "west" streets, and there is no main street for dividing the "north" streets from the "south" streets because Manhattan doesn't use those designations. This article is only relevant to cities with a square grid where streets are identified as east, west, north, and south, which does not apply to Boston, Cambridge, and most cities in Europe. --Metropolitan90 20:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Well that's another problem with this article, isn't it -- a rather quirky definition of what qualifies as a main street. I go with the person who pointed out below that major cities have downtowns and CBDs, and the "main street" concept is more or less irrelevant. Haikupoet 20:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - interesting enough in the grand scheme of things, but unmaintainable (and possibly irrelevant for a number of major cities anyway). Haikupoet 03:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete *drew 07:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Oxymoron. 'Major cities' do not have 'Main streets', they have CBDs (Central Business District). Small towns have Main streets, and are entirely built around them. The list has to get a lot more specific in order to be useful. Does it mean the busiest roads? or the ones with the most shopping? Or business (ie. highest rent per square foot)? In major cities these are all different roads. Btw, Delete. --maclean25 08:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. A category could be made of "List of main streets for major American cities", but this would be simply meaningless throughout much of the rest of the world. Vizjim 13:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Inherently innacurate (note Madison in Chicago, e.g.--why not Warren Blvd.? Why not I-290? why not Eisenhower?). As for a category--anyone is welcome to make a category who wishes, but it would be a lot of work and isn't really relevant to the deletion of this page. Chick Bowen 17:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Because Madison Street in Chicago divides the north streets from the south streets, as State Street divides the east streets from the west streets. The article is accurate, but the topic is not encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 20:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Ah, you mean according to the original grid--that is, nominally--not according to current geography. In that case, if there is a category (and I still have my doubts about the usefulness of such a category), it should certainly not be named "Main streets," which is misleading, but something like, "Grid-dividing streets." Chick Bowen 20:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, since the list is not very well defined. Though if the information were kept the list would be far more useful than a category. How am I supposed to find the main street in Atlanta from a category unless I already know it to be Peachtree Street, for example. Flower party■ 03:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 to keep or merge -> Keep. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronotum

Delete. Dictionary entry. Move to Wiktionary and cover the subect in the article insect. DanMS 01:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to insect. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- this is clearly an item that should be discussed somewhere on Wikipedia. --Mysidia (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it should be discussed somewhere—within the article on insects. ♠ DanMS 06:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki. I've never heard this word before, but that does not make it a neologism. Denelson 83 05:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect with insect until it's expanded. Feel free to transwiki a copy to wiktionary as well. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, likely search term, should not be merged with insect. Kappa 16:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect with insect. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 17:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. This won't prevent its use as a search term. Superm401 | Talk 22:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep ··gracefool |☺ 17:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
keep pelase this is more than just a dictionary def Yuckfoo 05:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. On the raw numbers, it's 7d, 3k (surprisingly small WPian turnout here) with the struck-through comments discounted. I have, however, read the debate and clearly the deleters are not persuaded by the keepers, and the restatement of the arguments does not appear to have changed anyone's mind. I'm satisfied that there is a consensus to delete here among those who did not edit blatantly in response to the messages on websites. And to those who mentioned the point: Wikipedia is not a democracy. -Splash^talk 02:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Built for Comfort

Due to links posted on both of the artist's websites, this Article for Deletion debate has been rendered rather confusing. For concise arguments from both sides of the debate, please see the section below entitled: RESTATING THE ARGUMENTS. (added by --Tedzsee 05:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

Nomination: Totally non notable webcomic, have a look at it's website here and its forums here here. This is a very very minor webcomic, with hardly any readers. A quick glance at the Alexa rank will tell you this. Too many webcomics are being allowed to onto wikipedia without anyone challenging them, due to overly lax guidelines on WP:COMIC, if anyone has time, have a look through List of webcomics, I'm sure many do no warrant an article. - Hahnchen 01:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete webcomic vanity, based on links provided by nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete based on low alexa rank. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 16:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Stu 17:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete low alexa ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 17:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep From comic author - I resent this post. It was not webcomic vanity as this was posted by an established wikipedia member who isn't me! What's more, it is not a 'very very minor' webcomic, I am linked from the homepage of a 'Dayfree Press' member, get an average 1000 page views a day, and has been mentioned on Phil Kahn's site, which I'm told is great. There are so many poorly written or insulting articles you could be deleting. Leave me alone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hijamiefans (talk • contribs)
Keep - from BFC fan Steven McG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.8.140 (talk • contribs)
Keep - David Mooney... daily reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.103.160 (talk • contribs)
Keep - Dave - It's not a minor minor webcomic as the person has suggested, with over 1000 hits per day (tested using traffic-master) which is a lot for a webcomic. Also it fulfils the requirements in the Alternate Proposal. With over 500 comics in the archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.50.175 (talk • contribs)
Keep - Tim - Listen you, this is the bestest webcomic around, and just because it doesnt get the "required" hits means nothing. I want to see you produce a comic 3 times a week and go to school, an have an active social life! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.158.200 (talk • contribs)
Keep - Very cool comic, very cool indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.133.152 (talk • contribs)
Keep - My vote is not based on being a fan of BFC. I wrote this article and I have written articles about many other comics (Sam and Fuzzy, Her! Girl vs Pig etc). It should be noted that this article survived a previous battle with the VfD page, so I'm wondering why it's up for deletion again[?]. Anyways, the linked to forums aren't active, but that's mostly because the artist doesn't push them at all. The artist has an active readership (numbers mentioned) and holds contests every week that have active participation. A rather minor comic, I agree, but one that is mentioned on enough other sites (Phil Kahn, plus this author is the co/guest-author for No 4th Wall to Break) that it warrants an entry simply to avoid having dead links all around wikipedia. For this reason, and the webcomic readership numbers, and its clear fulfillment of webcomic alternate proposal (over 500 comics in archive since 2003, including LunchBreakToons comics) I vote for keep. --Tedzsee 22:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - It's a good comic! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.98.143.180 (talk • contribs)
Keep - from N4WTB and now Jamie McGarry fan. Great Stuff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.119.129 (talk • contribs)
Keep - From Virgin Snake. I think the comics funny, and don'y quite understand why it's being deleted... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.15.126 (talk • contribs)
Keep - From Justin. There's no reason to delete this from wikipedia just cause you're on a power trip. leave the guy alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.71.55.58 (talk • contribs)
Keep - From Anonymous. This comic does have a readership. i feel it has been proven. we just happen to be the many who are devoted.
Keep Great comic, don't be jackasses.- Rachel(remember to edit the page, not delete and replace it with your own message)
Comment The webcomic has a feature on its site encouraging people to come here and vote. That is the cause of all of these IP address votes. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
SOCKPUPPET INVASION - Yep, the front page of the comic now tells people to spam the wiki. A link straight here telling every reader to do the spam. Please, the place for minor webcomics is Comixpedia, where an article for your page already exists. Wikipedia is not a repository for internet links. And yes, there are rubbish and insulting articles on wikipedia, and yes they will get deleted over time. I still maintain that your webcomic is not notable and the nomination still stands. - Hahnchen 03:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment.I agree with part of the above statement. Discount the IP Address votes, but I would still vote Keep. As for this article being an internet link, I take offense to that as I worked rather hard to write it from a neutral viewpoint and include information the way I would on any of the many webcomic articles that I've written. Calling the article rubbish is not only unneccessary, it is also innaccurate, considering that the article is written in the same way any other Wikipedia webcomic article is written. If you're going to VfD the article on the basis that it is non-notable (in your opinion), that's one thing. But starting a flame-war and questioning the authenticity of the article in the first place is not only innaccurate, it's unnecessary and insulting.--Tedzsee 04:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Reply - Please re read my comment, I did not mean to imply that your article was rubbish. It was a reply to the webcomic author, who claimed we should be deleting other insulting articles. The reply was to the webcomic author and his remarks. I was considering replying to your comment up top earlier, but didn't. I respect your say Tedzsee, and I understand that you were just filling in redlinks. But the trouble is, those redlinks should not be there in the first place, I think in future, they will probably be removed. WP:COMIC is clearly way too lax, please compare it with WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. The place for these articles is on ComixPedia, not wikipedia. - Hahnchen 04:20, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply: - Under the Alexa rating section of the WP:COMIC page it says the following: "Alexa [1] will be used to determine traffic for any webcomic with its own domain name. If the webcomic has a 3-month average traffic better than 200,000, it can be considered to be an entry that could be allowed in Wikipedia.

Exceptions to this guideline would include web sites that are currently in transition (from one site to another or one domain to another) or new webcomics authored by creators of an existing webcomic that meets the above criteria. Webcomics that have since retired (and thus are not receiving new, regular traffic) may also remain in Wikipedia.

Personally, I've never really been a fan of the Alexa rating system because of its flaws (only counting Alexa users for traffic makes little sense to me), but that aside, this comic meets the second condition, as its creator is now a certified co-creator of the comic No 4th Wall to Break, which was a webcartooning pioneer-type comic, a member of Dayfree Press, and has had an article on Wikipedia for a long time.

Secondly, it should be noted that even No 4th Wall to Break has a less-than-stellar Alexa rating (662,339), most likely due to its author's constant hiatus and then sudden outbursts of creativity (which is why I'm really against the whole Alexa thing).

Thirdly, as for removing redlinks, that seems pretty ridiculous to me personally, and further lessens this encyclopedia's role as a knowledge-gathering forum. That you have a red-link leading to an article about something that several people seem to have a valid interest in, and that that redlink gets followed and a new article gets created, seems to me a good thing, not the evil thing you seem to make it out to be. I'm not proposing that every webcomic get added to Wikipedia. But if IndieTits can get added after scarcly 2 months of publishing (and a long hiatus to boot, AND a current series of sporatic updates) and use the above-mentioned clause as its excuse, I think this comic qualifies at least by that much (it should be noted that the alexa rating for indietits is also under the 200,000 mark). PS: thank you for linking to the WP:COMIC page, but I am familiar with it as well as the music and bio pages. --Tedzsee 04:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep it is so punny it must be kept if they want it here!

Reply The front page did NOT tell people to 'spam the wiki.' It called for a show of readers, and was only up for a few hours. I reckon that the moderator here is biased against the comic. --Hijamiefans
- Reply - A call to arms kind of post, telling people to keep isn't really a great way to try and keep an article. I really have nothing against your comic, only on account of its non notability for inclusion here. If the comic manages to attract more widespread popularity, I would welcome it onto the wiki. Please, this is not a bad faith nomination. - Hahnchen 14:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Reply Well how do we decide whether it stays or goes? --Hijamiefans
- ReplyWikipedia has a vote system, Jamie. Currently, with the non-sockpuppet votes alone, your comic will likely be either deleted or found to be "unsure" and kept. However, the turnout for voting so far is rather small.

As for process, Wikipedia follows something called the "AfD" process which is basically a fair democratic vote system by wikipedians. More on the process can be found here. As Hahnchen said, a call to arms post really isn't the best way to keep your article on Wikipedia.--Tedzsee 18:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply Sock puppets? Not only is that's a ridiculous term, but a casual glance at the explanation page says that it refers to multiple accounts, which this lot are defintley not. Every one a different IP, every one a different individual person. Now that's what I call a fair vote.

P.S. In my opinion, the fact that it caused this much debate alone means the article is worth keeping! It's so much easier just to leave it on! --Hijamiefans

Considing WP:COMIC BFC has over 500 comics stored in it's archieve because it followed on from Lunch Break Toons. Which fulfils the Alternate Alternate proposal. I wrote the orginal article on BFC, and I am not the author, so that is point 3 taken care off (do an IP check if you must with me against HiJamieFans), and for point 2, it has been going on for over 2 years. So according to the Alternate Proposal, this comic deserves a place on BFC. Alexa is unrealiable because it only deals with IE users and not users of other browsers (such as Opera and Firefox) and if you check the bbc homepage link in it's search it returns less than 20000 hits per day when the bbc website gets well over 5 million hits per day from within the UK.

Keep Too funny to remove. And ^, are there still people using Internet Explorer?

Reply At the end of the day, I feel all the mods comments regarding BFC have been proved innaccurate, and it has also been shown that the comic does fulfil not just one but several of the proposed conditions on WP:COMIC. As such, there can be no possible way it can still be considered for deletion.
Keep-Dudtz Image:Kardos.jpg 9/29/05 6:38 PM EST

Delete. Wow, this AFD is a mess. This webcomic has little influence on the webcomic community, and its only claim to notability seems to be that it's a webcomic by the same author as another webcomic of very questionable notability. This surely isn't Penny Arcade, Sluggy Freelance, or User Friendly, and it isn't even 1/0 or Framed!.
If you're coming here from the BfC site to vote, please, don't bother. Anonymous votes from people with no investment or history on Wikipedia will be disregarded, particularly if they have no argument other than "It's funny!" or "Why not?" - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. A webcomic does not have to have influence in the Webcomic community in order to be worthy of documenting. BFC has a huge archive and a dedicated readership, which is more than I can say for some of the webcomics listed on the Wikipedia. How petty this whole debate has become. --Squirminator2k 17:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Reply - Why is it that you have treated a webcomic in a totally different perspective to a none webcomic website? You've stated that BFC has a dedicated readership so deserves an article. What about blogs? They have dedicated readerships, so do forums, so do porn sites, but they'd be deleted if they didn't have any sort of popularity or notability. Webcomics need more than a core bunch of readers to be noted. The ones that don't should be deleted. - Hahnchen 23:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if only to punish the writer for trying to flood us with socks and unfairly stack the voting process. Broken S 01:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RESTATING THE ARGUMENTS

As the above debate has skewed this Articles for Deletion page, the following arguments should be considered when voting. Please do not add to this section unless entirely relevant (this section created by --Tedzsee 05:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

[edit] For deletion

Comment from nominator (Hahnchen) - I think my arguments for deletion may have been lost somewhat in the puppeteering above, and would just like to restate this as well as some others. Firstly, if a webcomic is notable, it would not require calls to arms on both the webcomic site PLUS the no 4th wall to break site (which I only just spotted). People above have been stressing the notability of this comic because the comic author also helped on No 4th wall to break. Is no 4th wall to break that popular? Alexa says 600k+, so it's not a definite yes. And this argument seems to fall flat, when we note that the author already has his own wikipedia entry at Jamie McGarry! Is Jamie McGarry notable? Having made half a dozen websites? I'm not so sure, but I don't think his webcomic is. - Hahnchen 02:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Against deletion

Comment from author of the article (Tedzsee) -

Reply: - Under the Alexa rating section of the WP:COMIC page it says the following: "Alexa [1] will be used to determine traffic for any webcomic with its own domain name. If the webcomic has a 3-month average traffic better than 200,000, it can be considered to be an entry that could be allowed in Wikipedia.

Exceptions to this guideline would include web sites that are currently in transition (from one site to another or one domain to another) or new webcomics authored by creators of an existing webcomic that meets the above criteria. Webcomics that have since retired (and thus are not receiving new, regular traffic) may also remain in Wikipedia.

Personally, I've never really been a fan of the Alexa rating system because of its flaws (only counting Alexa users for traffic makes little sense to me New as this system discounts firefox users and non-alexa-registered users), but that aside, this comic meets the second condition, as its creator is now a certified co-creator of the comic No 4th Wall to Break, which was a webcartooning pioneer-type comic, a member of Dayfree Press, and has had an article on Wikipedia for a long time.

Secondly, it should be noted that even No 4th Wall to Break has a less-than-stellar Alexa rating (662,339), most likely due to its author's constant hiatus and then sudden outbursts of creativity (which is why I'm really against the whole Alexa thing). NEW: ie. At one point, N4W was an extremely popular webcomic (in terms of Alexa rating, since that's all we can use to judge according to this site), and the WP:COMIC page has guidelines stating that for this reason, the article about N4W should not be considered for deletion.

(Irrelevant text deleted). I'm not proposing that every webcomic get added to Wikipedia. But if IndieTits can get added after scarcely 2 months of publishing (and a long hiatus to boot, AND a current series of sporatic updates) and use the above-mentioned clause as its excuse, I think this comic qualifies at least by that much (it should be noted that the alexa rating for indietits is also under the 200,000 mark). (Irrelevant text deleted)

New:As for the "Call to Arms" found on both the N4W page and the comic artist's website, I would suggest that these have to do more with the ignorance of Built For Comfort's author, Jamie McGarry/Hijamiefans, towards the purpose of Wikipedia. This is also evident in the creation of the Jamie McGarry article (which should not be considered in this debate, in my opinion, although I also believe the McGarry bio article to be rather unneccessary... for the record I didn't write that one). No doubt the links and subsequent responses of Jamie McGarry's readers do great detriment to the non-deletion argument in the eye of the nominator. However, I would urge potential voters to consider both the arguments found in this section on their own merits, extranious comments aside.--Tedzsee 04:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply I find the use of the term 'sock puppets' in a negative way to be very demeaning to me and my socky brethren. It really is the most blatant racism. - Mr. Sock

Reply As a long time reader, I am totally against the deletion of the Built For Comfort article. It is as entertaining (if not more) than most webcomics. You can clearly see -by the number of votes- that the majority of people want the article to stay. The fact that Jamie is regularly keeping his comic up to date as well as doing his A-Level studies and having a wild social life is astonishing. I also find it totally insulting that you now seem to be slagging off the webcomic author himself. I think you should reconsider your argument and offer Jamie McGarry an apology.

Reply I'm a fairly new reader of the comic, having only put it on my daily list a week or so ago - anyway. Bias aside, I don't think this should be deleted, for pretty much all the reasons under the 'against deletion' section of this restatement. After all, consider that the people coming to vote before the restatement were from the BfC site. The author, Jamie, didn't specifically say to vote 'keep', merely thanked those who did. Point is, the 'sockpuppets' are just readers from the comic, but I don't see why their votes worthless. After all, isn't this supposed to be a democracy? I don't see it's that relevant that a lot were from the comic as long as people aren't voting twice. --Snuffkin 14:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment I've just discovered something very interesting. The [logs] say that all of Hahnchen's recent edits have been, rather than webcomic articles, articles about towns in Yorkshire - in fact, mostly in EAST YORKSHIRE. I myself am from East Yorkshire, and BFC itself is actually set there. This is too big a coincidence to ignore - I think this (and the insulting tone of the mods comments throughout) suggest that this is some sort of personal vendetta against me from the real world, rather than one brought on by any knowledge of what makes a worthy webcomic article.
- Totally False - I do live in East Yorkshire during the summer, yes. I have however, never seen or heard of you. My recent edits have been to do with deletion of non notable webcomics. I have a personal venetta against each and every creator? No, I just think that there are many non notable webcomics listed on Wikipedia. Thinking that I may hold some sort of grudge against you seems to be very egotistical. - Hahnchen 23:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - You've been looking at my "move" logs and not my contributions. That was when I was maintaining title consistency. I was searching for placenames followed by Yorkshire, and instead moved them to specify county as the consensus seems to show. I have made numerous stubs for villages and towns in east riding however, the East Riding of Yorkshire page looks kinda stark. - Hahnchen 23:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I would also like a link to the discussion last time BFC was nominated, if anyone has one. --Jamie McGarry

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Devilspoon

This is a stick figure webcomic, see here. The website itself is none notable, OMGJeremy.com would never qualify for an article and would probably be speedied, yet this webcomic wasn't speedied. With an alexa rank of 750,000+, it really ought to be thrown out, fast, and onto electrified train lines. - Hahnchen 01:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Murderise it! Delete Oswax 13:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless notability is shown. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 16:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Devilete ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Shauri 23:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fledgling Galactic Terran-Vasudan Alliance Nearly Destroyed

Apparently, this is about an event in the Descent: Freespace game, although the article never bothers to mention this fact. Also reads like a copyvio from the manual; anyone have a copy to check? Either way, Delete. Owen× ☎ 01:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like someones own personal interpretation of onee of the missions in the "Silent Threat" expansion pack, Delete. (preceding unsigned comment by FireCrack (talk · contribs) {{{2}}})

Delete. (Created by, and mainly edited by User:71.110.89.194. I have just marked two of his/her articles as possible copyright violations.)

-=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 03:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, dude, you crossed the line. there are no copyrights to Freespace: The Great War, Silent Threat, or Freespace 2. the companies no longer hold the right to them. ALSO, i did not have to say that it's for Descent: Freespace, SINCE IT IS LOCATED IN THE DESCENT: FREESPACE SECTION. Furthermore, this did NOT come out of ANY manual WHATSOEVER. -Cobra (71.110.89.194)

This comment really belongs on the talk page. -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=-

Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete --

OK, i've moved this article to another page. Delete it now. :) -Cobra

Delete and fanfic is copyvio unless there is explicit permission of the copyright owner because of the use of backgrounds and/or characters covered by the copyright. If you don't care for that how about unverifiable and original research. WCFrancis 04:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as cruft. Denelson 83 05:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment:the article creator came on IRC to ask what he could do to make this better; I walked him through registering (as User:Tenchin) and re-creating the article as a subpage of his userspace where he could tinker with it at will, and then we concluded that it would best fit as part of the GTVA article. He has since agreed to have this article deleted, and I look forward to seeing more contributions from this bright young man. DS 12:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- BRAVO DS! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 16:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Support DS's help to the new user. Support deletion of this article as agreed above. This long title doesn't seem to need a redirect, and the other article will have the edit history for whatever keepworthy content Tenchin provides. Advise checking on that in a few days to see what's fancruft to delete per WP:FICT and what's verifiably of widespread significance. Barno 02:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    - How notable is Freespace 2 or Descent: Freespace or whatever? (Current GTVA content Sunday night says "the Freespace 2 universe", the creator above insists readers won't need the context identified "SINCE IT IS LOCATED IN THE DESCENT: FREESPACE SECTION.") I play many kinds of games but have barely heard of this. If the cited companies no longer hold the copyrights, is the game abandoned as a commercial failure, notable to nobody but a few fans? Or was it in some way so noteworthy that several game magazines did feature articles and mainstream media gave coverage to big events? (Compare, for example, the rise of big-prize-money Magic: the Gathering tournaments getting national newspaper articles.) We need WP:Verifiability for the higher-level article about the game system in order to justify keeping fine-grained in-game stuff at all. Even then, policy says we keep only canon stuff, not fanfic. If this is just stuff that a local gaming group has developed extrapolating from canon, it's not of sufficiently widespread importance to meet WP's basic policies. If what's kept is all canon, I think it should probably be further merged into the game system's main article, or at worst one level of sub-article below that. Alliances that form the backstory or context for a gaming system are "of interest only to fans of that game", and not of encyclopedic value. Barno 03:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Line Item Vito

Sigh, yet another webcomic article. What does no alexa data mean? Has the site purposely not allowed alexa to post stats, or is it so infinitely tiny that alexa overlooks it? - Hahnchen 01:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete possible hoax.Type O Spud 02:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - It's not a hoax, the site exists. - Hahnchen 02:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio from [3] Dlyons493 07:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- This isn't a copyvio. Comixpedia licenses its content under the GFDL, and both pages have the same anon author. — mendel ☎ 17:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no Alexa rank. I've checked a bunch of domains that I wouldn't expect to show up in Alexa and I get the same results, so I figure it's off the bottom of the scale. It's real, it's just not there yet. — mendel ☎ 17:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable and not even a good comic. Superm401 | Talk 22:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non notable. Shauri 23:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Job E 6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Line-item veto in case someone thinks this is how it's spelled. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Neutrality^talk 22:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blogosophy

dicdef, maybe neologism. -guety is talking english bad 02:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Lot of hits on google but can't see article being more than a dicdef. Ben Nevis 02:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

What's a dicdef?

A dictionary definition. An article that just says this is what the word means. The idea is that if it's an encyclopaedia article, there should be more to say. Ben Nevis 02:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

A dictionary definition. If Blogosophy is a real concept, then this article should be extended beyond a dicdef by discussing the subject in more detail. Many important stub articles are dicdefs, and that's ok, probably noone's going to nominate those. The real question is will the article be extended so it is more in-depth than a dictionary definition. --Mysidia (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah. thanks. --Eric Boutilier

'Delete or Move to Wiktionary. Type O Spud 02:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete this is not a real concept. its not encyclopedic. it doesn't belong here.--Alhutch 04:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "define:Blogosophy" at Google doesn't return any result. The Google results for "Blogosophy" point to "blogging on philosophy", not "philosophy of blogging", as the article mentions. utcursch | talk 08:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Really just an attempt to create a gateway to the three blogs listed. Marskell 10:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete looks like an ad to me. Neoligism, despite google hits. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Swamp Ass

borderline nonsense. Poorly written. Not encyclopedic. Jwissick 02:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, the sooner, the better. Owen× ☎ 02:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Type O Spud 02:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, nonsense. Shauri 03:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Is there anything faster than Speedy? ♠ DanMS 03:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SB Nephilim

More Descent: Freespace gamecruft (presumably, the article doesn't give a hint). Owen× ☎ 02:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Jwissick 02:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Stuff like this is reason to widen the scope of criteria for speedy deletion. WCFrancis 04:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete but watch out for the two turrets in the rear. Agree with WCFrancis Dlyons493 07:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax? Search in http://www.altavista.com for "SB Nephilim" found nothing.

It's not a hoax; the weapon really exists--in the game. (and Google is generally a better search engine than AltaVista.) Owen× ☎ 12:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Shauri 23:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied, again. android 79 05:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jo Green

NN individual. Being married to someone who is notable does not make her notable herself.

Delete Francs 2000 02:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Jwissick 03:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] THE LOONEY BEN

Apart from being all in capitals I can find no reference to this subject on Google. Searching for "Looney Ben" UPN brings up no results, searching for "Looney Ben" on its own brings up lots of references to someone called Ben Looney. If no verifiability can be found, delete. Francs 2000 02:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I said a very similar thing on the article's talk page. If this can be verified it would likely need to be moved (capitalisation). If not, then delete. -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 03:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hoax. If it were real, it would be spelled "Loony Bin", but UPN's official schedule makes no mention of it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk 08:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
delete per nom - Stu 17:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Somehow I doubt that major mental hospitals would cooperate with the production of a television show known as "The Looney Ben," or even "The Loony Bin." --Metropolitan90 23:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete It's badly written, unverifiable, most likely a hoax, and it's orphaned. PRueda29 02:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No, DELETE. TheMadBaron 07:45, 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.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus, Keep. Rx StrangeLove 18:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Video Games considered the worst ever

It is an opinion, may not be the worst for others. .::Imdaking::. ^{Bow | DOWN 03:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)}

I thought we had already had this on AfD; Delete WCFrancis 03:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- That was Games considered the worst ever (AfD discussion), which was copied&pasted to this article by Philip Laurence (talk · contribs). Uncle G 04:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep --Philip Laurence 04:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete as hopelessly POV and unencylopedic list of citations to people's personal opinions. MCB 05:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as set-in-stone POV. Denelson 83 05:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename -- List of Infamous Video Games, or something of this nature... --Mysidia (talk) 05:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
~~Weak delete~~. Although infamously bad games are a borderline-significant part of video gaming lore (in the sense that not only have I heard of every game on the list, I've seen them discussed or referenced multiple times) ~~there's no real possibility for outside confirmation. The fact that Big Rigs, Superman 64, etc, have their own articles is enough.Nifboy 05:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)~~
- Weak Keep for newly-created citations. Nifboy 20:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete POV. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 05:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete CalJW 05:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. POV. utcursch | talk 08:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep remove only info that can't be sourced. As a gamer, I'd say this article is incomplete but pretty accurate, all of these are known among gamers as examples of poor-quality games (which is a topic oft discussed among gamers, try a google for worst video game and you'll get zillions of hits). As long as it's backed up by a source, it isn't POV. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, like List of films that have been considered the worst ever. Kappa 10:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

~~Maybe that should be VfDed too....~~ - the problem is that for movies you have widely recognised organazations that rate the movies. For video games you have many many organazations competing against each other with very different POVs - not only that but ratings of video games are largely era-based. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Hopelessly POV. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. We have an article on Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever. This article can be made to be NPOV by removing the blanket statements (gamers don't like this game because....) with sourcing to external lists and reviews by notable websites and organisations, as well as user polls. 216.12.32.242 12:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and clean up. This article has content problems but there are citable sources for lists like this. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - very subjective, and anyway, the worst video games usually don't get properly distributed to begin with! --MacRusgail 13:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep. The fact sources are cited saves this from getting a delete vote, but needs to be cleaned up. 23skidoo 15:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete The title and content are POV as they are now, if it was "The worst computer/video games ever according to critics" or what have you, that'd be different. Those games, especially Superman 64 are fairly well known in the gamer community for their horribleness. Karmafist 22:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Please nominate that stupid film equivalent so we can get rid of that too. This serves absolutely no encyclopedic purpose. / Peter ^Isotalo 03:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, game reviews can go on the articles about the games. -- Kjkolb 04:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, the sourcing of the opinions saves it for me. Colin_Kimbrell 04:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Many of the claims here are sourced, so the list is as valid as the list of the worst movies. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Andrew Lenahan Lectonar 08:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's verifiable and doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 17:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
keep please but maybe rename it not sure on that part Yuckfoo 05:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep There are equivalent lists for songs and movies, so why not video games? Chiphead 00:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Just make sure that there's different categories (and evidence) to demonstrate how the games are considered "the worst". The only surefire failure there is ET, cuz it's well documented. You'd need more support for the other list entries.--Madchester 00:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep & Cleanup as per Starblind.--Sean Jelly Baby? 00:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Partially sourced, but needs cleaned up to conform with Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever. --Meiers Twins 08:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above arguments. Punkmorten 17:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete 100% GRADE A POV Dudtz 9/30/05 7:54 PM EST

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AL-III

Not notable. Jwissick 03:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn Dlyons493 07:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 08:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as per all other votes. Wackymacs 15:00, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Keep and move. Rx StrangeLove 19:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Desmoplastic

This is an encyclopedia not a dictionary .::Imdaking::. ^{Bow | DOWN 03:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)}

Another dicdef to delete. We surely do have to waste a lot of time on these. ♠ DanMS 04:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as "extreme neologism." Denelson 83 05:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- How is it a neologism? It appears to be a well-established medical term. Jonathunder 02:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to wiktionary. You can find a definition at [4]. utcursch | talk 08:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, important concept in oncology, especially relevant people looking up desmoplastic melanomas and desmoplastic small round cell tumors. Kappa 10:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep this important oncological term. I reformatted the text a bit. Karol 13:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Damnit, it's a friggin' adjective. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. / Peter ^Isotalo 03:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps you would like to delete Well-behaved too? Kappa 04:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  - You bet your ass I do! / Peter ^Isotalo 11:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    - 8-) Karol 19:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep the new version. -- Kjkolb 04:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep the new version. ··gracefool |☺ 17:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
keep the new version please it is not just a dictionary definition anymore Yuckfoo 23:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Rename - correct form for article name would be Desmoplasia [5] Fawcett5 01:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Rename to Desmoplasia. Jonathunder 02:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, Keep. Rx StrangeLove 19:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sun hang do

promotional WCFrancis 03:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

A keeper, I think. Got 627 Google hits on this from a variety of sources. (I am not knowledgeable in martial arts--this is strictly based on Google hits.) But the article certainly needs to be improved. ♠ DanMS 04:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Seems to be mostly local to Vancover, BC, Canada. Maybe not notable outside Vancover. ♠ DanMS 04:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Supplemental: It's Vancouver, with a U. Denelson 83 05:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Denelson. I wasn't paying attention. I know better: I come from Seattle originally, halfway between Vancouver and Vancouver. ♠ DanMS 06:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard of this guy, but as he might be notable within a wide area, I shall request a keep for this article. Denelson 83 05:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Not a notable martial art by any means, and the article read as only so much POV advertising copy. There is a chance that the style can be written up encyclopaedically, however, and if so I will change my vote from the current delete. --Fire Star 05:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete no evidence of notability, advert. Inventing one's own form of martial arts is no big deal. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Wile E. Heresiarch. -- Kjkolb 04:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Um, inventing one's own form of martial arts is no big deal unless it catches on among widening circles of thousands of people, or in some other fashion achieves widespread public awareness and verifiability. I haven't dug through the Google links yet to see how substantially he might be notable within a wide area. Nothing in the article suggests that this is more than a run-of-the-mill syncretism of what some fellow likes from various existing systems. (In other words, not notable in its category.) Nothing in the article serves as a source except the URL of the founder's website. This inclines me toward weak delete as advertisement, unless evidence of notabilty is added, but I won't vote since I haven't done the research. Barno 03:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - if it's only notable in Vancover, that's notable enough. ··gracefool |☺ 17:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Seems to be advertising for his dojo. But if some guy from vancouver convinces me hes a demi-god there, I'll change my vote. - Hahnchen 14:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 boldly changed by author to redirect. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vygostky

Delete. The title of this stub is misspelled and the bio of the subject is provided in Lev Vygotsky. This article provides nothing additional. DanMS 03:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. I'm changing it to a redirect to Lev Vygotsky. ♠ DanMS 04:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. There's a 70% majority for deletion but the keep votes make reasonable arguments. — JIP | Talk 06:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hip-hop hug

dicdef WCFrancis 04:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --.::Imdaking::. ^{Bow | DOWN 04:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)}
Delete. dicdef. utcursch | talk 08:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable greeting. Kappa 10:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete dicdef. Olorin28 16:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nn dicdef neologism. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep or Merge What are these acronyms you people are using?! The term is a neologism, but so is "internet." The greeting is a highly standardized and widespread custom in certain social groups. We have an article on the V sign. Why not one on the hug? (Sorry, forgot to sign) Haiduc 00:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: dicdef = dictionary definition (as opposed to an encyclopedic article); nn = non-notable. I don't know that the term "hip-hop hug" is in common use (only 450 Google hits) but it does appear to be in use (see [6] for example). --Metropolitan90 23:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Thank you. It is to be hoped that the article will grow beyond its "dictionary definition" stage, right now it is just a rudimentary stub, but is not how a lot of articles start out? Haiduc 00:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Dicdef. Job E 6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as dicdef Tuf-Kat 02:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Dicdef, pure and simple. Take it to the Wiktionary. / Peter ^Isotalo 04:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Already slightly more than a dicdef, can be expanded further. Jkelly 05:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as above comment. ··gracefool |☺ 17:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione1980 18:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyber-dissident

decdif WCFrancis 04:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete.I wonder what a "decdif is" dectionary Difinition, ha! --.::Imdaking::. ^{Bow | DOWN 04:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)}

Please have mercy on my ignorance. I'm a new Wikipedia contributor, and I don't quite understand why the Cyber-dissident stub that I created is unacceptable. Could someone explain this? Many thanks! Deborah Elizabeth Finn
Keep and expand. Quite well-known term, article has content. Perhaps nominator would expand reasons for nomination? Dlyons493 07:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you check the article history, you'll see that it was a bare-bones dicdef at the time of nomination; however, Deborah Elizabeth Finn has expanded it quite nicely. Keep. DS 13:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- That explains it. Shows the tension between trying to catch rubbish early and allowing stubs to evolve. Is there a case for a new article be given, say, a day to see if it's going anywhere before being afd'd? I've seen an afd being applied literally minutes after creation! Dlyons493 14:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  - For one, you get 5 days before any AfD takes effect (barring a speedy). Plenty of articles get rescued like this one. It also suggests that, in general, articles should be created with at least a moderate amount of content. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Expand - might be of interest. Some names would be good, or "martyrs", rather than just a definition. --MacRusgail 13:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Obvious Keep. --Mysidia (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We already have dissident. This is just Internetcruft. / -Peter ^Isotalo 04:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Given where the article has been taken, this has clear encyclopedic value. As a concept, it is a distinct category of dissident and deserves its own article. Justin Bacon 06:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Thanks to Deborah Elizabeth Finn and welcome to Wikipedia, Deborah. It seems a worthwhile subject for an article given the explosion in Iranian blogging for example and Salam Pax in Iraq. Capitalistroadster 06:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, manifestly will evolve and is obviously a key term. Sjc 06:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Many of the delete reasons given above are reasons for the article to be marked {{cleanup}} or {{attention}}, not {{afd}} or {{delete}}. ··gracefool |☺ 17:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This is the first page in a history that's still in the writing. ldm 14.10 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, merge the contents with dissident and make a redirect. IMHO cyber-dissident is just a subset of dissidents. --Kubieziel 14:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The difference between using cyberspace techniques on one hand, or using "meat space" techniques on the other hand is significant enough to justify two separate articles for cyber-dissidents and other dissidents. TenthServant 22:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC) User's only edit. H e rmione1980 18:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. LouisGodena User has no contributions. H e rmione1980 18:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. and Expand. My vote concerns the fact that this is a timely topic, and one that is likely to even more relevant and important in the very near future; EnglishN 19:18, 27 September 2005 User has no contributions. H e rmione1980 18:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete

[edit] Greasy Cannonball

bizarre sexual fantasy/practice; either nn or hoax. Non-encyclopedic. WCFrancis 04:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete this hoax ASAP. Will support a speedy if another admin agrees. --Fire Star 04:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I am not an admin, but I certainly support Delete. ♠ DanMS 04:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Sure, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, but I think this is just a deprave hoax. Delete, please. Denelson 83 05:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete As per nomination. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 05:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom CLW 07:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk 08:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete AHAHAHAHAAHA. VfD.... better than the funnies anyday!!!! per nom Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom.
Journalist ^C./ ^{Holla @ me!}
BJAODN its a good laugh but not encylcopedic. Job E 6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:52, 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.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sententiaism

I'd say this was original research, except it appears to claim more to be original prophecy. Either way, it's a WP:NOR violation. The Literate Engineer 04:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete hopelessly POV original essay. --Fire Star 05:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete As per nomination. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 05:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete rambling POV CLW 07:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Original research. utcursch | talk 08:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, personal essay, original research. I like it, but I'm afraid it's not an encyclopedia article. Sounds a bit like the Quaker Inward Light to me. "It is forbidden for separate denominations to be formed of Sententiaism" recalls Margaret Fell's "Theology divides, service unites." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ranch Tooth

Just an character from a commercial not really a classic and memorable mascot like what it says in the article also badly written ,reads like a commercial because it was a commercial and of course POV also. Delete --Aranda56 04:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete As per nomination. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 05:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn CLW 07:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk 08:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Wendy's. Harmless, and some people in the future might be reminiscing over annoying commercials, and remember the Ranch Tooth, but not what restuarant it was for, and they might say, "well, let's look it up on Wikipedia, because they got everything!" Then they'll look it up and be satisfied, and they'll go on to spend four hours comparing and contrasting Gobots with Transformers. It happens. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- When it happens, does it help one of our fellow AfDers understand the world? Delete, just an irritating character central to one of the least popular ad campaigns ever. No indication that this became a core icon used to reference some whole cultural debate over worst ads ever, or got major media coverage, or otherwise verifiably demonstrated importance. Barno 03:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SB Nahema

lots of reasons. Non-encyclopdedic tops the list. WCFrancis 04:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete As per nomination. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 05:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete *drew 07:29, 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.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Renato M. E. Sabbatini

Certainly a nice fellow, but this article is largely autobiographical. I'm surprised it has not been nominated before. As a matter of form, I support the notion that substantially autobiographical articles need community consensus to remain. Xoloz 04:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep. 20 or so articles link to it. Astrokey44 11:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Article makes clear claims of notability, and Google returns nearly 14K non-WP hits for "Renato ME Sabbatini". Keep. DS 13:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep for reasons above --MacRusgail 13:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as number of Wikipedia links and Google hits indicate notability within field. Article seems in reasonable shape at the moment. Capitalistroadster 06:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, not many other people support that notion, Xoloz. Keep ··gracefool |☺ 17:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Yes, this is vanity/autobiographical. However it should be noted that the subject is notable and also that the editor makes good edits to many sarticles. While I am opposed to autobiography on practical grounds, that is not sufficient reason to delete this article. -Willmcw 20:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep as per the reasons provided above. Hall Monitor 23:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Ramm

nn editor of a nn magazine (googling The Liberal gives alot of google results, but most of them are democratic action groups), 360 google for "Ben Ramm" -GregAsche (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete As per nomination. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 05:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 07:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Isn't saying Ben Ramm gets "alot of google results, but most of them are democratic action groups", as a reason for deletion, a bit like saying we should delete the article on the Rolling Stones because their concerts are mainly filled with rock fans? Just saying. 216.12.32.242 12:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

....Whoops, you meant "The Liberal" turns up webpages not associated with the magazine. Sorry. 216.12.32.242 12:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge and redirect to The Liberal. Since that article mentions the new version of the magazine, it should contain this information. Chick Bowen 21:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity/promo. Editors come and go. No opinion as to whether the magazine itself is notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As someone who has knows The Liberal and its editor, Ben Ramm is currently non-notable. The Liberal is a published but very minor magazine. Its editor is not known for anything else. The Land 13:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zygote (band)

Not found on any music site lists. Not notable. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 05:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - nn, looks like a pro-Rob Miller (whoever he might be) rant. CLW 07:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Amebix - Jaysus Chris 09:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete band promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:29, 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.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Influencing

Consists entirely of POV parroting of a self-help book. Jasonuhl 05:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete As per nomination. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 05:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete As per nom 07:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. An article is possible but I don't think this is the starting point. Dlyons493 07:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nomination. utcursch | talk 08:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 (talk) 19:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pokémon attacks

See also the entries for Destiny Bond and Ember

PokeCruft and if completed its going to be too long There are more than 200 of them attacks out there and the way those 2 nn attacks are written in that article if those 200+ attacks go there its going to be a long long nearly useless article Delete while u still can --Aranda56 05:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment - When this list is finished, there will be 18 different types of attacks, each with a listing with an average lengeth comparable to the (currently complete) Fire and Water headers. This is assuming that the list will be complete (instead of abridged), but will not include the hundreds upon hundreds of one-off attacks in the Pokémon Trading Card Game. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete As per nomination. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 05:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete. I don't think that a list of attacks in Pokémon (which would start with the 100 or so in the games, and then could end up including the hundreds of one-off called attacks in the anime, manga, and card game) is encyclopedic material, and it borders on an unmaintainable list. Furthermore, I don't think that such an article would lend much to understanding of Pokémon either as fiction or as a social phenomenon, given that in nearly every context the attacks will appear in, their effects or attributes will be immediately apparent or immediately explained. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep without prejudice to renomination at a later date. Let's give this article a while and see what it turns into. If it turns out it's a fannish collection of factoids, it can always be renominated, at which point people can debate about what it is, rather than what it will be. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per the above --Mysidia (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This page was created from the suggestion of two recent AfD's (of the two attacks actually on this list). In other words, whoever made this AfD is working at cross-purposes with other AfD suggestions. -- Grev -- Talk 07:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep (disclosure: I created this page). As noted above, more than one person seemed to share the sentiment that, while individual pokeattacks did not merit seperate articles, the information should be kept somewhere. Thus, this article. I'm not sure why an article on common attacks in the pokemon universe, which would surely be of interest to quite a few people, is unencyclopedic. AS for concerns about the list being too long, criterion can be selected so that the number of attacks is limited to the more common ones. As for concerns about the individual write-ups on the attacks being too long, those can be shortened (I've already shortened them some). Wandering oojah 07:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- We have an excellent place for descriptions of common or signature Pokémon attacks: in the articles for the individual Pokémon involved. The fact remains that there aren't many (none that I can think of) common Pokémon attacks that aren't plainly obvious, and the uncommon ones don't bear mentioning (for the same reason that List of Pokémon characters doesn't include every single Pokémon trainer in the games; there are hundreds and most are more-or-less interchangable). Anyone with a basic grasp of English or a dictionary understands that Flamethrower is going to be a blast of flame, Water Gun is going to be a jet of water, and that Thunderbolt is going to be a blast of electricity.
  As for attacks that aren't as obvious, in both the manga and the anime (where the effects of the attack are extremely fluid, depending on the needs of the plot) they are immediate explained, in all but the oldest games they're described in the game, and, most importantly, it's exceedingly unlikely anyone without access to those primary sources will ever have cause to look up further information on Wikipedia (unless that information was specific in a technical way, a la GameFAQs, which isn't Wikipedia's thing anyway).
  I just don't see how this sort of list could contribute to an encyclopedic understanding, instead of being a random list of loosely-connected trivia. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  - The very fact that we even have a list of (notable) Pokémon charachters is, in my view, a good argument for keeping a list of (notable) Pokémon attacks. Wandering oojah 08:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    - My point is that they aren't notable, on top of being obvious. Most of the characters on that list aren't notable; that's why their only presence on Wikipedia is one-sentence mentions on that list. These attacks are even less notable than those characters who are only bullet points on a list, and are comparably notable to the interchangable one-off Pokémon trainers who form the starchy parts of the Pokémon games and anime. Any list of the attacks would be statements of the obvious, information better off placed in the individual Pokémon species articles, or trivial minutia (most likely in the form of raw data) that doesn't serve to create understanding (e.g. "Charizard uses Flamethrower in episodes X, Y, and Z. Charizard learns Flamethrower at level Q.") - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs)
      - My thought on that is, an individual article about a single pokemon attack would probably be obvious and none too interesting, as you say. But, in my view, an article listing various pokemon attacks provides some useful information...such as the names of various attacks, and which pokemon use them. It also just provides a good general overview of the ways in which Pokémon attack each other. Wandering oojah 08:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
        
        Which describes pretty well why I voted weak delete instead of delete, in the way that I was having trouble articulating. Hmmm. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep certainly far preferable to listing them all individually. Dlyons493 07:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I would definately not want this page to turn into a list of every attack in the universe but many are notable, if not in their own articles. Vine Whip and Thundershock for example (Yes, I know they're not there yet). And also, I dislike the fact that this is running cross-purposes to the other AfDs. People have said on there that they wanted it merged somewhere so that's what was done. Please wait untill the others are over before nominating next time. --Celestianpower ^hab 07:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'd be inclined to possibly change my vote if you added a rough list of the attacks you consider worth including, at least as a temp page (maybe over on WP:PCP/T, even). If nothing else, it would give some idea of where signature attacks need to be elaborated upon in the Pokémon species articles. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Okay, started it of at WP:PCP/T. --Celestianpower ^hab 08:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As I understand some attacks are used by several different species of Pokemon, so listing them within the articles on individual pokemon would create too much duplications. This list is much more preferable to listing all attacks in seperate articles and thus I consider it to be the best solution. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wiki is not a repository of random information. Fan-to-fan you may indeed say this is a notable attack, this is not. In the larger sense, none of them are notable. Marskell 10:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, in the grand scheme of things.... how much of the information on this encyclopedia is REALLY notable? Next to none of it, I'd imagine. Wandering oojah 10:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Pokemon attacks are an important part of their nature. Being a "long article" is not a reason for deletion, since wikipedia is not paper and pages can be subdivided. Kappa 10:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep a list is probably the best way to handle these, actually. A long article is not necessarily a bad article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete this cruft before it grows. Martg76 11:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep. *shrug* why not? wiki is not paper Astrokey44 11:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. 200 items in a list is nothing much, and large amounts of data can be synthesized in tables--see List of masts for a good example of many hundreds of entries containing complex information being listified. This is an article which will be useful to Pokemon enthusiasts, of whom there must be many thousands, if not indeed millions. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 13:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's creation will discourage new stubs for individual attacks, and if they're made anyhow, they can easily be merged/re-directed into this, without going through countless AFDs. I don't agree with above comments about re-opening another AFD if the list has problems in the future. If it has problems, edit it, don't AFD. Whatever the result of this vote is, it should stand, and be respected, either way. --rob 13:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep without creating individual entries for each attack. Let the list stay. Punkmorten 22:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep better to have this than a thousand individual articles. Not massively encyclopedic, but hey! people seem to care about it. Sabine's Sunbird 02:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If you don't want gobs of Pokécruft like this, then vote to delete it, either as a list or in separate articles. The way Pokéeditors are pushing their luck, they should be lucky we vote to keep even relevant article. As it stands right now, I would vote to delete literally everyhing except Pokémon. / Peter ^Isotalo 04:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Pushing their luck? I'm curious what you mean by that. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, this is much better than making separate articles for each attack. — JIP | Talk 09:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and put in redirects on each of the attacks to this article. That will discourage articles on individual attacks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, although I dislike Pokémon, it was a worldwide phenomenon, enough to have its own encyclopedic entry - and I guess the same could be said of everything affiliated within the phenomenon, perhaps this list or article could expand to include other aspects of the Pokémon universe so as there isn't so much Poké-clutter. I agree with the above statements. Piecraft 14:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep according to current policy. If this is deleted, it is in spite of current policy, not because of it. If you think policy should be changed, go ahead and submit it to the community and see if it reaches consensus. ··gracefool |☺ 17:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Which policy? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment: We already have another, more complete although less descriptive list of Pokémon moves, Pokémon moves by type. Also, if there is going to be a list of this sort, I think it should have a title with 'move' in it rather than 'attack' - move is the catch-all term used in the games that includes non-attacking techniques, such as Recover and Withdraw. --Sparky Lurkdragon 04:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- That list is inaccurate, out-of-date, and incomplete, to the point of being misleading and useless. I have redirected it to this one, as this list, if kept, will be rewritten based on primary sources. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep. While we had accepted beforehand that Pokemon is an encyclopedic cultural phenomenon, there's way too many Pokemon attacks, and the alternative is having an article for each one of them. It's a lesser of two evils thing for those who viciously hate Pokecruft. Titoxd 06:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- That's a false dilemma. Another alternative is to have no articles about the attacks, collectively or individually, and mention them where relevant in the species and character articles/lists. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hamish mckenzie

Delete; hoax, joke, whatever. No Google mentions of such a person or film, and description makes it clear it's a joke, and a sophomoric one at that. MCB 05:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - take your Maori sandwich fantasies elsewhere CLW 07:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete This is what we need this template for: {{db|hoax}}. With all those bananas, sounds like monkey business. WCFrancis 07:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- The problem with {{db|hoax}} is that, very very rarely, the nominator is wrong (case in point, Joseph Ivor Linton). In order for such articles to last long enough to be rescued, the annoyingly blatant ones have to be given a chance too. If even 1% of speedy {{hoax}} nominations are mistaken, that's still too much. (Besides, {{hoax}} would have meant that we'd have missed out on the wonderful debate for Trigger and Jim.) That said, I once more sound the hoax alarm, and urge that Hamish mckenzie be swiftly deleted. DS 13:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete hoax, possible attack. Dlyons493 07:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. 08:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right, there isn't anything about McKenzie on Wikipedia, movies or not... Wow. He's quite big in New Zealand, but not a "media celebrity" ... The profile is certainly 'blown out of proportion', but not a complete hoax.

The article should be gone by lunchtime.--210.86.70.47 23:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miss X

Either nonsense or an extremely non-notable video game character, or both Paul 05:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - probably both. If this were true, I'd have imagined that someone would have added it to the Iori Yagami article which looks pretty comprehensive to me. CLW 06:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Should be included in something else. Not enough for its own article. WCFrancis 07:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete exists all right. Merge if anyone cares Dlyons493 07:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. 07:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Social Technology"

New user's attempt to share something, possibly original research, still not coherent, recommend to userfy WCFrancis 06:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment, no vote. If kept, should be moved to Social Technology (without quotes). ♠ DanMS 06:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - has no been flagged by another user as a possible copyvio CLW 06:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per WCFrancis. The author seems to be the one who posted it, however. -- Kjkolb 09:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear People at Wikipedia,

“Social Technology” is my first article at Wikipedia. I am new to this world of web publishing. Please pardon me for any errors that I have made and may make due to my ignorance of the norms and rules of the Wikipedia community.

This summer some good ideas occurred to me and I put them down in this article. In the article, I defined the term “Social Technology” and some basic areas to think and work upon.

Then I heard about Wikipedia where any one can contribute and enhance an article. I felt that this was a great place for ideas. I thought that many more ideas would come in and the article would be enhanced.

I posted it from my web log http://neeray.blogspot.com to this site. Unfortunately I forgot to post the copy right notice and a very vigilant member noticed the same article on my web log and marked it for copyright violation. I am very happy that people here are very vigilant. I have now posted the copy right message under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 on the “Social Technology temporary page” and in the article on my web log too.

Then I worked a little on the temporary page and find that now this is marked for deletion for “Rambling”. These are tiny seedlings of ideas. Please do not delete them even before they are seen and flower into something better. Please advise me as to what should I do to improve this article.

I have great faith in the collective wisdom of the people. That is what this article is about. Please do whatever is right according to the rules and norms of the community.

Best regards, Nirupma Kapoor

neeray 03:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)Dear people at Wikipedia,

“Social Technology” is my first article at Wikipedia. I am new to this world of web publishing. Please pardon me for any errors that I have made and may make due to my ignorance of the norms and rules of the Wikipedia community.

This summer some good ideas occurred to me and I put them down in this article. In the article, I defined the term “Social Technology” and some basic areas to think and work upon.

Then I heard about Wikipedia where any one can contribute and enhance an article. I felt that this was a great place for ideas. I thought that many more ideas would come in and the article would be enhanced.

I posted it from my web log http://neeray.blogspot.com to this site. Unfortunately I forgot to post the copy right notice and a very vigilant member noticed the same article on my web log and marked it for copyright violation. I am very happy that people here are very vigilant. I have now posted the copy right message under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 on the “Social Technology temporary page” and in the article on my web log too.

Then I worked a little on the temporary page and find that now this is marked for deletion for “Rambling”. These are tiny seedlings of ideas. Please do not delete them even before they are seen and flower into something better. Please advise me as to what should I do to improve this article.

I have great faith in the collective wisdom of the people. That is what this article is about. Please do whatever is right according to the rules and norms of the community.

I tried posting this at the Articles for Deletion page but it is not showing there. Please tell me what to do.

Best regards, Nirupma Kapoor

neeray 13:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The AFD tag was reverted from the article page ("Social Technology"). HollyAm 02:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (Killing it with the main Social Technology article, why have a temp if the page above it was killed (besides copyvios). R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Social Technology"/Temp

notes for article in subpage, no useful content yet, userfy WCFrancis 06:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - rambling. CLW 06:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear People at Wikipedia,

“Social Technology” is my first article at Wikipedia. I am new to this world of web publishing. Please pardon me for any errors that I have made and may make due to my ignorance of the norms and rules of the Wikipedia community.

This summer some good ideas occurred to me and I put them down in this article. In the article, I defined the term “Social Technology” and some basic areas to think and work upon.

Then I heard about Wikipedia where any one can contribute and enhance an article. I felt that this was a great place for ideas. I thought that many more ideas would come in and the article would be enhanced.

I posted it from my web log http://neeray.blogspot.com to this site. Unfortunately I forgot to post the copy right notice and a very vigilant member noticed the same article on my web log and marked it for copyright violation. I am very happy that people here are very vigilant. I have now posted the copy right message under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 on the “Social Technology temporary page” and in the article on my web log too.

Then I worked a little on the temporary page and find that now this is marked for deletion for “Rambling”. These are tiny seedlings of ideas. Please do not delete them even before they are seen and flower into something better. Please advise me as to what should I do to improve this article.

I have great faith in the collective wisdom of the people. That is what this article is about. Please do whatever is right according to the rules and norms of the community.

Best regards, Nirupma Kapoor

neeray 03:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete this "temp" page, but still a "neutral" from me on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Social Technology". HollyAm 02:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magnon solutions

Advertising. This really reads like a copyvio, but I couldn't find it anywhere online. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - advertising as per User:Zoe; end of article reads like corporate vanity CLW 06:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Phrase the Company takes pride... screams Ad! Promo! WCFrancis 06:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete ad Dlyons493 07:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ad. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 07:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
delete Vanity, PR, Log Rolling ... Stu 17:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of the world's busiest airports by international passenger traffic

Does not appear to be needed, no indication of the source of the data. No support to keep in Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. Vegaswikian 06:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - don't trust whatever data is used. London gets separate entries for Heathrow and Gatwick, but Paris and New York get only single entries. CLW 07:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If there is no source, find one and replace it. Listing airports by international passenger traffic is important to aviation statistics.--Huaiwei 09:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge as a sub-category of World's busiest airports by passenger traffic, ~~or Delete as per above~~; changed my mind, just merge (also, forgot to sign). PRueda29 09:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep, this is exactly the kind of thing people would come to wikipedia for. Kappa 10:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Arbitrary lists of poorly verified statistics? I think you're confusing this with what you come to Wikipedia for, PReuda. / Peter ^Isotalo 04:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep as per Kappa, it should go somewhere, if you cant verify it than keep it until someone can. Astrokey44 11:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep, but only if verified, with references. Passenger numbers would be nice too. --A bit iffy 11:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Would expect a list for domestic passenger traffic too. — Insta ntnood 14:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Verify, then merge as above. 23skidoo 15:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep, cleanup and verify. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Mostly agrees with the list in the 2005 World Almanac, but the Almanac combines international and domestic figures. An exact reference would help, but let's not rush to delete. Owen× ☎ 17:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge it probably can't grow any more so merge would be best. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- It is possible to grow, because normally, there are annual figures for such data. I agree that we can merge it for now thou until we can expand it later and warrant a split.--Huaiwei 01:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It should deserve its own page, but right now its just an empty list... it's too barren to deserve its own page. It looks like something that belongs as a sub-category in a larger article. It doesn't even have prose, it's just a list. If it can be expanded to look more article-like, then I'll change to keep, but right now, merge is the best choice. PRueda29 01:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Listcruft and/or statisticscruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 04:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. *drew 07:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge or keep, useful information. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 17:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No sources. Page doesn't indicate which year it's supposed to apply to. Obviously what wikipedia really needs is List of the world's busiest airports by international passenger traffic in 2004, List of the world's busiest airports by international passenger traffic in 2003, .... Quale 07:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by airline

Does not appear to be needed. Appears too difficult to keep updated (even to build the inital data). No indication of the source of the data. No support to keep in Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. Vegaswikian 06:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

As is the case in a related discussions in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by destination, my stand is to keep it.--Huaiwei 09:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep per previous vfd. Kappa 10:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. detailed info, edited by a few users, probably will be expanded at some point. Astrokey44 11:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Difficult to maintain, and contains nothing but original data from the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, who runs the airport. People who are looking for such data won't consult an encyclopedia but the operating authority. Delete. Pilatus 11:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete WP != indiscriminate collection of information. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Wile E. Heresiarch. -- Kjkolb 04:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hardcore listcruft. And, as with with most other useless articles, those who vote to keep this will most likely forget or ignore it once the AfD is over. Either that or divert their focus from editing good articles. / Peter ^Isotalo 04:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete The list of passenger airlines using the airport in the article Singapore Changi Airport is both far more maintainable and likely to be of interest. This level of detail is too detailed to be either maintainable or of general interest. Caerwine 07:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Comments: to reproduce related comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by destination:
- Firstly, there has been a VfD for a related article 4 months ago, and the result was a keep. Is there any good reason to AfD this again now? I hope admins may take note of this.
- Secondly, as proven by just how many updates this article got since 4 months ago, no, it didnt need alot of maintanence as I have said earlier.
- Thirdly, yes, the information is original from CAAS, because wikipedia is not meant to be an avenue for original research. I canot be churning up my own numbers from thin air (although I do my own simple maths in coming up with obvious data, for eg, mannually counting the number of flights per week). At the same time, it is not a wholesale reproduction of original data, because this table combines information found in the Airport site, CAAS's monthly and annual reports (which is not available free online and required a trip to its library, which is not open to the general public), plus counter-referenced data from publications by the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines and theInternational Air Transport Association, again from sources not neccesarily available to everyone for free.
- Fourth, please explain "indiscriminate collection of information", when the sources and the work committed to compiling the above data has been explained.
- Fifth, I do not see how people can decide for themselves what would be considered "usefull" or "interesting" topics for users of wikipedia. Do we have a policy in only writting articles which people will be assumed to be interested in? Not really, because we only do have one for writing useful articles. How would removing data make this site any more useful? When someone just wants to know the number of passengers flown between Singapore and Sydney per year, and how that compares with other city pairs out of Singapore, why should we deny this person the chance to see this information in wikipedia instead of turning to another source?--Huaiwei 12:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  
  why should we deny this person the chance to see this information in wikipedia instead of turning to another source?
  Because recording every verifiable piece of data in human knowledge is not Wikipedia's mission. Instead, the parent article article needs to better summarize the subject, rather than including every associated number and piece of data. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Wile E. Heresiarch. *drew 23:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. Quale 07:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Its a helper article for Singapore Changi Airport, and is not meant to stand on its own. Merging it with its main article dosent quite make sense either, so wikipedia looses helpful statistics to support its articles because of technicalities like this then any other reason?--Huaiwei 08:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. as per Huaiwei. This is a helper article for one of the world's most important air transportation hubs. --Vsion 10:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- This doesn't mean that every single fact about the airport is useful. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Could you demonstrate its "unusefullness"?--Huaiwei 16:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - This information is too specific for Wikipedia. The main article on Changi Airport should talk about the history and significance of the airport and then have external links to websites which contain this kind of specific consumer info. Singopo 06:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- I would be surprised if someone starts saying information should be deleted from wikipedia for being too specific. Based on that theory, we should all abstain from being specific in the articles we write and strive for murkiness? There is nothing here to justify that this article should keep to certain aspects of its existance. How do you demonstrate "significance" without the data to back it up?--Huaiwei 16:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as a noncontributory list. This is a clear example of an indiscriminate collection of data, something Wikipedia is not. These raw numbers don't help illuminate the Singapore Changi Airport article; instead of making a list of raw numbers, instead rewrite Singapore Changi Airport to be a summary of the major airlines that serve the airport and the sort and amount of service they provide). People who want to get this info will go directly to the primary source, rather than going to an obscure list on Wikipedia (which may be out of date, depending on when someone last updated it).
Additionally, the majority of Singapore Changi Airport belongs on Wikitravel or Yellowikis and not Wikipedia. Taxi prices? Bus service? This is not encyclopedic info. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If we may look at WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, there is non of those categories of information this particular falls into and hence is deemed as an "indiscriminate collection of information". Lists like these combine information from several sources to present in table form the traffic flow into and out of this airport, which is an important starting reference for anyone involved in international transport study, for example. May I remind that if it looks like a mess of "detailed" data to the less initiated, it looks elimentary to those who are more familiar with it, and that is the way it is designed to be. Unfamiliar with it? Let this be the intiation. Not enough info? Pay and get detailed info from the relevant authorities unless others are kind enough to add to this one.

You claim that "people who want to get this info will go directly to the primary source". The trouble is...could these people get it? I got some of these data by visiting the only aviation-themed library in my country, and only because my professor wrote in on a personal basis to the librarian to allow me in as part of my academic study. Sure, you could write in and subscribe for this kind of primary data directly from the publishers, but not before paying thousands of US dollars for them. Anyone can get this info? I doubt so. Wikipedia has a mission of providing and sharing knowledge for free, and I fail to see the rationale of asking these people who could otherwise be relying their research on wikipedia to look elsewhere?

It appears the only argument for its deletion is that the information is "not important enough". Who are we to judge? Yes, this article could outline the more significant flight routes out of this country. So when someone comes along and asks....how many flights and passengers from Africa are connected via this airport, and we tell them....sorry, that info is just not important enough for wikipedia?--Huaiwei 16:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by destination

Does not appear to be needed. Appears too difficult to keep updated (even to build the inital data). No indication of the source of the data. No support to keep in Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports. Vegaswikian 06:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by destination. The result was to keep, and my stand remains the same.--Huaiwei 09:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep per previous Vfd arguments and result. Kappa 10:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Astrokey44 11:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Difficult to maintain, and contains nothing but original data from the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore, who runs the airport. People who are looking for such data won't consult an encyclopedia but the operating authority. Pilatus 11:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete WP != indiscriminate collection of information. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Very indiscriminate listcruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 04:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete A list of passenger destinations reachable from the airport in the article Singapore Changi Airport would be both far more maintainable and likely to be of interest. This level of detail is too detailed to be either maintainable or of general interest. Caerwine 07:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Comments To add on, a few points to make in response to the above comments, and from what has been discussed before:
- Firstly, there has been a VfD for this article 4 months ago, and the result was a keep. Is there any good reason to AfD this again now? I hope admins may take note of this.
- Secondly, as proven by just how many updates this article got since 4 months ago, no, it didnt need alot of maintanence as I have said earlier.
- Thirdly, yes, the information is original from CAAS, because wikipedia is not meant to be an avenue for original research. I canot be churning up my own numbers from thin air (although I do my own simple maths in coming up with obvious data, for eg, mannually counting the number of flights per week). At the same time, it is not a wholesale reproduction of original data, because this table combines information found in the Airport site, CAAS's monthly and annual reports (which is not available free online and required a trip to its library, which is not open to the general public), plus counter-referenced data from publications by the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines and theInternational Air Transport Association, again from sources not neccesarily available to everyone for free.
- Fourth, please explain "indiscriminate collection of information", when the sources and the work committed to compiling the above data has been explained.
- Fifth, I do not see how people can decide for themselves what would be considered "usefull" or "interesting" topics for users of wikipedia. Do we have a policy in only writting articles which people will be assumed to be interested in? Not really, because we only do have one for writing useful articles. How would removing data make this site any more useful? When someone just wants to know the number of passengers flown between Singapore and Sydney per year, and how that compares with other city pairs out of Singapore, why should we deny this person the chance to see this information in wikipedia instead of turning to another source?--Huaiwei 12:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not an encyclopedia article. Quale 07:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Its a helper article for Singapore Changi Airport, and is not meant to stand on its own. Merging it with its main article dosent quite make sense either, so wikipedia looses helpful statistics to support its articles because of technicalities like this then any other reason?--Huaiwei 08:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as per Huaiwei. This is a helper article for an important air transportation hub. --Vsion 10:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - This information is too specific for Wikipedia. The main article on Changi Airport should talk about the history and significance of the airport and then have external links to websites which contain this kind of specific consumer info. Singopo 06:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- I would be surprised if someone starts saying information should be deleted from wikipedia for being too specific. Based on that theory, we should all abstain from being specific in the articles we write and strive for murkiness? There is nothing here to justify that this article should keep to certain aspects of its existance. How do you demonstrate "significance" without the data to back it up?--Huaiwei 16:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sunkist and Vodka

nn cocktail. Only 25 Google hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - it's a screwdriver. With a brandname. Keith Richards invented the screwdriver. (Unless Sunkist is not orange juice.) WCFrancis 06:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sunkist makes various drinks, but I think it probably refers to Sunkist soda. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 06:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - false advertising. It is nothing like "an orgasm in a glass". - Nunh-huh 07:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Doesn't belong here. utcursch | talk 07:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not a recognized mixed drink. Advertising. Subtrivial celebrity anecdote. We don't need articles on Orange Soda and Smirnov or Nedick's and Absolut either. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Rum and Coke anyone? WCFrancis 06:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment Francis, stop trying to confuse the issue. You voted delete. schizoid WCF 06:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Is Rum and Coke something like Kool-aid and LSD??? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
      - No, sir, not very. Although both can confuse the issue. Delete, not a recognized common mixed drink, non-recognition not due to drunken confusion. Barno 03:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete shameless hucksterism at its most tepid Stu 17:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't delete: This is the most inspirational piece of writing I have ever read. Keep it or history will show you as morons.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Books on May-December romance and Age Gap Relationships

Listcruft, unencyclopedic, impossible to maintain, not much use WCFrancis 06:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - can't be completed. Has barely been started, in fact. CLW 07:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

*Delete topic could be an article but a booklist is unnecessary. Dlyons493 07:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-encylopedic list. utcursch | talk 07:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, no reason readers shouldn't be able to find examples of this kind of book, completeness is unnecessary. Kappa 10:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment List of movies featuring May-December romances survived a deletion nomination in August.
Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"Merge to Age disparity in sexual relationships since that exists Dlyons493 10:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Weak delete Why these two similar-but-not-really-related topics in one article? It's kind of like having a "List of books about the Spanish Civil War and the Cuban Missle Crisis". Also, at present there are only two entries. Perhaps they could be stuck in the bibliography section of some article, but I think this should go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete useless list. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Listcruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 04:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Listcuft is okay. Nick Dillinger 07:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

[edit] Keralaescorts

nn. Spam. not encyclopedic. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 06:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Blatant advertising. delete -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 06:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn advertising CLW 07:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Blatant Ad. utcursch | talk 07:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. At last, an ad for an escort service on Wikipedia. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete + a copyvio User:Nichalp/sg 13:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maquis Productions

Almost by definition, a film company started in 2005 September cannot be notable. -- RHaworth 06:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn advertising CLW 07:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ad. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 07:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete self promotion hiding behind a Yahoo Web template Stu 17:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was ~~No Consensus, will redirect Lance Romance to the one with the accented n~~. R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, Giantrats voted twice. Delete is the final. R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lance Romañce and Lance Romance

nn musician, no entries on artistdirect or allmusic (though lots of Google hits). This really reads like a copyvio, too. And the allegation that he was responsible for "We Are the World" at teh age of six are ludicrous. User:Zoe|^(talk) 07:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - sadly not patent nonsense, but nonsense all the same. CLW 09:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Lance Romañce, delete Lance Romance. Only the second page is nonsense.User:Giantrats

Two people seem to have submitted entries for the same artist, one of them a gag. The first Lance Romance page is nonsense and should be deleted. The other page, Lance Romañce, is not nonsense at all and is a legitimate, original entry which I wrote myself. Unfortunately, because it has a special character in the URL, I am unable to link directly to the article so that other people may discus it.

The artist in question is popular in underground circles in several scenes and cities, and has made an impact on these scenes. Hence the Google entries, but not the AllMusic. Keeping the second article, which should justify itself, is a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantrats (talk • contribs)

Redirect Lance Romance to Lance Romañce seems to solve nonsense and special char issues. Dlyons493 12:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- It doesn't solve the lack of notability and lack of artistdirect or allmusic entries. Nor does it solve the question of copyvio. If it is not a copyvio, it needs to be rewritten into an encyclopedic style if it is kept. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Also, the question arises: the User who created the article is User:Giantrats. Lance's official website is giantrats.com. Does that mean this is an autobiography? User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The listing Lance Romance was a gag and has been edited so that it now merely acts as a mirror link to the legitimate entry Lance Romañce. The Lance Romañce listing is unsearchable due to the tilde over the n (ñ) and there was some confusion. All offending information has been deleted. The Lance Romañce posting complies to all of Wikipedia's policies and is utterly sincere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manifestsanity (talk • contribs) 18:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I had just noticed what Zoe noticed. nn/vanity; does not, to my mind, meet WP:MUSIC. --MCB 22:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity/promo. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It reads like it was copied from somewhere, but I was not able to find a source. In anycase, importance does not appear to have been estabilished. If it is, my vote can be changed. Vegaswikian 07:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep
- I wrote the article for a music criticism class, and have been editing it to make it more wiki-firnedly. I am not Lance, though I did send the article to him as well.
  - Lance has played numerous concerts with Lightning Bolt, as well as with and in bands with members of USAIsAMonster, The Moldy Peaches and The Slip. All of whom are quite notable and are listed in AllMusic. Lance has also been on local magazine covers, radio spots, etc...
  - Definitely an artist worthy of mention, if not such a full description.

--User:Giantrats 11:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

- - - One vote was enough. —Cryptic (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep according to current policy. ··gracefool |☺ 18:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Which current policy are you citing? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete - WP:MUSIC, no notability - Hahnchen 03:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capital Boulevard

Basing this mostly on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I live in Raleigh, and Capital Blvd is a heavily travelled road, but it's no different than any other heavily-travelled road in any other part of the country. Short of obviously famous roads like Broadway or Hollywood Boulevard, specific roads probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia. --PacknCanes 07:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

delete for reasons stated. Yahoo search turned up nothing but a random set of businesses with addresses on Capital Boulevard.Brandon39 08:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, heavily travelled road and important to the economic development of the city. We are supposed to be building a comprehensive encyclopedia. Kappa 10:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Then it deserves mention in the article on Raleigh, North Carolina and not a separate article. --Calton | Talk 11:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It does say its historically the most significant road in Raleigh Astrokey44 11:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- That's on par with being the most significant Chinese restaurant in Fargo, North Dakota. --Calton | Talk 11:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Historically, the most significant road in Raleigh is Hillsborough Street, bar none. Wake Forest Road would be second. Not that anyone cares about this, but I'm just making the point that simply because an article states something does not automatically make it true. This would be good on a personal webpage, but it's not encyclopedia-worthy. And besides, if we start putting "significant" roads on Wikipedia, who decides significance? It's a slippery slope. --PacknCanes 12:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: Whether or not it's a good thing, the precedent is there: Category:Streets of London - 154 articles and counting. Loganberry (Talk) 13:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Nothing wrong with that. Some of those ought to go, others ought to stay. Pilatus 15:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Agreed, but it was mostly a reply to PacknCanes: we already have articles about "significant" roads on Wikipedia. 86.132.141.253 16:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Note: the above comment is mine; I didn't realise I'd been logged out. Loganberry (Talk) 17:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
      - I can completely understand where you're coming from, and I'm not threatening to leave Wikipedia forever or anything like that (sorry if that disappoints anyone :)) if this article isn't deleted. But, at the end of the day, how many roads in American cities (or cities anywhere, for that matter) have no claim to fame other than bad traffic, lots of traffic lights, and lots of McDonalds along the side of the road? That's all Capital Blvd is, folks. I travel it just about every day. It's no more "significant" than any other road with similar characteristics anywhere else in the world. --PacknCanes 06:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    - I agree with PacknCanes and Pilatus. Category:Streets of London is 99% a reference to articles which should be deleted as being non-notable. There are streets in London of a notable nature, but WikiPedia is not an atlas. Justin Bacon 07:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete roadcruft, not to mention all the other Capital Boulevards (and no, I emphatically do not support a move to a more granular title). --Calton | Talk 11:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete roadcruft Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, significant streets, historically/culturally important streets and streets with rapid transit (subway/rail) stops should be covered. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warden Avenue for an example in Toronto) Andrew pmk | Talk 17:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep its a significant street in the community as noted. I think sometimes when it comes to these types of regional listings that there is a knee jerk reaction to pull articles that local value by those who aren't interested in that local. Does everything on Wikipedia have to übber notable to get a listing? I think not. Stu 17:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Road articles are not helping Wikipedia be more relevant to local issues. Quite the opposite, road articles have illustrated how overwhelming local topics can be (by the huge numbers of unexpanded, substandard road article that exist). Pragmatically, if you want articles on local topics I believe the best route is to fork an article off a community's article describing the topic, in this case something like 'Road network in Raleigh, NC' or what-have-you. Having a 100 articles on a 100 different roads in Raliegh only serves to fragment an interesting discussion and repeat information 99 times. --maclean25 01:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. I'd like to see a source for the historical importance. Lacking that I'm leaning delete. Vegaswikian 07:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Roads are not notable because you cannot distinguish one from the other; they are all the same. However, some are significant (ie. culturally, historically) but this article does not explain well why it is significant. Take it to the Raleigh, North Carolina article or delete. --maclean25 01:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, anything below the highway level is not-notable enough. Stuff like this can go in the city's article. -- Kjkolb 04:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hell, even most highways are non-notable. Otherwise I agree with Kjkolb. / Peter ^Isotalo 04:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete or weak merge with Raleigh, North Carolina. If there is, in fact, anything about this road which is notable its proper place is in he Raleigh article. Or, alternatively, a general article on Historic Roads of Raleigh, North Carolina (or somesuch) might be appropriate. Justin Bacon 07:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm inclined to believe the Raleigh resident over the people who don't live there. (S)merge with Raleigh, North Carolina. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 18:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Did you miss the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information entry? Still leaning delete. Vegaswikian 21:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete all non-notable roads. Article title is poor anyway, since it is unlikely that Raleigh has the world's only Capital Blvd. Quale 07:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and disambiguate major roads. Fuck "notability". --SPUI (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: But isn't notability at the root of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? And besides, I've seen non-notable as a valid reason for a deletion before. At some point, notability is required for an entry to be encyclopedic. --PacknCanes 04:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep until someone who doesn't like it as a separate article merges it into its locality, which I would encourage. Unfocused 04:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I wouldn't have a problem doing that, but wouldn't it rather defeat the point if this article were merged into the Raleigh article but wasn't deleted? Just a thought. --PacknCanes 04:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment No, because whoever performs the merge is expected to change the content at this article title to a redirect pointing at the merge target. Unfocused 09:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    - Comment: Oh, I see; yeah, that makes sense. I just didn't read your original comment correctly...sorry, these things happen late at night. --PacknCanes 12:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cognitive Systems Engineering

More Transmutalism/Ceriz gobbledygook. User:Zoe|^(talk) 08:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete and totally at odds with the accepted definition at Systems engineering. But perhaps A~>B, A=/=B has transmuted that. Dlyons493 09:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete BS. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:26, 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.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus to where to redirect. I'll be bold and redirect to autistic culture. R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aspie

Neoligism. Even if it isn't neoligism its a dicdef. REDIRECT to autistic culture where its put in proper context. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete IMHO no need to redirect. Dlyons493 09:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as Redirect -- Why not? --Mysidia (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as redirect - Aspie is not a neologism, I know of it from elsewhere, but I don't think it is worthy of an article separate to Aspergers. --MacRusgail 13:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
merge to Aspergers Not a neologism. Roodog2k (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- The information is already in Aspergers.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
comment I know the info is there. By voting merge, I am stating that I do not want to see the article edit history deleted/removed. I do not want to see the article deleted and then recreated as a redirect. Roodog2k (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as redirect - Guettarda 01:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per above. -- Kjkolb 04:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. / Peter ^Isotalo 05:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge to autistic culture ··gracefool |☺ 18:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus (3 to 4) so I shall redirect to autistic culture. R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aspiette

Neoligism. Even if it isn't neoligism its a dicdef. REDIRECT to autistic culture where it can be put in proper context. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete IMHO no need to redirect. Dlyons493 09:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect - why not? --Mysidia (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, the terms creator admits that it isn't widely used. -- Kjkolb 04:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Why not? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that's why. / Peter ^Isotalo 05:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as an unstable neologism. -Hapsiainen 08:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirects hurt no-one. In fact, the more the better, so long as they're not confusing or insulting. ··gracefool |☺ 18:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- The redirect would be confusing. Hardly no-one in Asperger community uses the word aspiette, see discussion about it. [7] The users are tiny minority inside a small minority. I believe that only the word inventor and the inventor's pals use that word. That's why the word shouldn't be in any article in Wikipedia, and there shouldn't be any redirect. An anon already removed the word from autistic culture article with good reason. -Hapsiainen 09:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Curebie

Neoligism. All the extra discussion on the page is completely unneccesary as pro vs anti cure stuff is discussed much better and in a more NPOV tone on other autism-related pages. Delete or Redirect to autistic culture Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete IMHO no need to redirect. Dlyons493 09:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Neologism --Mysidia (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Curebie seems to be an established term in the autistic community. I disagree as to the NPOV of autism related pages. The norm is that questionable treatments are presented in central parts of the articles while anti-cure ideas are at best mentioned in "passing". For instances, the autism page has recently been updated to use "person with autism" instead of the anti-cure peoples choice of "autistic". --Rdos 19:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- *sigh*. First off "NPOV of autism related pages" generally has community consensus here. In addition, the "person with" usage was only used for the third paragraph in the autism article because it wasn't explained yet in the article - for the rest of the article uses "autistic". Not only that but "Curebie seems to be an established term in the autistic community" does not mean it warrants an article on wikipedia... I mean what all can you say about the word anyway? The whole anti-cure pro-cure debate should be kept to pages that can explain them better and in a more NPOV light. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  - In that case curebie should be redirected to autistic culture and be clearly described in a pararaph. --Rdos 04:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. / Peter ^Isotalo 05:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Seems like a clear merge to autistic culture. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge as above comment ··gracefool |☺ 18:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Macduff's Son

This page is devoted to a minor character in one of William Shakespeare's plays -- so minor that he doesn't even have a name. Brandon39 08:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Macbeth. User:Zoe|^(talk) 08:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Macbeth as per User:Zoe|^(talk) Dlyons493 09:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think the page should be deleted just because he's a minor character. He's still a character. It isn't really a stub article, either. I did write a few paragraphs.

Why delete it if it's a perfectly good article, and why delete it only to redirect it to the general Macbeth page?

Tiria 09:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep, agree with Tiria; also a Shakespeare character and likely search term. Kappa 10:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. We keep individual video characters so I see no reason to delete this. The redirect only makes sense if it is also merged. Marskell 10:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment that's what I meant by redirect - wasn't entierly clear Dlyons493 10:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge with Macduff (thane). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, or merge into an article on Macbeth characters. Twenty years since I read this, but I remember him as the one with the immortal line "'Mother, he has killed me' (dies)" --Doc (?) 11:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Its like how wiki policy said there could be an article for every Simpsons character. Astrokey44 11:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep per above comments. (If this turns out to get a concensus to redirect it should be merged and redirected to Macduff (thane)). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep minor character in a play that has been world-famous for decades, centuries. --Mysidia (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - minor character but in major play by possibly the most famous playwright the world has seen. --MacRusgail 13:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Lack of a name does not make a character insignifacant. In any case, the page is relevant and should stay per above. Karol 13:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - an awful lot more more notable than Tom Riddle. Guettarda 02:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Err, this is Shakespeare-cruft in the same way that Tom Riddle is Harry Potter-cruft. It's a crying shame that no one came up with the idea of nominating this before all those stupid Harry Potter-stubs were established as faux-notable. /
Comment I agree with everyone who has said 'keep'. No offense, but I do have to wonder why it's so important that a simple page devoted to a minor character in a famous play get deleted. If that's so, then why hasn't anyone tried to do the same to some of the other minor characters in the plays whom I've seen have articles? The whole point of the Shakespearean characters category is to make articles for the characters of his plays, and that's exactly what I was doing. Tiria 07:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- My reasoning is that this is too detailed for an encyclopedia, even a Wikipedia. The reason that no one's tried to delete the other characters is probably because they haven't come across them yet. At least not the one's who want these things deleted. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  - I was the one who proposed for deletion, and that was essentially my reasoning. I am a fairly new user, and perhaps I should have waited longer to see what sort of standards people apply to these things, but it did seem like a very trivial entry to me, one that I would not expect to find in an encyclopedia. It is evident from the responses that there is a strong consensus to keep this page, and I'm fine with that. For me, it's been a learning experience.Brandon39 12:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Even though Macduff's Son remains unnamed in the play, he is not that minor; he gets murdered and is therefore part of the main plot. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep you fsking exclusionists. How does this hurt Wikipedia? ··gracefool |☺ 18:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, or merge with Macduff (thane). A minor character, but part of the central plot. --Meiers Twins 08:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Johnson

How many sins can one small article commit? Non-notability. Political POV. Vanity. Failure to even explain which Oakwood School we're talking about (it turns out to be the one in North Hollywood, California). Non-notable music teacher. A Google for "Oakwood School" "Ivan Johnson" returns four hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 08:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - person is not notable. "Oakwood Large Ensemble" and "Rumsfeld Translated by Nobody" get zero Google hits. --A bit iffy 08:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable etc. CambridgeBayWeather 09:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn enough yet. Appears to have been Visiting Artist at Stanford, Music Coordinator for CAP (Community Arts Partnership) - we may see him in the future Dlyons493 09:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 10:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn Olorin28 12:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete must kill the music teachers MWAHAHA, non notable. Job E 6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:56, 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.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Booyo

Not encyclopedic... especialy since it is only used by the developer. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 08:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per Jwissick. -- Kjkolb 04:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, a collaboration between the government and 7 software companies seems notable. Kappa 02:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Kappa. --Vsion 09:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to No Shame Theatre. R e dwolf24 (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No shame

Not encylopedic. Provides no information. Wiki is not a link collection. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 08:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep if it's rewritten it might pass. CambridgeBayWeather 09:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Redirect/Merge as noted by Dan MS CambridgeBayWeather 08:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete in its present form. If there's a major rewrite that gives some facts and reasons for notability I might then go along with CambridgeBayWeather Dlyons493 09:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite. It does appear encyclopaedic to me - I get a lot of hits with the Google query "No Shame" theatre OR theater. It appears to be the theatrical equivalent of "open mic". --A bit iffy 09:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Redirect as per DanMS (below). --A bit iffy 07:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep Needs to be rewritten, but from what I've read elsewhere this is worthy of inclusion. Jaysus Chris 10:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- someone can rewrite it, but the present content in the article is not worth keeping. --Mysidia (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. There is nothing wrong with this. The theatre is notable (see their web page - for instance, their history) and the article is worth keeping and expanding. I made it look better, but more info can be added. Compared to many subjects, wikipedia's coverage of theatres (even in America) is relatively weak. Karol 13:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Redirect per DanMS below. Karol 20:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with No Shame Theatre which already exists. The name of this article should be a redirect ♠ DanMS 16:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per Dan MS. Capitalistroadster 06:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Northern dragon king

This article appears to be made up. I searched for "northern dragon king" and "Pyro Yasha", but was unable to verify any of it. There is a message board posting that suggests a Northern sea dragon king may exist. -- Kjkolb 09:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. The word "Darth" in the name "Great Darth Ranma" smells of someone's [{Star Wars]]-related fantasy. Down the flushatory with it. Anthony Appleyard 10:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I count eight different unusual names paoched from TV or movies, which tells me this is fanfiction or forumcruft. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Some Chinese mythology speaks of four Dragon Kings, each of whom is associated with a direction; see here. However this lot looks like complete cobblers to me. Delete. Tonywalton | Talk 14:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:25, 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.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chaos Wonderland

Not encyclopedic. Unknown band. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 09:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - nn CLW 10:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - not notable. Oswax 13:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LNG gas quality

Irrelevant context, not worthy of an article, also doesn't make much sense. Wackymacs 09:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Looks like business promotion. Anthony Appleyard 10:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Looking at the original version, it seems it was copied in full from a press release about some proposal, and then wikified by another editor (but original text was kept). I can't find the source to prove the copyvio, but it seems apparent. I have no idea if there ever could be an article titled "LNG gas quality", but I'm sure not one word from this would ever go in it, and legally I suspect not one word could be used anyhow. --rob 11:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as redirect to Liquefied natural gas. Guettarda 02:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete copyvio. [8] [9] Wile E. Heresiarch 02:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Wackymacs. -- Kjkolb 04:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
It might not be a copyvio: it may have been uploaded by someone in the firm named. Anthony Appleyard 05:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirects hurt no-one. In fact, the more the better, so long as they're not confusing or insulting. ··gracefool |☺ 18:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Anything that could ever go in this article should be in the LNG article. --Ignignot 19:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Sinclair

Previous VfD. Does not appear to be notable. Having an "anti-cure perspective" does not make one notable. Writing an essay that is " widely distributed over the Internet" might make one notable - the problem is that the only references to it I found are on activist websites... which makes sense, since, well... he's an activist :). Around 650 google hits. [10] At worst maybe this article is finally cleaned up a bit.Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. He is vocal enough in his "anti-cure perspective" to be notable. See this link [11] in the NY Times. Pilatus 15:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Where is Jim Sinclair mentioned in the article? I can't find any mention of him.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  - He is quoted on the second page of the article: "What they're saying is their goal is to create a world that has no people like us in it," said Jim Sinclair, who did not speak until he was 12 and whose 1993 essay "Don't Mourn for Us" serves as a touchstone for a fledgling movement." That should establish his standing, shouldn't it? Pilatus 18:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - that's enough for me. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 18:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete and redirect. HappyCamper 20:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Co-Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous

Not an encyclopedic article, but an advertisement. Jeff Q (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Uhhhh.... I thought love WAS an addiction!! Ad. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete website ad. Martg76 11:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous —Wahoofive (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete advert. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirects hurt no-one. In fact, the more the better, so long as they're not confusing or insulting. ··gracefool |☺ 18:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect, since there is a non-advertising section in "Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous" about COSLAA. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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, its two weeks on WP:PNT are up. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chudów

Polish. Listed on WP:PNT since 28 August. The text has been copied to pl:Dyskusja:Chudów. Physchim62 11:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English

No idea what language this is, but it's not English. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 22:22, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Polish, about one of the historic castles in Poland. - Introvert ^talk 00:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I think this meets the criterion for Speedy under #2. ♠ DanMS 16:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. I'm replacing it with PANONIAN's proposed stub.--Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mladenovo

Hungarian (but with Serbian title), about a town in Vojvodina. Has been on WP:PNT since 28 August. Transwikied to hu:Dunabökény. Physchim62 11:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. since youve moved it across no reason for it to be here in the english version Astrokey44 11:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I think this meets the criterion for Speedy under #2. ♠ DanMS 17:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete. If article is not translated into English, then it should be replaced with following stub:

Mladenovo (Младеново) is a village located in the Bačka Palanka municipality, in the South Bačka District of Serbia, in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina.

User:PANONIAN

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. I'm replacing it with PANONIAN's proposed stub. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Obrovac

Hungarian (but with a Serbian title), about a town in Vojvodina. Has been on WP:PNT since 28 August. Transwikied to hu:Boróc. Physchim62 11:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment Delete if not translated or decent article or stub not created. Would vote to keep decent stub on real place with real communities of interest. Capitalistroadster 06:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete. If article is not translated into English, then it should be replaced with following stub:

Obrovac (Обровац) is a village located in the Bačka Palanka municipality, in the South Bačka District of Serbia, in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina.

User:PANONIAN

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red Cross Society of the Republic of China

Chinese. Has been on WP:PNT since 1 September. Physchim62 11:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- indecipherable --Mysidia (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment babelfished version:

Republic of China Red Cross's predecessor is called "the Shanghai International Red Cross committee", in clear Guangxu 30 (in 1904) on May 29, was creates the northeast area harm in accordance to the Russo-Japanese War to be serious, by Shanghai's bureaucratic business-people gentry hoped saved the populace to establish to the water and fire. Clear Guangxu 33 (in 1907) the Shanghai International Red Cross committee changed name the Qing Dynasty Red Cross; After the clear Xuantong Period three years (in 1911) 1911 Revolution successfully changes name the Red Cross Society of China.

Republic of China first year (in 1912) the Red Cross Society of China attained the Red Cross international board to acknowledge that, turned round (in 1919) joins the Red Cross and the Red Crescent league of nations in the Republic of China eight years. 1,933 (in 1933) the government for the coordinate military need, promulgated Republic of China Red Cross act of administration rules of procedure, changed name Republic of China Red Cross. (In 1949 moved to 1,949) along with Republic of China government, up to now had surpasses hundred year glorious history. Hereafter has been through repeatedly overthrows the Qing Dynasty government, division of the country among warlords, makes an expedition to the east the Northern Expedition, the Sino-Japanese War and Kuomintang and Communist Parties joins battle and so on the eventful time, the beacon-fire successive years, in addition the nature and man-made disaster is unceasing, urgently awaits the reliever, nearly does not have when there is no place not in, therefore Republic of China Red Cross since had been established, one after another war and huge rescue relief demand, under limited resources limit, an its degree of difficulty obviously spot.

In 1949 was detained the mainland Red Cross colleague, along with People's Republic of China establishing a government, reorganized to People's Republic of China capital Beijing to be established, still famous "Red Cross Society of China"; The People's Republic of China government and concluded in 1949 in 1956 the Geneva Convention (the general term Red Cross joint pledge, this first international joint pledge which concluded after People's Republic of China founding of the nation), caused to be located Beijing the Red Cross Society of China to conform to the national Red Cross condition which international Red Cross recognized (international Red Cross to acknowledge the national Red Cross, its government had for the Geneva Convention signatory state), to become represents the entire Chinese the Red Cross to organize. Broadcasts along with the government moves to Taiwan's Republic of China Red Cross, from now on will lose international Red Cross the membership, also will be unable to exercise right of and the duty the member Red Cross; Only still maintained certain intercourses with the international Red Cross movement member.

Republic of China Red Cross had for been established until now hundred years to have -odd, from end of the Qing the beginning of people war rescue and relief service; 60's impetuses disease prevention and health care; The 70's cooperate take the humanity concern as both banks exchange interaction to lay the foundation; The 80's impel each training work; The 90's promote the service work which each respect life, the society shows loving care for and so on, silently pay by way of many wills labor, by the universal love, the humanity and the service spirit, energetically put into practice the good conduct which the rescue reliefs.

In the 21st century, Republic of China Red Cross has stepped into for hundred years, the new century, the new start, the history is we best testimony, is altogether innovates You's turning point.

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete I definitely wouldn't want to replace this with Babelfish semi-gibberish. Having no article at all would be better than an article which ends "In the 21st century, Republic of China Red Cross has stepped into for hundred years, the new century, the new start, the history is we best testimony, is altogether innovates You's turning point." Even if somebody cleans it up, we still have no clue if this is a copyvio or not. Although I'd say the topic very likely deserves an article, we'd be better off starting from scratch. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per Andrew Lenahan. -- Kjkolb 05:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Has Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English been tried yet? The Chinese branch of the Red Cross surely seems notable. If this has already been tried and no one has stepped up, delete this; if it hasn't, list it on Pages needing translation and give it the canonical two weeks first. Smerdis of Tlön 22:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
According to the nominator, it's been at WP:PNT since September 1st. The two weeks are up. Speedy delete. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- D'oh! Should learn the acronyms rather than going straight to the page. Delete in that case. Smerdis of Tlön 15:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

[edit] Muruku

Wikipedia is not a usage guide or dictionary. --Mysidia (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete dicdif Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - As above. Oswax 13:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete and move to Wiki Dictionary of Slang. Oops! We don't have one—Oh, well... ♠ DanMS 17:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Yes we do, it's called wiktionary. Kappa 01:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Yeah, but they don't keep just any random slang term you throw at them. It needs to be attested in text, has to be have been used in proper textual context and has to have been around at least a year. At least that's how I've understood it. I suspect this one isn't going to be accepted. / Peter ^Isotalo 05:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Slang dicdef. / Peter ^Isotalo 05:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete User:Nichalp/sg 13:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maferefun Shango!

Spanish. Has been on WP:PNT since 3 September. Transwikied to es:Maferefun Shango. Physchim62 12:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English

Spanish, reads a bit like a gaming article. Physchim62 08:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It's about a supposedly saint-deity of nigeria. I personally have the feeling this is a hoax-joke so I'm not translating it. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 17:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I would imagine it's for real. Shango is the name of an Orisha, a deity originating in West Africa, whose worship now forms part of Santeria and Candomble in South America. So there could be a need for articles about Shango, and other similar deities. But I think even to translate this would require more understanding of Santeria than I have. Redlentil 08:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Oops - just noticed there is an article already for Shango. Maybe some of this can be merged? Redlentil 08:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Foreign language; subject already covered in English. ♠ DanMS 17:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
It's for real. Delete now that it has been transwikied. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:19, 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.

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, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ban milosavljević

Croatian biography. Has been on WP:PNT since 4 September. Text has been transwikied to hr:Ban Milosavljević. Physchim62 12:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English

Croatian. SWAdair | Talk 20:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Ban in some Slav languages means Count (the noble title).

(SVETISLAV TISA MILOSAVLjEVIĆ, born Niš, 7 Sept 1882, died Belgrade, 28. Jul 1960.) From what words I can recognize, it seems to be his life story. Anthony Appleyard 19:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sir charles napier

It's a pub in Langley Mill (a town in England). It serves ales. There is no evidence of notability. Delete. Sliggy 12:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Don't suppose the Pool table at rear is enough for notability? Thought not. Dlyons493 12:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
No-one has written anything about this pub. The only things that Google Web turns up are business directory listings and pub guides, all of whose review sections are like this one, empty. There appears to be a business named Sir Charles Napier that satisfies the WP:CORP criteria. But it isn't this pub. Delete. Uncle G 14:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not a travel guide. Pilatus 15:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Langley Mill. Kappa 16:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, no assertion of notability, badly written, improper capitalization of title. Probably just someone’s favorite corner pub. ♠ DanMS 17:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge or Delete according to preference, seeing as there already is an article relating to an inn Sir Charles Napier of the same name. Also I find it odd that there is no article relating to the individual himself, [Sir Charles Napier] Piecraft 17:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- ~~There are: General Sir Charles Napier and Admiral Sir Charles Napier. Sliggy 17:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)~~
  - Upon further reflection, I have been bold and switched things round so that the articles on Admiral and General Sir Charles Napier are more readily accessed via Sir Charles Napier, with the restaurant available at Sir Charles Napier Inn. Sliggy 18:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn pub. Transwiki to Wikitravel. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Sir Charles Napier - nn except it's named after a famous admiral ... and an American actor ;-). 23skidoo 00:22, 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.

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus. R e dwolf24 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ECRUSH

Appears to be nothing more than elaborate link spam. Only edits so far have been by two anon users who were also involved in DoYouDo (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DoYouDo). RoySmith 12:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment I can't decide. Alexa rank is quite high (34,229) and it gets a ton of googles (22,900 - 633 unique)[12]. Plus this is ELABORATE linkspam if it is such. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ad. Dlyons493 12:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete alexa rank higher than most we see here at VfD, but not so high that it can squak by just on that alone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- If this is an ad, it's an awful one. Linking to a website in an article about that website is normal. I remember this website being in the news toward the end of the dot-com era (and the references section seems to confirm that). Giving alexa the benefit of the doubt because I'm not sure how popular their toolbar is amongst the teen set this website targets. — mendel ☎ 17:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The article cites plenty of independent news coverage in its references. (I applaud and encourage the two anonymous users mentioned by RoySmith for their work in citing sources. To those editors: If all of your contributions are going to be explicitly sourced right from the start like this, please give us more of them.) This satisfies both the WP:WEB and the WP:CORP criteria. Keep. Uncle G 01:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Our policy against using Wikipedia for commercial purposes doesn't mean that we can't have good coverage of businesses. This company touches many people's lives, and some of them might turn to Wikipedia to learn more about it. JamesMLane 07:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, first link indicates the Wall Street Journal thought it worth covering. Kappa 00:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as above comment. ··gracefool |☺ 22:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable, and it's connection with DoYouDo, as well as internal wikispamming, and this user's attempts to alter existing guidelines convince me that it is advertising. On Alexa - This website's target demographic matches Alexa toolbar uptake, skewing the numbers. Alexa should only be trusted for two things: Super high = not notable, super low = notable. The entire middle ground is hogwash. For an actual example, see this reference. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Oh, so we are supposed to leave articles as orphans rather than linking relevant articles, such as dating system, to them? What criteria are you using for classifying that normal activity as internal wikispamming? It's just your own assumption of bad faith. I agree with you about Alexa, though. By the way, to be fair, Plugwash made a similar edit to Wikipedia:Spam. See [13]. You unilaterally reverted both back. 24.54.208.177 02:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment(s). Just to be pedantic:
1. Both WP:WEB and WP:CORP are only proposed guidelines, which eCRUSH still fails.
2. Re:WP:WEB, the "Wall street Journal" link is a very small article in a ZdNet repost of an article from the Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition. This is a very very low hurdle compared to appearing in the print version of WSJ. Do we have any evidence major media coverage? E.g. "off-line sources of news such as newpapers and national broadcasters."
3. Re:WP:CORP, I'm not seeing how eCRUSH qualifies?

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, the anon is spamming links to this page all over the place. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Is that true? I see only four articles in the main namespace linking to this one. 24.54.208.177 03:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Well-written and sourced article about something which seems to have gotten a significant bit of media coverage. If this is spam, then I wish all spammers would go to this much effort. Gamaliel 04:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- I know I'm starting to sound a bit shrill here, but is this really what we're calling "significant [...] media coverage"? North Andover, MA? An Independent Daily Newspaper from Ohio University? I'd also point out that those citations appear to be purposefully deceptive. For example: Mieszkowski, Katharine. "The Bot Who Loved Me", Salon, 2002-08-09. Did this article actually appear on Salon? It doesn't appear so as it's on AltNet, however Mieszkowski also writes for Salon. This is not good form, it's bad for the encyclopedia. If we keep this article based upon this performance, we're rewarding it to our detriment.
  brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- The AltNet article credits it to "Katharine Mieszkowski, Salon" so I can't see that anyone is being deceptive. Kappa 00:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  - If Max Hunter writes political analysis articles for the New York Post and then submits a two-paragraph article in my local high school newsletter, it's deceptive to put Hunter, Max. "Hair today, gone tomorrow", New York Post, 2002-04-01. This article did actually appear in Salon, so I'll replace "deceptive" with "lazy", and offer a weak semblance of an apology to the user when his block expires. Still no evidence of "significant coverage".
    brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KICKS for .NET

Advertising page for non-notable software package. —Cleared as filed. 12:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete ad - 38 unique googles - many of them on wikipedia Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 12:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, spam. —Cryptic (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete ad *drew 07:32, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fjellstrand skole

Norwegian, about a primary school. Has been on WP:PNT since 9 September. Physchim62 12:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English

Probably some kind of Norwegian -- FireFox^{T C E} 16:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear. This is a school. A primary school, too, with 143 pupils - and the article was evidently written by the students. I'm not going to translate it... Sam Vimes 17:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I second that. In the dustbin with it. EldKatt (Talk) 22:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Yet another non-notable ordinary school. Anthony Appleyard 19:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. There's free Norwegian-to-English Web translation service at http://www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=Norwegian&to=English, I'll take care of this in a jiffy. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

fjellstrand school am a a bit school at nesodden dete am typed Thursday 9/8 2005 saw as a few kansje see to the inconvenience through apply at fjellstrand school accord sikert no matter all info.fjellstrand school am a captivating a little school as am kåret at premium school in 2004.Ver Friday fåre goes facts a accumulation in gym salen called sangstund as am a cosily bejiven called along with all 1. at 7. class additional info finer you at Fjellstrand

Hmmm... well, let's try the Swedish-to-English option. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

fjellstrand school yourself a little school on nesodden detectives yourself was striding Thursday 9/8 2005 so as noen maybe am grabbing tough brye til og søke on fjellstrand school stemer sikert ikke all info.fjellstrand school yourself a sjarmerende petty school as yourself corps til bonus school in 2004.Ver Fri. mutton am going the a assembly in gym salen chilly sangstund as yourself a koselig bejiven hot with allegory 1. til 7. kl more insert hits yous on Fjellstrand

Delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep all schools. Great translation work. :-) --Nicodemus75 14:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- I'll go along with Keep all schools in English but isn't there a Norwegian wiki for articles in Norwegian? Dlyons493 15:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. unless translated intelligbly from Norwegian (hot with allegory, while evocative, doesn't count). Dlyons493 14:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep, if translated, delete if not. Kappa 16:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I know this school. The reason you can't translate the article is because it's full of spelling errors. Punkmorten 22:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I usually stay out of school nominations, but this is going too far. -- Kjkolb 05:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Whether in English or Norwegian, this still spells "non notable". I, of course, assume that this will be even more ignored than your average US or UK school. / Peter ^Isotalo 05:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. That's what I vote. Punkmorten 21:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is not a school article (in Norwegian either). I doubt that even the Norwegian Wikipedia would want this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral on the rewritten translated version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
keep but please translate this over so we can read it Yuckfoo 07:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

keep the school. It was only put in "Norway-related stubs" and "Schools in Norway" categories today, which may allow it to actually be seen by somebody who may be able to add content. --rob 15:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep this article, but the section "Content needing translation" should probably be removed by someone who knows the language, as I think the article has progressed well enough from primary sources not to need what is there. Unfocused 16:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- I decided to move it to the talk page, so it could still be translated. But, really, anybody in the future wishing to improve the article, should probably just go the school's web site, or other sources. --rob 16:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Good move. I should have thought of that myself. Un focused 17:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Looks fine now Dlyons493 Talk 20:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten by rob. To the closing administrator: Please make note that this article was translated on September 27, 2005 at 15:01. All votes made prior to this time were for an article written in Norwegian. Silensor 17:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, schoolcruft, whatever language it's in. We don't even have an article on Fjellstrand. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of schoolcruft. Dunc|☺ 02:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I wasn't the person who moved this from Fjellstrand skole to Fjellstrand Skole, but such moves are allowed *if* all references to it are also properly updated, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. It was moved back, and I think that issue can be left till after the AFD. The edit comment "Fjellstrand Skole moved to Fjellstrand skole: Do not move VFD nominations, it f**** them up real good" is not WP:CIVIL. As requested, I have made the stub Fjellstrand, Norway, and provided a ~~re-direct~~ disambig for Fjellstrand. Thank you for the suggestion. --rob 02:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, thanks Rob for saving this article. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it is a nice stub now, and does provide some useful infor. --Vsion 08:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. -- DS1953 04:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as translated, but move to Fjellstrand Skole. Physchim62 06:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Recommend that we don't move this to Fjellstrand Skole, Norwegian convention is to leave the "skole" uncapitalized since "skole" (school) is not considered part of the name. Take a look at the yellow pages entry. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Sorry, I'm a little unclear. I thought, the only reason for "skole" being in the article name and lead sentence of the article (instead of "school"), is that it was assumed to be part of the official name. Even for English schools, we only use upper-case "S" in "Example School" *if* "School" is an official part of the name. Otherwise we might say "Example school", or call the article "Example (school)". I'm a little uncertain if your talking about official school naming conventions, or Norweigan conventions for capitalizing proper names. Note: I'm asking more for future cases, and support your request to keep the article name. --rob 17:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    - If "skole" is not a part of the Fjellstrand's official name, then the article should be titled "Fjellstrand (school)". If it is part of the official title, then it should be "Fjellstrand Skole". (IMHO) Silensor 17:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      - I partly agree, and disagree. If "skole" is not part of the official name, we should use "Fjellstrand (school)". But, if "skole" is apart of the official name, and despite that, Norweigan language convention dicates it be lower-case, we should respect that, and say "Fjellstrand skole". Upper-case "Skole" should never be used, since it's not English *and* its not official. --rob 17:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All Info About LTD

I think it just needs tidying to bring it to a higher standard and not to be so much of an advert rather than deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.73.86.111 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, NN. ComCat 04:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm relisting this in the hope that more opinions will be expressed. Thryduulf 13:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable. Thryduulf 13:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn - just yer average pan global company. Dlyons493 14:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I think an article with the same content has existed before, but I haven't been able to find it. -- Kjkolb 05:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, seems important enough to me. It's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |☺ 23:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - All about advertising LTD - Hahnchen 14:39, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ADNUG

Vanity page for non-notable computer user's group. —Cleared as filed. 13:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable user group. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Disambiguate per template on page. (unsigned comment from anon)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ivandvor

Another page from WP:PNT, more recnt this one. Opinion is that it is not worth tranlating. Physchim62 13:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Transfer from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English

Polish? Rather short. FreplySpang (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks a bit like Croatian I think... FireFox^{T C E} 16:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Serbo-croatian, indeed. I recognize a few words. If I'm not wrong, it's a kind of district of Dakovo. ~~It's the only I can get...~~ Forget it: Croatian, pretty badly written and seems to be non-notable. Milena 11:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)^Talk

I transwiki-ed this little article into the Croatian wikipedia along with a note about a reference to it from Đakovo, and asked their opinion as to whether this is indeed a place with a history or worth having an article. Let's give it a few more days maybe? - Introvert ^talk 07:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

from Ante Perkovic (see Talk:Ivandvor): "Feel free to delete it, this is just a badly written story about where local lovers go to have some privacy (...) :)" -- hehe this one was worth trying :) so it's good to go, I suppose, and leave the Ivandvor reference in its pretty red color. - Introvert ^talk 08:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Croatian speakers assert that in its current version, it is not an article at all; plus so far, I couldn't verify that the place is notable enough for a separate article - beyond what's already mentioned about it in Đakovo. - Introvert ^talk 04:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Icqz

The actual site is notable and the entry is a combination of vanity and but mainly an advert for ICQ. CambridgeBayWeather 13:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

relisting on today's page. Thryduulf 13:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - cut and paste from advert somewhere. --MacRusgail 13:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable web site. Alexa ranking of just under 1.25 million. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. -GregAsche (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Shauri 23:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6

This article seems to be pretty much unencylopedic. I should think it comes under WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Travel Guide. Kel-nage 14:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless expanded to show its significance. Pilatus 15:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia should not be a road atlas in prose, either. --Metropolitan90 23:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As per nominator. / Peter ^Isotalo 05:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable road. *drew 07:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment - There are other 'Ang Mo Kio' roads too: Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 2, and Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5. Maybe we should delete these too. --*drew 12:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and other Ang Mo Kio Avenue X, as per nom. --Vsion 22:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I don't think there's any individual street in Ang Mo Kio that's significant enough to merit its own encyclopaedia page. Singopo 06:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turbo Torrent

Ad. --fvw * 14:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete ad for a gross amount of statistical and network data in a visually empowered format - ugh! Dlyons493 14:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. -- Kjkolb 05:28, 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.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ultimate theory of reality

Very clearly original research, personal essay &c. No more needs to be said. [[Sam Korn]] 14:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. If external reality doen't need to exist, then neither does this article. Dlyons493 16:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm the auther, and new to wikipedia; it would be helpful if someone could expain to me why the entry is up for deletion- as a newbie I don't understand what the problem is?

OK, I've done some looking in the FAQs and now understand that Wiki doesn't host original stuff- UToR is original so I guess you should delete it. Anyone know of a similar kind of thing to wikipedia that does host such stuff? Apologies for posting something innapropriate. As a bit of constructive feedback, it may be worth your while making it clearer that you don't want original work; I did check several of the intro FAQs prior to posting, and didn't pick up on that.

To the author:
- First of all, you should always sign your entries by putting four tildes (~~~~) after your entries. If you don't have a user name, create one and sign in.
- Regarding original research, see Wikipedia:No original research.
- Valid contributions to the Wikipedia are always welcome.
  DanMS 18:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

To the author: Apologies for the somewhat sarcastic vote for deletion above - I was assuming awareness of the guidelines. Why not create an account (it's free and very quick) and that will give you a user page onto which you can put your article with no fear of it being deleted. You can then work on it, as and when you wish, to make more like what wiki expects an article to be. Good luck. Dlyons493 19:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOR, obviously a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. --Pjacobi 20:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
delete Original research. Creator/new editor seems to understand. <joke> And just as I was about to redirect it to 42</joke> WCFrancis 02:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Obvious nonsense. / Peter ^Isotalo 05:22, 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.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Collydean

Article about a community in a Scottish town, Glenrothes. I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy is on communites like this, but it looks non notable to me. JoanneB 14:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey I think its alright that you have added an article on a scottish town - and it's really great that maybe more people from that area could learn more information - but if you Really want to keep it up - then please add some more information on the place - what does the after schoolclubs do - what other sghts can you see in Collydean - etc. Then maybe you can save the article.

Keep or merge with Glenrothes. Kappa 16:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep or (merge) as per Kappa. Guettarda 02:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, similar communities are generally considered notable. ··gracefool |☺ 15:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merged with LazyTown by Aleph4. H e rmione1980 19:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jodi Eichelberger

~~Better merge with LazyTown (which, btw, claims that he is the voice of Stingy, not Ziggy. Aleph4 14:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)~~

Oops, I meant {{merge}}, of course. I retract my afd nomination. --Aleph4 16:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Admins, you can close this now. ··gracefool |☺ 15:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus, will redirect. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burdett Road

Unlike such roads as Brick Lane, Oxford Circus or the London Orbital, this road has little to speak for itself beyond its existence. Roads that do not have cultural or historic significance are best dealt with in an article such as Transport infrastructure of $TOWN; people would consult an atlas to find their way through a town, and breaking down the transport infrastructure of a town into single articles on each artery is somewhat counterproductive. Besides, Burdett Road and its northern extension Globe Road are not very major. Pilatus 15:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Change to Redirect per User:Mrsteviec Pilatus 19:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete CalJW 16:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete (forced to agree, shame because I used to have a lot of friends on that road, but the GLC demolished all their houses to make Mile End Park anyway. There's not much there, agreed.) Tarquin Binary 18:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect A1205 road. Mrsteviec 18:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds like the right thing to do, this is the more comprehensive entry. Pilatus 19:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to A1205 road --SPUI (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to keep the article.

[edit] Mangalore Bajji

Wikipedia is not a recipe book. Shauri 15:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep, real class of food. Kappa 16:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
no doubt but I see little encyclopedic content here. Weak delete if kept remove the recipe aspects. DES ^(talk) 17:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. encyclopedic content for me is, "what the hell is this?" if it's a word, it goes in a dictionary. if it's a person, place or thing, it goes in an encyclopedia. the content isnt a recipe, because theres no way you could read it, go to the supermarket, go to the kitchen, and make it. besides, claiming "non-encyclopedic content" is pretty similar to "doesn't belong in an encyclopedic," which is redundant following a delete vote. Nateji77 19:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If Pizza and Idli can have articles, why not this ? Tintin 22:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The only indication of notability for this food is that it's popular in a province within India that according to its Wikipedia page doesn't have a lot of English speakers. Google search shows 640 hits, mostly South Indian recipe sites. Current article content is mostly what it's made of, which goes against WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Precedent with popular food types has been that we keep articles only if expanded with substantial encyclopedic importance, beyond what can be said about any food that's popular with some people somewhere. Weak delete unless a lot more importance is shown. Barno 04:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Google results are not a definitive result for developing countries. Indian food varies from region to region BTW. There's no such thing as "Indian food" User:Nichalp/sg 13:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Maybe it can be expanded in areas of Types of Mangalore bajji and specific regions where the snack is more popular. Jay 12:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep – regional food, notable. User:Nichalp/sg 13:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, not just a recipe. ··gracefool |☺ 15:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mémoires de l'Académie de Berlin

This isn't nonsense; it's scarcely-connected ramblings about esoteric physics, and the title of the page doesn't seem related at all. DS 15:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless there's a major rewrite that connects the dots. Dlyons493 16:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 19:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 21:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The journal is historically important and surely deserves an article, if any journal does, but the present 'article' is patent nonsense and utterly hopeless as a start. The same machine (i.e. IP 217.137.87.80, nominally owned by NTL Internet in Great Britain) was apparently used to make an anonymous edit of LeSage gravity, adding a cranky link and making some cranky claims for LeSage gravity.---CH (talk) 07:31, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Companion

Dicdef. DS 15:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep and allow to expand, important topic for Dwarf spheroidal galaxies and featured in the 1911 Encylopedia Britannica. Kappa 16:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as it stands. If it evolves into an astronomy article during the Afd then *Keep as per Kappa Dlyons493 16:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
delete as it stands. an article on the artronomical concept should be at Companion star or Companion galaxy or some such more specific term anyway. DES ^(talk) 17:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Dicdef, and not even a good one. TheMadBaron 19:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Binary star article exists. WCFrancis 05:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We obviously already have articles on this subject. / Peter ^Isotalo 05:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as duplication of better-named and better-documented content elsewhere. No redirect, unless the word really needs a disambiguation among the term in mythology, the two terms suggested by DES, or other uses of "companion" that might be better suited for Wikipedia than Wiktionary. Barno 04:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep or merge. Some of the delete reasons given above are reasons for the article to be marked {{cleanup}} or {{attention}}, not {{afd}} or {{delete}}. ··gracefool |☺ 15:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nut ball

Hoax involving testicular injury. DS 16:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable drunken teenage antics. ♠ DanMS 17:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Stu 17:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nutty bollocks. TheMadBaron 19:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN was the creator serious? Job E 6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete was the creator sober? I barely resisted the temptation to change to "Skills=Stupidity". WCFrancis 05:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete There's not a lot to say about it ParticleMan
Strong BJODNJust silly stuff that is not serious. Dudtz 9/29/05 5:34 PM EST

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione1980 19:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Liam Twomey

created by a known vandal, has no substance. there is no reason this page should exist.--Alhutch 16:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of getting rid of the vandalism ("liam twomeys a fucking douchebag"), replacing it with a previously saved version of the article. I'm not an expert on Irish politics but a quick search indicates an article is appropriate. Keep. Sliggy 16:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Looks legitimate, just a case of vandalism. --Breathstealer 16:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This person is real. See [14], [15], [16]. ♠ DanMS 17:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep legit. WCFrancis 05:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep sorry, my mistake , didn't realize it was just vandalism.--Alhutch 19:40, 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.

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

The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione1980 19:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kristen Pfaff

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep, and cleanup. Notable musician. Interesting story. Terrible article. TheMadBaron 18:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Cleanup as per TheMadBaron. --MCB 23:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup as above. I'd be curious to hear why someone thought this article should be deleted. 23skidoo 00:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong strong keep She is most certainly notable. Job E 6 Image:Peru flag large.png 01:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as notable musician. Former member of Hole who died of an overdose in 1994. Article is now in reasonable shape for mine. Capitalistroadster 06:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Please keep-this should be in such a resourceful tool-and is a reason the wikipedia is beyond thunderdome! sincerly bots

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

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

The result of the debate was Move to Lady Death. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lady death

Keep - added a few references Khaosinfire August 27 2005
Keep and cleanup - why is this even up for consideration? -leigh (φθόγγος) 23:17, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup - There is another stub under Lady Death. johnnyrokkit August 31 2005
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Keep and move it over Lady Death. —Cryptic (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Move per Cryptic. Tonywalton | Talk 16:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, and clobber the properly-capitalized stub. Weird nom. Jkelly 19:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment. This is not a serious AfD. The original VfD-sign was put up by Paul Klenk with the motivation "no context or attribution" (in the edit summary) on August 24th without any followup in the form of a proper motivation or central listing. Hell, not even I would vote to delete this... / Peter ^Isotalo 21:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move as above. Major character. 23skidoo 00:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Lady Death and redirect. In Paul's defense, On Aug 24,2005, when he put "{{vfd}}" in the article, there definitely was no context or attribution (see [17].) WCFrancis 05:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and move per above. This is much better than the article to be found at the proper title. Needs update to discuss the (hilarious) direct to video cartoon from last year. Smerdis of Tlön 22:52, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Large females

I think this should be deleted.Xpendersx 17:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite. I couldn't resist adding Professor Peach! Dlyons493 17:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete opinionated and completely non verifiable. "most commonly African-Americans" is an opinion not a fact, as is fat bottomed girls in the list of songs. chowells 17:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Yeah! Let's have an article for big girls, an article for small girls, an article for short girls, an article for tall girls, an article for pretty girls, an article for ugly girls, an article for dark girls, an article for light girls, an article for girly girls, an article for boyish girls, an article for, no, no, no, no, no, let's just delete. TheMadBaron 18:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- We already have an article for girly girls :-) Dlyons493 19:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment there is a pornography genre centered on images of obese women. there are hetereosexual men to whom an overweight woman is more attractive than a woman of medically-recommended. Chubby chaser (an episode of Cheers used this term to refer to a woman who was attracted to Norm and Paul but not Sam, but i've normally heard it used to refer to men) redirects to something male homosexual specific. I think the concept deserves an article, but "Large females" is neither the article nor the title for it. Nateji77 19:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I also think the concept deserves an article (see vote above) and think this might be a starting point but you certainly have a point about the title. Dlyons493 19:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - original research and not verifiable as such. --Pjacobi 21:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- an article already exists at BBW.this article was started as a goof.Xpendersx 22:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge anything worth keeping to BBW as per Xpendersx Dlyons493 02:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. About as unencyclopedic as striped dog. / Peter ^Isotalo 05:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as content is covered by other articles. -- Kjkolb 05:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. BBW and Fat fetishism cover the same topic, and are better, more appropriately titled articles. Nateji77 12:40, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by someone else. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leftist consensus

Poorly written dictionary definition. Gets 327 Google hits, top results aren't relevant to definition. Jkelly 00:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense, apparently created for vandalizing Global Warming. Delete. --Stephan Schulz 00:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - unencyclopaedic neologism created by vandal. Guettarda 00:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment Seems to have been removed already. Jkelly 00:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete for the above reasons and title is an inherentt POV until such time as the term actually comes into use. --Mysidia (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete maybe even speedy. There is only one line. Notable? Encyclopedic???--Jondel 08:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The article is nothing more than one line expressing an opinion. Could not possibly be made NPOV. (Full disclosure: I am far from a leftist.) ♠ DanMS 19:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legal egalitarianism

This article appears to be complete gibberish. The sentence structure vaguely resembles an academic article but the content has no meaning and forms no coherent argument or point of debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorzar (talk • contribs) 09:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless massive rewrite. I haven't an idea what it's about. Dlyons493 17:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
speedy delete as nonsense, and so tagged -- I think this qualifies as somethign no reasoanble person could be expected to make head or tail out of. DES ^(talk) 17:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nonsense. Thue | talk 20:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Comintern affiliate organizations

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Weak keep The list is unsourced, but looks plausible. With proper sourcing it could be a valuable addition to its category.Brandon39 19:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep it is sourced now. nobs 01:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Loosely associated topic-list. I don't see any valid encyclopedic purpose for this list. / Peter ^Isotalo 05:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Is this a list or a category? Do we need the list format (for the sourcing)? If so, we need a bit more commentary about how the list was compiled. If not, categorify. Alba 22:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Clean up Piecraft 14:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Vital Information

This page is comletely irrelevant. should be merged, deleted or renamed. Starfox 23:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned (as it was misplaced on the article's talk page). Listing now. Delete, nonsense. —Cryptic (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy nonsense Dlyons493 17:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
delete nothing but a list of bad (and mostly old) jokes. However this does not IMO fit either wikipedia def of patent nonsense, so not a speedy candidate. DES ^(talk) 17:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- DES, does this motivation serve any other purpose except to make it harder to speedy equally obvious nonsense in the future? / Peter ^Isotalo 23:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete and quickly. Nonsense. ♠ DanMS 17:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- - I tend to interpret the speedy deletion criteria fairly strictly. i think some people are far too ready to describe as "nonsense" things which are indeed very poor articles, but which do not fit the rather limited and strict description at WP:PN. Of course this is only my view. if ther is a consensus for includign a wider reach under the nonsense CSD so be it. DES ^(talk) 15:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Obvious nonsense. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think it's quite nonsense...I think it might be that some user's trying to list all of the sayings in the Vital Information segment from All That. But it's still too trivial a list. -- Grev -- Talk 00:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Patent Nonsense. In fact, the nonsense/non-sequiturs are the source of any humor. oh, and non-encyclopedic, unverifiable etc. WCFrancis 04:36, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of best-selling albums in the United States (modified)

delete, this page is not based on any form of fact whatsoever. 195.93.21.99 07:22, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There does not seem to be much point in this. There is already an article List of best-selling albums in the United States. ♠ DanMS 17:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete self admitted Original Research. WCFrancis 04:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per DanMS —Wahoofive (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. List is based on speculation, which doesn't need its own page. Flower party■ 02:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione1980 19:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Logie Awards of 1968

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep Australia's main television awards. Part of a series. Will be completed some time. If were to delete this we should also delete Primetime Emmy Award winners, 2005 to avoid U.S. centrism and contemporary bias. CalJW 16:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep per CalJW. Tonywalton | Talk 17:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as above as long as it isn't an orphan article. Agreed if the Emmys have a listing there's no reason why major regional awards such as the Logies can't. 23skidoo 00:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. The article does not contain any information beyond when it was held. Capitalistroadster 07:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. — JIP | Talk 17:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nutty Crunch surprise

Nonsensical, commercial advertising 67.85.52.123 16:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy, no context, very short. —Cryptic (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy as per Cryptic (talk). Anyway has no Nuts! Dlyons493 17:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete or speedy. I suspect a joke, IIRC "Nutty Crunch surprise" was the name of one of the many delights manufactured by Mr. Willy Wonka in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. DES ^(talk) 17:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete or speedy. Stu 17:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 22:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lemon sented murder

Non-notable band which according to the article itself cannot meet WP:MUSIC as "They are in there first stage as a band were they still have to complete the lineup" Tonywalton | Talk 17:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. no line-up, notability. Nateji77 19:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 22:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Puriegton (Purie) Howanitz

Apparently a local politician, but the article does not explain what office he was a candidate for. One Google hit for "Purie Howanitz", zero Yahoo hits. Zero hits on either Yahoo or Google for "Puriegton Howanitz". User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

edited to reflect that he was the incumbent mayor

Delete Unverifiable. Paul August ☎ 15:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting from September 12 in hopes of more participation. -Splash^talk 17:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per Zoe. -- Kjkolb 05:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

it is verifiable through the monroe library and keysnews.com has a section called this day in history which recalled the election on 9-12-2005

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 22:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TI-83 Programming

This is a howto on how to program a graphical calculator. I don't think it's appropriate material for an encyclopedia, in particular it violates Wikipedia is not an instruction manual chowells 17:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
:Repairing mis-shapen AfD entry. No Vote Tonywalton | Talk 01:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. As per nominator. Very obvious programmingcruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 05:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Peter. -- Kjkolb 05:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Per nom. I would also not be surprised to discover that its a copyvio of an actual TI-83 manual. Justin Bacon 07:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- It isn't - an actual TI-83 manual would be better written; in particular, it would cover more than how to display text. Delete. --Zetawoof 08:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikibooks. --R.Koot 18:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Unlikely to be wanted there, as there isn't enough material to work with. --Zetawoof 19:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Delta Air Lines. Rx StrangeLove 22:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spirit of Delta

an article about a singel commercial airplane, whose only claim to fame is that it has a name and was the firwst of its type owned by a particular airline. Doesn't seem notable to me. Delete DES ^(talk) 17:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Advertising; the only significant thing about the aircraft is Delta's promotional use of it. No potential to become encyclopedic; this article will never be more than a substub. I just put a link to the external image in Boeing 767. (Possibly might be worth including in the Delta Air Lines article too). Dpbsmith (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC) Changed vote.
Comment: there's already a long paragraph about the plane in the Delta Air Lines article. The plane is, in fact, much more notable than the stub article indicates; it was bought & paid for by the employees and retirees, through a voluntary contribution scheme, and there was a lot of press attention, etc., at the time, as a story about the loyalty of the employees and so forth. As it happens, I actually wrote up an article about Spirit of Delta a while ago, but then read what was in the main Delta article, and decided it did not really merit an article on its own. MCB 00:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Delta Air Lines based on MCB's comment. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per comments by MCB and Dpbsmith. PRueda29 02:46, 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BrainMagnet

Delete. Non-notable design firm. Their website shows no large clients, a Google search with "BrainMagnet" turns up 41 unique hits, and "Brain Magnet" + design gives ~100. Icelight 17:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

delete nn. — brighterorange (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting from Sept 13th in hopes of better participation. -Splash^talk 17:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn - seem to have only about 20 clients. Dlyons493 19:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN. MakeRocketGoNow 04:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete I agree with the above. Justin Bacon 07:33, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Chronicle of Campaigns in Cosmos

Delete- Appears to be a vanity page by User:LQY for a work self-published only on the Internet MakeRocketGoNow 17:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting from Sept 13th in hopes of better participation. -Splash^talk 17:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

delete vanity; "LQY plans to publish them..." — brighterorange (talk) 18:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and LQY, don't waste your life writing this. 203.118.124.97 18:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with LQY; why not? as for the previous comment, his writing may be better in Chinese than in English, and it's at least as good as L. Ron Hubbard in English. Septentrionalis 17:02, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lover of Sin

Non-notable band. No page on allmusic.com KeithD (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete agree. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 20:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting from Sept 13th in hopes of better participation. -Splash^talk 17:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

delete no evidence of notability; band vanity. — brighterorange (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No attempt has been made to assert notability. 203.118.124.97 18:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. notability not established. CD not even named. Nateji77 19:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN. MakeRocketGoNow 04:30, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naimoli Networks

An article about a website. There's no Alexa ranking, and a google search on "Naimoli Networks" gets 1730 hits--of which only three are displayed, the rest being very similar to the three already given. The site doesn't appear notable or encyclopedic. Meelar (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn, forum with 23 members. --TM ^(talk) 23:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a part of the site's administration. One of our members put it up without any authorization from the administration or staff. Please do what you feel is necessary in order to keep with the high standards of your most excellent website.TenaciousDFE 23:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
If you do a search for just "Naimolinet" you'll get at another 12 results, a majority of which are external to naimolinet.com. It may not be terribly huge, but as a growing forum/podcast it is an interesting thing to see. The website also has a relatively rapidly growing population and a rather diverse audience for the podcasts. BaKanale 23:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting from Sept 13th in hopes of better participation. -Splash^talk 17:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per TM. 203.118.124.97 18:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Myran

Delete nn rapper. No allmusic, no sign of meeting WP:MUSIC TM ^(talk) 23:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep it says just recetely signed. so wait. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:82.9.25.251 (talk • contribs)

User's first edit. --TM ^(talk) 17:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting from Sept 13th in hopes of better participation. -Splash^talk 17:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it says "recentley" signed. Delete. 203.118.124.97 18:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
delete if he is truly on Universal, then we may be hearing from him again soon. But this article is hardly even a starting point. — brighterorange (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, can't verify that he is signed to Universal Records. --Metropolitan90 23:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

He is featured on YAHOO list of rappers! HE IS Recognised BY yahoo AND ALSO HAS an article about him on the rappers wikipedia page of MASE that they are in some fued which is relevent to the fued that he stays there. many have heard him on radio stations and on the internet.

professional website, also i have heard myran on numerous major radio stations and also on the internet.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Bulldog Manifesto

Delete nn blogger. 131 unique Google hits, see also Impeach Bush Coalition created by the same anon. TM ^(talk) 23:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting from Sept 13th in hopes of better participation. -Splash^talk 17:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No attempt has been made to assert notability. 203.118.124.97 18:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. MakeRocketGoNow 04:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn blogcruft. WCFrancis 04:31, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Keep --JAranda | yeah 01:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Rees

A professor, and no doubt a worthy one. But I see little notability here. Not quite a speedy delete, the presidency of an academic society is a claim of notability, but iMO a mild one. Alos, much of the text is said to be exerpte from the subject's course notes which makes that section a probable copyvio. Delete. DES ^(talk) 17:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

- After rethinking the matter, reading the comments of others here, and seeing the revised article, change my vote to Keep. I am particualrly glad that the phrase which suggested a copyvio is gone, and the reasons why the professor is notabel are now much more clear from the article. i was too quick on the trigger with this one. DES ^(talk) 14:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep (except any copyvio of course). Founding member and recent past-President of the Canadian Society for Ecological Economics, director of ‘Environment and Resource Planning’ School, Senior Killam Research Prize, The Vancouver Sun recognized him as one of British Columbia’s top “public intellectuals.” Dlyons493 19:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Strong Keep I cannot believe that DES would do this. I just created this article and am actively working on it (as I have with dozens of articles over the course of my two years with Wikipedia). Of course it is not up to standard yet, it is less than one day old. As to Bill Rees not being notable: The fact that he is the originator of ecological footprint analysis alone is sufficient to qualify him for an article. However, as Dlyons493 points out, Rees has shown leadership in the fields of ecological economics and sustainable development and is well-recognized for that throughout North America and many other parts of the world. With respect to copyvio: Nothing I have done violates "fair use" requirements (I did, after all, include my sources and provided abundant notes as to what I was doing). However, I've removed most of the copied material and will work on it off-line. Sunray 20:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I was somewhat peeved when I wrote the first three sentences above. I appreciate DES's second thoughts. Sunray 06:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Ecological footprint is somewhat notable, but the notability does not transfer to its originator. And I certainly don't appreciate all these upset comments about DES' motivation for AfD:ing. The notability of an article subject is relevant from the moment of its creation. The vote here is on the suitability of the inclusion of the article, not the quality of its contents. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, worthy professor, received awards and honors, left an ecological footprint in history. Kappa 01:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep seems significantly more notable than the average professor. Pburka 01:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Passes my notability test for profs. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I see notability. I also don't believe in deleting young articles without giving them time to grow unless they're nonsense which this is not. PRueda29 02:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep encyclopedic, notable. WCFrancis 04:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Appears to be more notable than an average college professor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Move to Chris Floyd. R e dwolf24 (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Floyd - Empire Burlesque

Appears to be a vanity page, or at least one cut and pasted from his press clippings by a fan. tregoweth 18:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment. i'm tagging for cleanup, and will see if i can do so. will vote after. Nateji77 18:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Move to Chris Floyd per Caribmon's nom here. weekly columnist for a newspaper with a reported circulation of 35,000. published a book, made Project Censored's list, and writes for many household-name publications. the title, like the method employed for internal links, is simply written wrong. still needs Cleanup, IMO. Nateji77 19:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Caribmon - This was my first attempt at a wiki entry. I am still learning so... is there anything I could do to clean it up? I realized I did all the links archaically when I finished the page last night... please advise. Thanks.
Move to Chris Floyd. chowells 17:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment.caribmon Actually - I am his webmaster at chris-floyd.com. This is not a vanity page - I am just not that familiar with the Wikipedia formatting and am trying to work this into a palatable entry. 22:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

it could still be construed as promotion in less than good faith. personally i think if a topic is notable, it's notable, regardless of who creates the article on it. it could be claimed as "tribute" i guess; we often get pages by students written about their non-notable high school teachers/university professors. there was a band vanity article written recently by a member's little brother that led to some confusion, as the member was denying having written it but of course had the same IP address. Nateji77 22:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment a new article has been started at Chris Floyd. i guess future voters should judge that article? Nateji77 22:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment Please delete this one and judge the new article has been started at Chris Floyd. Caribmon 13:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment Are you sure the links are up to date, really? Kaosnoway 14:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I suppose redirect to the Chris Floyd page. This was never a deletion. Charles Matthews 07:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Apparently the concerns about the quality of the article (hence the "rewrite" votes) have been addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MOBICAST

Advertisement, near meaningless gibberish --Blackcap | talk 22:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Subject had been published in notable publication ACM-Mobile Networks and Applications. --Hurricane111 23:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's certainly notable, it's just an ad. --Blackcap | talk 23:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
  - 1. I don't see how this article is an advertisement - it is just an explanation of a particular technology. Please explain where is the advertisement in the article.
  - 2. As per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not, "Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable." Therefore, even if it is an ad, the mere fact that it is published in a notable scientific publication (ACM) means that A) it has been gone through peer-review by experts in the area. B) The information is third-party verifiable. --Hurricane111 23:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Regarding ad: "...satisfies a potentially dynamic set...," "...by explicitly addressing the temporal domain...mobicast is more general than geocast and makes it possible to save bandwidth and memory resources of the networks...." To me, this sounds like an ad, as it's talking about it's achievements in a way that shows it's superiority another item or competitor, Geocast.
    - The second point is that the article is extremely hard to read to the point of being gibberish or nonsense, and contains little, if any, useful information. I am not saying that it is not verifiable, nor that it has not been peer-reviewed. --Blackcap | talk 00:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting from 14th. Two divergent participators needs a more thorough debate. -Splash^talk 18:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. "A new paradigm"! Reads like a marketing brochure. Owen× ☎ 19:31, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Publication does not equate to notability, article explains nothing, and it's unlikely that we'll ever get more than 1 or 2 contributors.--inks 20:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The article does read like the output of a buzzphrase generator. But that is what we have {{cleanup-technical}} for. Hurricane111 has provided a citation of a peer reviewed paper on the subject in a reputable journal, which a quick search reveals to be cited by other people. Keep and Rename to MobiCast. Uncle G 21:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite in English. As it stands it looks like just a bunch of pretty much gibberish technophrases slung together to look impressive. It entails the delivery of messages to large sets of nodes in a manner that satisfies a potentially dynamic set of spatiotemporal constraints., for example. What does that actually mean? I'm quite willing to be persuaded that it actually does mean something, but what? As Uncle G says, it also should be renamed. Tonywalton | Talk 22:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite it is notable but article badly needs contextualisation. Dlyons493 22:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. As per inks. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete so much ~~gibberish~~ jargon it's almost patent nonsense. Use of the word paradigm should be included in criteria for speedy deletion. WCFrancis 04:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- LOL—Good idea! New proposed WP:CSD criterion A8: "Any article which uses the word paradigm or synergy." Owen× ☎ 15:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Rewrite It definitely seems notable1. But as written now it doesn't communicate anything at all. Justin Bacon 07:40, 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.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Process – Space Festival

Non-notable. Reads like advertising. Al 23:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per Al. Only one Google hit for the festival ([18]), from whence most of the info in this entry seems to have been pinched. CLW 07:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting from 14th in hopes of better participation. -Splash^talk 18:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Under 50 relevant Google hits [19]. Owen× ☎ 19:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no input apart from the nomination. I will therefore relist this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawaloca (2nd nomination). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lawaloca

WP:NOT a web directory. Although this weblog claims to be famous, looking at the number of comments on articles on the front page (single digits), I don't think this can be the case. Alexa rank 1.3million+ — brighterorange (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hence the Mirage

band vanity. from the article: "small, undeground" ... "not currently signed" .. case closed! — brighterorange (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hence the deletion. TheMadBaron 19:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. High-school garage band. ♠ DanMS 19:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rather ambiguous. I count three "deletes" and 2 "merges", which have been given without any reasoning so its borderline. A concern here has been verifiability and another has been notability. This one is a tough one to close, and I know extremely little about the subject, and my attempt at merging will probably be dreadful. Therefore I will simply make this page into a redirect to Autocephaly and leave the history in tact so that anyone may merge it later if appropriate. If the redirect is inappropriate it can be brought to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christocephalous

Neologism, (nearly) only present on Wikipedia and mirrors. Please compare:

This is one several articles in Category:Christian Church - Synod of Saint Timothy which gives severe doubts about verifiability. See also:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Church - Synod of Saint Timothy

Pjacobi 18:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete unverifiable. Dlyons493 19:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Verifiable. I'm still not convinced about notability though and hence am leaving my vote unchanged (at least for now) Dlyons493 12:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Autocephaly. Tonywalton | Talk 22:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Autocephaly.Father Rob Lyons 15:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- merge and redirects looks like a poor solution, as long as not a single secondary source (and hardly any primary) can be found. --Pjacobi 21:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom chowells

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE 3/1 [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 06:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gracetide

Neologism, only present on Wikipedia and mirrors and the website(s) of this church. Please compare:

This is one several articles in Category:Christian Church - Synod of Saint Timothy which gives severe doubts about verifiability. See also:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Church - Synod of Saint Timothy

Pjacobi 18:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete unverifiable. Dlyons493 19:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Discussed on Liturgy-L, an ecumenical Liturgy list. Not sure if non-members can access the archive, but here is the link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/message/20140 Father Rob Lyons 15:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for that - it's accessible all right. I'm still not convinced about notability though and hence am leaving my vote unchanged (at least for now) Dlyons493 12:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom chowells 17:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, 3/0 [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goplett

Ad for nn web site. Delete. Owen× ☎ 19:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Already listed as an external link under Plettenberg Bay. Does not need a separate Wikipedia entry. ♠ DanMS 19:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Olorin28 01:26, 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.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE 5/0 [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Preteen (band)

NN band. Vanity. TheMadBaron 19:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. NN. theyve decided to "do something with it." after theyve done something with it we can give them an article. Nateji77 20:02, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
delete bandity. — brighterorange (talk) 20:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete yet another bandity. Shauri 00:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. *drew 07:35, 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.

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

The result of the debate was KEEP, 3/3 [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tools of the Trade

Non noteable RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 19:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

What in tarnation is it? Oh I see, a non-notable album. Took me a while. Well actually, WP:STUPID says that if it's 17 minutes long then it deserves an article... Okay, I'll shut up now. Delete. --Celestianpower ^hab 22:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. It's an EP from Carcass (band), although the article is horribly made. It's notable enough to be kept. I'll take care of the wikifying. Shauri 00:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Shauri. TheMadBaron 09:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Shauri Spearhead 17:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN EP --JAranda | yeah 01:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE - game found to already exist, votes went 6/0. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisurfing

a game somebody made up, based on six degrees of separation/kevin bacon. could possibly be moved out of the mainspace, but too idiosyncratic/neologistic to be an article. Nateji77 19:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not main namespace material. We already have Wikipedia:six degrees of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:N degrees of separation, and Wikipedia:Wikirace. We already have too many redirects from the main article namespace into the project namespace relating to this, as well. Finally: We've been here before, with Wikipedia game (AfD discussion) and Wiki Link Contest (AfD discussion). Speedy delete. Uncle G 20:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention Wikipedia:Wiki Game. Uncle G 20:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G. Thryduulf 20:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Shauri 00:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Uncle G. *sigh*. WCFrancis 04:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Dud warhead. No effect. Delete per Uncle G. Barno 04:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, 3/0. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dhruva (Super Commando)

Not notable, doesn't make much sense. Wackymacs 20:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Not patent nonsense, perhaps, but certainly patent pending. Delete. Tonywalton | Talk 22:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, if not based on nonsensical contents, then certainly on non notability. Shauri 00:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Not understandable Olorin28 01:25, 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.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, with a vote count of 9 delete and one BJAODN. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 05:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cunt Dracula

Do these films even exist (difficult to Google)? Minimal content, unencyclopedaic. Dlyons493 20:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete nonsense. hoax. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:01, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Stu 21:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - hoax. --Celestianpower ^hab 21:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Nothing on booble.com either. Delete. Tonywalton | Talk 22:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn and smells hoaxy. Shauri 00:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn, hoax Olorin28 01:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Hoax, <bad joke> and his partners always say "I never drink . . . wine"</bad joke>. WCFrancis 04:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This smells very fishy. TheMadBaron 08:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Rather amusing, but still a hoax... PRueda29 09:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN-Pure Junk. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:14 PM EST

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

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

The result of the debate was Marginally no consensus at worst, not redirecting or merging as no consensus so keep. HappyCamper 20:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] False Doppler

This article should be deleted because it is "original research" with no verifiable sources. Is it a crackpot pseudo-scientific article. 63.24.48.221 21:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Question How does this relate to the Transverse Doppler Effect which is an accepted effect? Dlyons493 21:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Answer There's no direct relation. The thing called "false doppler" in this article is not really false at all. It's a genuine classical Doppler shift resulting from the fact that the receiver is moving away from the transmitter. The article seems to be trying to say that this can be regarded as a false TRANSVERSE Doppler effect, because even though the receiver is moving away from the transmitter, he is receiving the signal from a direction that is, in terms of his own system of reference, perpendicular (i.e., transverse) to his direction of motion, due to the effect of aberration. But it's silly and incorrect to call this "false Doppler", and it would be only slightly less silly to call it "false transverse Doppler". It is simply the classical Doppler effect combined with the classical aberration effect. At most, this warrants a sentence or two in an article on aberration. Wikipedia is not the place to be making up new terminology, especially incorrect terminology like "false Doppler", and claiming that it is historical. I know of no reputable reference for the term "false Doppler" to describe this.63.24.114.48 19:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Not crackpot, as the article sorts itself into Category:History of physics and states in some theories, preceding special relativity. But some doubts about the usefullness of a separate articles concentrating on calculations. Keep or Merge. We have Emission theory which already states Emission theory generates many "classic" SR results like E=mc² and transverse redshifts. --Pjacobi 21:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Referring to the Wiki article on emission theory is not very helpful, because it was largely written by the same well-known pseudo-science crackpot (Erk) who contributed the article on False Doppler. Also, the fact that it is classified as History of Physics doesn't exempt it from Wikipedia policy. The point is not whether Erk's ideas about science or history or anything else are right or wrong. The point is that Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for Erk's ideas (or yours or mine). Wikipedia articles are required to be verifiable from reputable published sources. If someone can find a reputable reference for "False Doppler", then it should be added to the article. If no one can find such a reference, then the article should be deleted.63.24.118.187 01:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Whereas I have my problem with Classical Hawking radiation and Aether and general relativity, I'd consider Emission theory and even False Doppler to be the better ones of Erks contribution. Emission theory is an important step in the history of physics, and going into the dusty areas of your preferred physics libary will give plenty of discussions of it. Also you don't want to consider http://aether.lbl.gov/ being a crackpot's website, and you can find eduacational discussions of emission theory there, see http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/homework/one.ps --Pjacobi 11:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion in the above comment. The subject of this proposal for deletion is not "Emission Theory", it is "False Doppler". Emission Theory is an actual subject in the history of science. False Doppler is not. Arguments in support of an article on Emission Theory are not relevant to a discussion of whether the article on False Doppler should be deleted.63.24.51.19 15:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not stupid, at least not that stupid. But I sure can formulate more precise: Merge to Emission theory or rename to Doppler effect in emission theory, or even better rename to Ritz' Emission theory and merge some stuff from Emission theory into Ritz' Emission theory. --Pjacobi 22:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Presumably an article on emission theory will contain the expression for Doppler shift as a function of angle, and will note that this angle depends on the frame of reference, so the facts will automatically be covered.63.24.96.146 22:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per 63.24.118.187. -- Kjkolb 06:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. As Pjacobi wrote, this fits in History of Physics.Count Iblis 12:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It fits in the history of physics only if it is actually a factual description of something from the history of physics... which it isn't. There is no such thing as "false doppler" in the history of physics. Check any reference on the history of physics, optics, accoustics, electrodynamics, you name it. You will find no references to "false doppler". Do a google search on "false doppler" and the only hits (other than these Wiki pages contributed by Erk, aka Eric Baird) are for things like false doppler indications of stormy weather, which have nothing to do with this subject. Also, if you glance at the "example" calculation of false doppler in this article, you will see that it's utter nonsense. But that's irrelevant, because the question is not whether the article is true, the question is whether it's verifiable from a reputable source. It isn't. So it should be deleted.

So far, the only "keep" votes for this article have been by people who cited as their reason that it is classified as history, and those people have declined to address the fact that the article is on a completely fictitious subject that was fabricated by a lunatic fringe pseudo-science crackpot and is not verifiable in any reputable published reference, and therefore has no place in Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is in the History of Science category or any other category. History articles are not exempt from the content policies of Wikipedia.63.24.51.19 15:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep Uses science to back it up. Dudtz Image:Kardos.jpg 9/29/05 7:14 PM EST

What science? where? linas 16:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I tried but couldn't figure this one out. There is such a thing as a transverse doppler effect, its easy enough to google. However, this page fails to distinguish between the relativistic and the non-relativistic form. Also, the references/quotes at the back of the article look very authoritative, but again, its not clear just what they are referring to. Given the un-googlability of the term "false doppler", it does sound like a neologism to me. I don't know whether to vote for "keep" and suggest that someone should convert this to a bona-fide article on transverse doppler, or to "delete" because the article is beyond repair. linas 16:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 20:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heavengames Corruption

True or not these allegations do not belong to WP. We are an encyclopedia. feydey 21:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Sir I tried put this on the main Heavengames article, It was constantly deleated and locked, surely corruption of the site, or allegations of, belong here?-Forumer of Heavengames.
Delete. Doesn't even pretend to be encyclopedic. —Cryptic (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom Olorin28 01:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Totally out of place for an encyclopdia. Note: Blanking going on at page itself. WCFrancis 04:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom Justin Bacon 13:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete –Uris 19:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck the South

Previous AfD. Disputed AfU close by Jtkiefer. Borderline opinion count. Undeleted by Jtkiefer prior to normal AfU close due to apparent consensus for undeletion. I am now relisting it on AfU per usual procedure. I am not voting myself. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment Reason for listing on AfD was "Non-notable website promotion" Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete still unconvinced of notability. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment. This isn't VfU. I'm unclear as to the status of the article at present . Jkelly 21:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Consensus on VfU was evidently to relist on AfD. So that's what's happening, evidently. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Jtkiefer performed the disputed close. It was listed on VfU, and garnered mostly "undelete" votes. Jtkiefer judged that there was consensus at VfU to undelete, so he undeleted the article himself. He failed to relist it on AfD which is the procedure whenever an article is undeleted per VfU. (In VfU, a vote to undelete does not imply that the voter thinks the article should be kept. People who voted in the VfU will presumably express their opinions here.) Dpbsmith (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Thanks for the clue-in. Jkelly 22:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There are many websites in the world, and I don't see why this one is significant. Friday (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn website, as I voted the first time. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: An utterly inconsequential, non-notable, one-page hate/shock/attack site that scores an abysmal Alexa rating of 231,655. It's astounding to me that anyone would think this Web site warrants even a mention, let alone its own article — it's not even remotely significant enough to include here (except on the speedy delete page). — C Maylett 22:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Current Alexa rating is almost irrelevant; this article is a record of the historical significance of the article, not it's current significance. Un focused 22:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence of notability. --fvw * 22:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable website and among the best flame baits out there. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep; this website is illustrative of the depth of the divide between red & blue states after the 2004 election, and was immensely popular then. Wikipedia should have a well written, NPOV article on this, even if the title shocks those of delicate sensibilities. Wikipedia is not censored. Unfocused 22:57, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: This isn't about censoring an article because it deals with a profane Web site, it's about deleting an article due to the subject matter's lack of merit. The Web site (including its history) is just a non-notable stink bomb that is "illustrative" of very little other than how the Internet can be used for insignificant, run-of-the-mill, hate-filled tirades. By the way, its Alexa ranking (which, in my opinion, does count) has pretty well been bottom-of-the-bucket insignificant except for a week-long spike to so-so status after the elections (by no means "immensely popular"). In case anyone is interested, here's a link to the Alexa page comparing traffic to the site in question to Wikipedia.org over the past year. Wikipedia is the orange line. Fuckthesouth.com is the barely visible blip at the bottom of the chart during last November. — C Maylett 00:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Specious argument. Compare ANY typical private website to Wikipedia over the past year and it'll be a tiny blip. Even many of the most notable and popular would be as well. Look here and you'll see that this was in the top 5,000 web sites shortly after the election. That IS notable and significant. Unfocused 03:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    - If you want to call being in the top 5,000-traffic Web sites during one two-week period "notable and significant," well, I guess you're easily impressed. To me it's convincing evidence (as if any is needed) of the site's lack of notability. Using your reasoning, Wikipedia ought to have articles about all the other tens of thousand of Web sites that have at one time or another crossed the so-so 5,000 benchmark. Like I said, non-notable. — C Maylett 06:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
      - OK, now you want to discard Alexa since it's proven counter to the point you were trying to make when you brought it up. Fuck the South is notable not only because it was a top 5000 web site, but for the other reasons I've already posted here AND that it was a top 5000 site. Regarding your straw man about articles for other top 5000 sites; I never claimed that being top 5000 is the only claim to notability, in fact, the opposite is true. Un focused 06:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I can't speak for anyone else, but my delete suggestion is based not on shock, but on expecting website articles to make it clear why the subject is significant. Personally, I have no problems with "undelicate" articles like Fuck. But websites are like bands; everybody has one. Some of them are significant, but I see no reason why this one is. Friday (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete one-page rant. We're voting on the "historical significance" of this? This ain't the document Martin Luther nailed to the Wittenburg door, nor is it the Communist Manifesto. It's a glorified blog post that just happens to have been given its own domain name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- If it used the word "shit" ninety-one times more, it could be the Ninety-Five Feces. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete I voted in the previous afd after I posted a rather off-topic rebuttal to the subject web site (apologies again), but that included the question "is notoriety the same thing as notability?" which I consider to still be apropos and on topic. After I cooled off and reviewed the article and rebuttal sites on the web, I became the sole Merge, suggesting Red_state_vs._blue_state_divide#Polarization and Election Controversy section of US Presidential Election 2004 article as alternatives to provide some information regarding divisive elements in the US which I think is notable in appropriate article(s). I expressed that I preferred that to keeping it as separate article. I should have included that this was not a keep but Delete if not merged. WCFrancis 00:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that AfD remains pretty much binary for the closer: a normal editor cannot merge what isn't kept, and you cannot compel the closer to read your mind to merge to your liking. I would suggest being bold and merging the content yourself next time, and if reverted, back down. If unreverted, you've improved Wikipedia, which is the goal of everyone here. Unfocused 04:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  - If I find an article that makes sense to merge instead of nominating for AfD, I'll do it in a heartbeat; if it already on AfD, I generally leave it alone until after close of the discussion. I just looked at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and found the indication that it was ok to do so, but the request not to blank and not to redirect are in there as well. Now I'm confused. WCFrancis 01:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Taking a vulgar phrase out of the mainstream and expanding it into a political rant in the form of a website does not create an encyclopedia worthy topic. If this article should survive this AfD, then it should be sent to {{cleanup}} to remove all the unverifiable sections. --Allen3 ^talk 00:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not only non notable, but also potentially offensive to many users. Shauri 00:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - not notable and not encyclopedic. - Tεx τ urε 00:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
~~Redirect to U.S. government environmental policy~~ Delete. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable website. I'm amazed at all the fuss over this. android 79 02:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - real, somewhat notable - got a lot of attention from both left and right after 2004 elections. Guettarda 02:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-encyclopedic trivia. Wikipedia is not a web-directory. The argument that this one-page rant has some special historical or political significance is unconvincing. Rossami (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Rossami. Zach (Sound Off) 04:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

EXTREME DELETE, burn the author of the page. Regionalistic hatred that we shouldn't be giving attention to. I live in a blue state and I'm apolitical, but the writer of this page is a true dick. Why keep it? Because it has wikilinks? (Oh and for a side note, I favor keeping the GNAA, but this page really needs to die.) Let's make an article for Joe Blow's webblog citing why he hates Massachusetts. Yayyyz! --Redwolf24 (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Redwolf24, is there anything you want to say to me directly? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 05:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- I think it's humor, not hatred. Extreme, frustration-based humor that reflects the depth of the political divide at that point in time. Keep in mind that politics wasn't always this divisive, and won't always be this divisive. It rises and falls over the course of decades. This is a valid, interesting, and unmistakable marker of this cycle's peak (I hope that was the peak!) Un focused 05:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
~~Keep~~. The webpage described is offensive, as noted by Redwolf but it also got a lot of attention at the time and perhaps has minor historical interest. However, I would support deleting it if someone did an article about the larger phenomenon of reaction websites created by various non-Republicans after the election, including information about this site, sorryeverybody.com, and so forth. Crypticfirefly 04:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC) Merge (but keep if not merged) User:Unfocused, User:Kjkolb, User:WCFrancis, I encourage you to write the article that this can be merged into. Crypticfirefly 05:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, acrimony between regions can be described in other articles. There's no need to keep an article on this non-notable site. -- Kjkolb 06:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete a single web page isn't worth of an article. Grue 06:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep: encyclopedic, notable, verifiable, interesting, good article ➥the Epopt 10:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Political rant of little historical importance. Mention this somewhere, but it doesn't even merit a full merge. (Feel free to interpret this vote as merge if it helps build consensus, though.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It must not rise again.Geni 11:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, notability not established. Martg76 14:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable chowells 17:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete kill it with fire. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete It's just one of countless thousands of hate-filled rants posted on the internet after the recent election. Why pay any attention to this particular site?
Delete, nonnotable hate-group website. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
keep this please because it is notable and interesting even tho it is not promoting a good attitude that does not change anything Yuckfoo 05:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Deleteas Insult page. Anyway, this encyclopedia is supposed to be relevant for those outside the U.S., isn't it? It's not notable. Acropolis now 23:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as an nn webpage. Down the drain you go. --Blackcap | talk 23:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete again. `Gazpacho
Delete one-off, non-notable webpage CDC (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Unfocused. (NB:Unfocused's rationale is the sole ground for my vote -- what follows is a public explanation of why I have userfied this content, and why I take offense at the notion that this is simply called a "hate site" by some.) And, as a native Southerner, personally endorse the site. Xoloz 04:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- This is notice that I have kept the content of this page in my user space; anticipating deletion, I pledge it will never be recreated as an article by me. This website was one of several things that prevented my suicide last year, so perservation of the entry is a personal matter for me. Xoloz 05:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  - And lastly, I find some humor in the number of "kill/burn the hate site" remarks. We who hate the South hate it for its hatred of others (like say, historically, blacks, gays, Catholics, liberals, the disabled, pacifists, intellectuals, internationalists, anti-capitalists, and "Yankees", some of which hatred indisputably persists.) Objectively, of course, this is just pot-calling-kettle and kettle-calling-pot. But, for devout Bluesies, comme moi, saying fuck the South is like saying fuck Nazi Germany. I can't say, objectively, that the South is evil; but, I can say, having lived there (in Virginia, Mississippi, and North Carolina) and having suffered scorn and violence for the first 18 years of my life, the values which make the South distinctive are values I hate as passionately as I hate Nazism. So it is for many people. And, yes, this is a soapbox, but I take offense at the suggestion that this is a "mere" hate site -- the question is intensely complicated for those of us who have lynched grandfathers. Xoloz 05:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    - I have wrote a lengthy reply here: User talk:Xoloz#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck the South 2. I didn't feel that, due to the length of the reply, it was appropriate to post here, and so have just provided a link to it. --Blackcap | talk 07:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      - I have replied at your page, but will post portions relevant to the vote here. "As I indicated, my vote was based on the reasons given by Unfocused (and I'll add here, was solely so). My initial endorsement was given to admit upfront any biases.

My personal history was given to explain why I userfied the content (in a later comment). My self-admitted soapbox comment (also separate) was given, as I said, to address the "hate site" issue raised by others, which I found specious and offensive. I do not "soapbox" often, but I will do so when I feel justified grounds for personal offense. Others should be careful what they call a hate site." Xoloz 08:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. The site is somewhat well-known, and is relevant to some political discussions. _{- Unsigned post by 68.70.117.2. This is 68.70.117.2's third edit. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 06:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)}
Delete Not notable. –Uris 19:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I just looked at it and fail to see what the point is. -- Francs 2000 Image:Uk éflag large.png 23:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Not notable. mikka (t) 00:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
~~Fuck~~ Delete the article - Hahnchen 03:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly has been noted. What else does "notable" actually mean to you guys? Deplore attempt to restrict what Wikipedia is allowed to cover too -- it's not an endorsement. Grace Note 05:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Don't go around mocking other people's votes, for Jesus' sake. Some people think this is notable enough, others don't. A vote of delete on an article such as this is not necessarily censorship, it could be just a belief that this is non-notable. Further, in my not-so-humble-as-it-could-be opinion (and apparently the opinion of a good dictionary, see here), 'notable' means 'worthy of being noted,' not 'noted,' as shown by the clichéd example, "I have noted the elm tree in my yard, and thus it is worthy of an encyclopedia article." --Blackcap | talk 06:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete not notable enough for its own page, but i would be ok with this being mentioned in some sort of red vs. blue after the 2004 election article. Youngamerican 18:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, of course. Why not? It's fun and, as previously mentioned, shows the depth of the divide. If it offends anyone, they can choose not to read it. Grandma Lucy. (preceding unsigned comment by 69.85.163.10 (talk · contribs) 19:01, October 1, 2005)
- _{Note: this is 69.85.163.10's first edit. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 05:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)}
Delete. The article iteself establishes the non-notability of its subject. Even if some of those voting "keep" are right about its significance, I'd go along with Youngamerican. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. HappyCamper 20:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gadugi

Previous AfD-discussion can be found here. The reason for the previous nomination seems to have been only the frustration experienced by user:Gadugi concerning his relations to other Wikipedia editors. That the article is about a term in Cherokee which seems to have no relevance in Engolish seems to have been completely overlooked in the last nomination and, well, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If this is a central concept of Cherokee culture, then merge the relevant information. Other than that it's an obvious delete. Peter ^Isotalo 21:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Renomination moved to separate page. --cesarb 00:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy keep — Renomination made on the same day previous discussion was closed. --cesarb 00:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- First Gadugi bad-faith-nominates his own article and almost everyone votes to auto-keep. Now I'm trying to nominate it for a valid reason and you're trying to shut it down on account of a technicality. And on top of this you screw up my linking to the old nomination. What's wrong with you guys? Do you even care about the articles, or is the process the only thing that matters here? / Peter ^Isotalo 02:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  - That's AFD for you. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Sorry, I forgot to fix the link to the previous nomination. New nominations should always be in a separate page to avoid confusion, because the previous nomination is still linked to from the previous log (and should be kept that way). Even if you think the voters' reasons were completely bogus, relisting before even 24 hours have passed is not appropriate. I could have simply reverted, but decided to give you the benefit of doubt; but please do not do that again. --cesarb 14:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    - You're genereous because you engage in only mild rules lawyering? Well, I'll grant you your wish then and withdraw the nomination. Just please don't ever show this kind of generosity towards me again. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Appears to be an important notable concept to Cherokee culture (and one that was intended to be central to Wikipedia Culture oh, did I say that out loud?) Merge with Cherokee ranks much higher than deletion for me. WCFrancis 04:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Keep' Afd already passed. Karmosin is suffering a hissy fit because he did not get his way in previous sections. This type of action evidences disruption of my work since I have to waste yet more time dealing with immature and childish issues rather than writing articles. Gadugi 07:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Weak delete It's still a dictdef. Could be merged to Cherokee probably. Grue 05:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not a dictdef nor does it meet the views of a dictdef since it now contains encyclopedia content. I suppose to some people every problem looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer. Gadugi 05:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

~~Weak~~ keep. This has a whiff of OR, but I don't know enough about the subject to even begin looking into it. Can anyone verify or source this? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

- References added as requested. Current and Historical Definitions. 67.177.35.211 11:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Appreciated, and my vote is amended to reflect the update. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 02:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Neutrality^talk 22:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ABC Nursery School

already mentioned in other articles, self promotion/ vanity, unnesscary page Ryan Moore 01:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It doesn't mention the city, state, or country, which really doesn't matter since there are probably hundreds of ABC Nursery Schools (or very similar names) around the world. BlankVerse ∅ 03:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per BlankVerse - indeed, there are quite many, as a simple Google check shows. Shauri 03:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment Don't see where it is "mentioned in other articles." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete BEEFSTEW score 2 out of 10. (Beefstew points A and B only). If this were a biography it could have been speedied as it asserts nothing notable about its subject. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity... nothing substantial in it. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
delete as per above Roodog2k (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. We started with high schools, and now are down to nursery schools? ♠ DanMS 22:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in 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 to delete the article.

[edit] Dr.rao

Not enough information to even check notability. Possibly qualifies as Speedy under {{nn-bio}}, but for now Delete. Owen× ☎ 21:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn bio. I think it asserts notability though, so no A7.... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does assert notability, but without a full name or location, it's difficult to tell to whom this assertion is made. Owen× ☎ 22:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I know - I can't really tell either. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete biography of unidentifiable person; there are lots of people with the surname Rao. --Metropolitan90 23:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Shauri 00:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete borderline for speedy; "well-known" for this or that. WCFrancis 03:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN. feydey 15:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 13:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy User:Nichalp/sg 13:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 20:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Torpedo (band)

Delete. New band. No recordings released. No assertion of notability. DanMS 22:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I'm going to poach Starblinds word here: bandity. --Celestianpower ^hab 22:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - non notable band. --Kulindar 22:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Shauri 00:27, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Keep --JAranda | yeah 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elderly Martial Arts Master

It's a well-intentioned article, but clearly original research of the worst sort. Superm401 | Talk 22:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom.Keep per below. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research. Shauri 00:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, how do you figure it's original research? It basically a list of elderly martial artist masters. I don't see anything wrong with it.--Azathar 02:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
~~Weak Delete Create article on Film Cliches or Movie Cliches to merge this with. Then when that gets unwieldy, it can be a subpage.~~ However, it is verifiable and not original research.WCFrancis 03:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep There are 64 articles currently in the category of Stock Characters. My suggested Movie Cliches article is already way too unwieldy, even before being created. WCFrancis 03:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, incredibly prevalent stock character. Kappa 23:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I have to admit a certain bias since I started this article some time ago. However I think the Elderly Martial Arts Master is a well-recognized cliché to anyone with at least a passing familiarity with bad martial arts movies. Secondly, I don't see how this article is substantially different from other minor Stock characters such as the whiz kid or a Redshirt (science fiction), neither of which are targeted for deletion. Martin-C 01:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Longhair | Talk 08:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Ghetteaux nothing wrong with this article.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. HappyCamper 20:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Goad

Delete this page. Its content is almost entirely false. As the comments below note, it is absolutely ridiculous. I would just like to add that this article was not created by Brandon; it was written by someone else in an effort to make him look like and idiot -- so don't be too down on the kid!

Delete - Blatant vanity page Kulindar 22:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Worthless dead weight dragging on the already slow servers optyx8 15:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion - Agree with above. Uninformative and useless postings with no purpose but inflating some kid's ego have no place here. climberjc 16:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Super Speedy Deletion - Dittos from all of the above. I was wondering how long this trite article was going to be allowed to stand! Valu8tion 00:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance - people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society; people such as students and bakers are not, or at least not for the reason of being a student or baker. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead." - Wiki policy....any questions?

Delete, reads like a CV. Shauri 00:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy see no assertion of notability other than name dropping. meets CSD. WCFrancis 03:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy and someone please lock this. Something tells me that this is a bad-faith nomination made to attack the subject of the article. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Del: n-n.
--Jerzy•t 01:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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, major consensus to delete. IP votes discounted Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mayor Nagin and the Evacuation By School Buses Controversy

User:JimmyCrackedCorn, a particularly uncivil editor, has created this article as a way to circumvent consensus-building on Ray Nagin, which has been protected over his insistence upon inserting this same inadequately sourced and biased information into the Ray Nagin article. Several editors are currently working toward a consensus on how best to include information on the flooded school buses and criticism of Nagin inside the Ray Nagin article itself. Instead, JimmyCrackedCorn has created this fork without notifying anybody as a way to circumvent Wikipedia's policies in general and the discussion on Talk:Ray Nagin (in particular see Talk:Ray Nagin#Forks). Delete so discussions can focus on the talk page at Ray Nagin. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. I am supporting consensus building at the Ray Nagin article as anyone can see by looking at the Ray Nagin discussion page. Your personal attack against me as "uncivil" has een noted as reported. No one has even tried to explain what is POV about the article on the article's discussion page. The fact that this article is factual and does not repress inconvenient fact is understandably irksome to those with a proNagin POV. However, as anyone can see this article is well balanced with Nagin's responsibilities, the event, Nagin's POV as well as the POV of both defenders and critics of Nagin. To delete this article would be a clear attempt to repress fact for no other reason than fact does not comport with an admitted "libertine's" POV. --JimmyCrackedCorn 23:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as a POV fork. --Aquillion 23:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, if this article is deleted, Nagin (disambiguation) should probably be deleted as well, since it seems to have been created solely to have a place to link to this article. It's a redirect to Ray Nagin at the moment, though. --Aquillion 04:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I challenge you, as I challenged Katefan0, to point out the POV content in this article so we can edit it out together. I would appreciate making such an edit as I support Wikipedia's policy against POV edits above all others. --12.74.187.165 00:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete obvious POV fork, and I trust katefan. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 00:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per Katefan0. I saw this article at Recent Changes and was kinda amazed. Now I understand. Shauri 01:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as fork - Guettarda 02:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per Katefan0. The sockpuppetry and incivility are getting rather tiresome.--chris.lawson 03:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete. If POV forks isn't a speedy criteria, then it should damned well be one. / Peter ^Isotalo 05:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete it is the second POV fork this individual has created, see the diversion of First Responder into a highly POV screed. Wikipedia is not Fox News (WP:NFN) --Gorgonzilla 12:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It's getting harder and harder to tell

Amazing how every person who says delete appears to have a left wing POV. Most even admit this on their user pages. Examples:

Guettarda Politics Economic Left/Right: -4.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.54. [1].

Peter: Bias Leftist social democrat

Katefan0: Libertine

Wikipedia will never see articles with NPOV if they allow such one sided contributors drive their content. I was told this place was a cesspool of leftism but did not believe it. I am becoming more and more convinced with each passing day I should have. --JimmyCrackedCorn 06:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I'm center-right so that smashes that POV.MONGO 05:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Um, libertine doesn't mean liberal. It means I'm dissolute and unconventional. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

For Libertines see [20] or for a more modern group [21]. Or read the article on deSade. --Gorgonzilla 20:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, POV fork. We libertines should stick together. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Blatant, almost admitted attempt to circumvent due process. --InShaneee 21:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete—unencyclopedic POV. JeremyA (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: This user has also created Nagin, Nagin Buses, Nagin Busses, Nagin School Buses, Nagin School Busses and possibly others, all of which redirect to this article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

And clearly will continue to create yet more until the vote is closed out.

Delete, but ensure the bus issue is throughly addressed on Ray Nagin article page.MONGO 05:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 22:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. There was nothing POV here that I found and the only "inaccuracy" I was able to find was the impression that the Governor was saying FEMA told them not to use school buses to evacuate before the storm but I fixed that. According to the article Blanco says her discussion with FEMA on that happened either during or after the storm. --Kirby Morgan 20:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Note the above is also a suspected sock, as are Sarthen1108 (talk · contribs), Hornwood (talk · contribs) and Treehorn (talk · contribs) (who had a sockpuppet "award" given to it by 205.188.117.12 (talk · contribs) · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Consensus-building process should not be cimcumvented by creating POV forks of articles. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 08:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - for the above reasons --Doc (?) 08:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep - students need this as a resource, and it is essential for their studies. No need to delete. --Treehorn 08:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC) User's 2nd edit
- ...what? The info here is already in Ray Nagin. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Note that Treehorn is a sockpuppet. See Special:Contributions/Treehorn for evidence. — JIP | Talk 10:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    - So noted. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. I don't see how this is anything but a POV fork of Ray Nagin . - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - this is more essential than the Ray Nagin article. A totally different article, as the Ray Nagin one is a bio --Longmans Run 09:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC) User's 7th edit
Delete POV fork. And JimmyCrackedCorn's astroturfing of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents backfired, since it got my attention to come over and vote. --Calton | Talk 10:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

delete I on't think it would be worth the trouble.Geni 11:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per Kate. (motivation per Calton...) Shimgray | talk | 12:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep, it's a good read and essential - so don't delete it. Students need it! --150.204.69.67 12:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nominator.--nixie 13:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete with prejudice due to sock/meatpuppet voting, POV, and no chance of being NPOV. --Kiand 13:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment - AFAICT this thing can be closed, the 5 days are up and there is strong consensus to delete (even if you include all the sockpuppets). Guettarda 13:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment - The article should be kept purely as it is a historical event like Henry VIII and his six wives. --150.204.217.97 14:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, utter PoV fork. Wyss 16:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejiduce. Obvious POV fork.--Sean Jelly Baby? 20:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pineapple tarts recipe

WP:NOT a recipe book. — brighterorange (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

delete copyvio, I added the copyvio too. Roodog2k (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
delete per nom. Lets not prolong its misery ;) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I hate pineapple. Shauri 00:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki somewhere - if people want to release recipes under the GFDL, we should do all we can to facilitate that! Free information is a good thing. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- My bad - didn't see the copyvio comment. Delete, of course. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intense Addiction

Vanity page on a non notable band. Shauri 23:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I have an Intense Addiction to Delete bandity articles like these Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN. nice vanity there Olorin28 01:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete — C Maylett 04:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Just a small local band of sorts. Dudtz Image:Kardos.jpg 9/29/05 6:56 PM EST

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shelby Yoshida

This article was originally created by an anonymous contributor with an IP of 68.4.247.187 [22]. I placed a speedy tag on it because it was about a non-notable middle school student. After the tag was applied, the same IP address edited the page to say that Shelby Yoshida was in fact a mildly-notable 20-year-old artist [23].

Google turns up around ten hits for "Shelby Yoshida", none of which discuss artistic ability (they all reference swimming and dance competitions). One of the articles about swimming is from 2003 and Shelby Yoshida is given as being in the 9-10 age range. In addition, googling for "National Artists Convention", "Young Artists of California", and "Grislto" turn up no results.

Even if Ms. Yoshida is an artist, I don't think receiving two artistic awards (from two invisible organizations) merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Quicksandish 23:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Reeks of vanity. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:59, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. (unsigned by User:Shauri)
Delete per Quicksandish--Doc (?) 00:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy I am not of the opinion that a valid A7 speedy can be ducked by replacing it with a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy per nom Olorin28 01:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete not-notable PRueda29 02:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy agree with Starblind WCFrancis 03:35, 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.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Paul August ☎ 20:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "chet shakesbeare"

To be or not to be, that is the question:

Whether 'tis nobler to suffer

the slings and arrows of only two Google hits

or to take up arms against a sea of nonsense,

and by opposing, delete it. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 23:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Has been recreated at Chet Shakesbeare--Shanel 23:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

That page now links to this AfD as well. I'll parody more Hamlet if duplicated content so requires. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 23:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per them. delete them both. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. --Mysidia (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- Same as for Shakesbeare, and Chet Shakesbeare, I vote Delete for all three. --Mysidia (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn - excellent nomination! Shauri 00:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Reccomend the articel be kept. Have you read the links, really funny! stumbled across this when I mispelled shakespeare and now love chet!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.39.76 (talk • contribs) author of original article, probable IP addy for User:Potatoes345, author of one of the other articles — Lomn
Delete nn Olorin28 01:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Funny is not at stake, encyclopedic is. WCFrancis 03:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Vanity. / Peter ^Isotalo 05:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Out, damned chet. TheMadBaron 09:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. As the creator I will admit that I am a Chet fan and that's why I created the article. However, Chet is a humorous rising star of the internet, and there is no reason not to allow the article to remain. The article is only a very brief encyclopedic bit and provides insight into parody and Shakespeare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatoes345 (talk • contribs) See above for authorship comments — Lomn

Admittedly, Chet Shakesbeare does inpart refer to a rather minor website. However, Chet's "articles" have been published in several literary arts magazines and while Wikipedia is not a web directory, there is no problem with having articles on various topics. After all, one of Wikipedia's greatest assets is its incredible breadth on a variety of subjects that few other encyclopedias discuss. Potatoes345 23:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, a grand total of two Google hits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Is google the greatest authority on all things? Potatoes345 23:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- With no other sources to verify his existence in literary magazines, it's the best we have. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Untrue, you may consult the magazines if you so choose. At the moment I can provide you with one citation, a Chet Shakesbeare story appeared in the Delphi, a literary arts magazine. That is where I first encountered Chet. You could probably email the Chet Shakesbeare site for more information, they have a contact link. Furthermore, Google is not the best we have. Google is simply one search engine of mere web pages, Lexis-Nexis ad the like are generally considered to be more powerful tools. Potatoes345 23:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    - I don't choose to do so. It's up to the article's creator to supply sufficient sources to prove notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment I offer the following, the articles "chet shakesbeare" (written by my brother) and Chet Shakesbeare (I'm not certain of the author) do, perhaps, deserve removal. However, the article Shakesbeare (of my own creation) should be kept. It is brief, encyclopedic, and informational with no bias whatsoever. Delete the other two if you must, but keep the article Shakesbeare. Potatoes345 23:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- The non-notability of the subject would still be a problem. -- the best thing for you to do if you would like the article kept would be to add citations of evidence that verify the importance of the subject for an encyclopedia; this means not merely suggesting or asserting that shakesbeare has appeared in magazines, but citing some prominent articles -- including enough information to locate and read the source. (Just like I suggested in the conversation at User talk:Mysidia, but repeated here so it will be part of the Afd record). --Mysidia (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

- - Once again, I am not personally aware of the locations of such articles. I myself have only seen one, in the Delphi, spring 2005 issue. I would email Chet's creators at their website (it has a contact link) but they sent me an email saying that they have blocked me as a spammer, so someone else can ask them if they want to. Potatoes345 20:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep I think Shakesbeare is a useful article although the other two are more fan-site like than encyclopedic. Garfunkel4life 23:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- User's first edit. All subsequent edits are also to AfD. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- So? Is that an insult? Garfunkel4life 21:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  - WP:RPA User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete the whole set. Fails Google test miserably. - Andre Engels 12:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete unverifiable, apparently! Ziggurat 00:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- How so? Potatoes345 17:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] September 24

[edit] Chad Schmidt

[edit] Etch-a-Sketch Animator 2000

[edit] Jessica Liao

[edit] Biolich

[edit] Pilgrims lane

[edit] Adobe LiveCycle

[edit] Ginkworld

[edit] The Global Institute for Emerging Matters

[edit] List of main streets for major cities

[edit] Pronotum

[edit] Built for Comfort

[edit] RESTATING THE ARGUMENTS

[edit] For deletion

[edit] Against deletion

[edit] Devilspoon

[edit] Fledgling Galactic Terran-Vasudan Alliance Nearly Destroyed

[edit] Line Item Vito

[edit] Blogosophy

[edit] Swamp Ass

[edit] SB Nephilim

[edit] Jo Green

[edit] THE LOONEY BEN

[edit] List of Video Games considered the worst ever

[edit] AL-III

[edit] Desmoplastic

[edit] Sun hang do

[edit] Vygostky

[edit] Hip-hop hug

[edit] Cyber-dissident

[edit] Greasy Cannonball

[edit] Sententiaism

[edit] Ranch Tooth

[edit] SB Nahema

[edit] Renato M. E. Sabbatini

[edit] Ben Ramm

[edit] Zygote (band)

[edit] Influencing

[edit] List of Pokémon attacks

[edit] Hamish mckenzie

[edit] Miss X

[edit] "Social Technology"

[edit] "Social Technology"/Temp

[edit] Magnon solutions

[edit] List of the world's busiest airports by international passenger traffic

[edit] Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by airline

[edit] Singapore Changi Airport passenger traffic by destination

[edit] Sunkist and Vodka

[edit] Books on May-December romance and Age Gap Relationships

[edit] Keralaescorts

[edit] Maquis Productions

[edit] Lance Romañce and Lance Romance

[edit] Capital Boulevard

[edit] Cognitive Systems Engineering

[edit] Aspie

[edit] Aspiette

[edit] Curebie

[edit] Macduff's Son

[edit] Ivan Johnson

[edit] Booyo

[edit] No shame

[edit] Northern dragon king

[edit] Chaos Wonderland

[edit] LNG gas quality

[edit] Jim Sinclair

[edit] Co-Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous

[edit] Chudów

[edit] Mladenovo

[edit] Obrovac

[edit] Red Cross Society of the Republic of China

[edit] Muruku

[edit] Maferefun Shango!

[edit] Ban milosavljević

[edit] Sir charles napier

[edit] ECRUSH

[edit] KICKS for .NET

[edit] Fjellstrand skole