Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 24 September 26 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] September 25

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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: As per User:MacGyverMagic's suggestion, User:Sj moved the content to The Rule of the Harlots and made Pornocracy a disambig page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pornocracy

Neologism; no references that mention the term. Should be renamed or merged. +sj + 05:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong and Speedy Keep. References? There are over 11,000 Google hits (didn't bother to see how many were unique). This is an extremely well-known period in the history of the Roman Catholic papacy, widely discussed, appears in other WP articles about the papacy, etc. It may also have appeared as a modern neologism, but that is not what the article is about, which is the 10th century. I suggest the nominator read the article and the references. I can only assume this was nominated in error. --MCB 06:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote for the keepocracy This seems good enough [1] (In fact this looks like the primary source). --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 06:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    Thanks for the good reference. Moving to The Rule of the Harlots, as the term 'pornocracy' should be a disambig mentioning its more general meanings. +sj +
  • Keep as per MCB. --JahJah 08:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Rule of the Harlots, or The Pornocracy are names given to a period of the papacy in the early tenth century, doesn't indicate it to be a neologism. I'd actually prefer if it was moved back and the dab was moved to Pornocracy (disambiguation) and linked to the top of the page. Not only are the other links still red, but I imagine this is by far the mosst common use of the term. - Mgm|(talk) 09:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this is a real term. i saw it used in a wikipedia article on a pope earlier this year.--Alhutch 17:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the term certainly exists outside of Wikipedia and the net. I've seen it used in fairly reputable history books. --Neo 17:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Not a neologism. CalJW 18:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I see nothing wrong with this Janizary 23:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the OED says the word is first attested in English in 1860, so it's hardly a neologism. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per... everyone. :) --Jacqui M Schedler 12:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep'. Not a neologism.--Pharos 03:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please pornocracies are real Yuckfoo 21:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable non-neologism. Klonimus 20:29, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rules of Make Believe

Article for a webcomic, which can be found here. Alexa ranks it at 2.5million+. Although the comic seems to be at a slight hiatus since July of this year, the page rank, if it is a notable comic should be higher than stated. A Google search shows up nothing that would distinguish this from any other random webcomic. Just because it's a 100 strip+ webcomic does not mean it is inherently notable. Are we going to start making articles for 100+ post bloggers now? - Hahnchen 23:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per Alexa rank. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Alexa. Shauri 01:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to be Just Another Website. Friday (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Amren (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with regret. It's a somewhat decent article. I might have voted keep if the thing actually worked in Opera. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:44, 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Binary Research Institute

The mission of the Binary Research Institute is dissemination of the theory that the Sun has got a companion star. The outfit has a website, which is rather well done, but doesn't seem to have a presence in the physical world. (At least I couldn't find any). The theory that the Sun has a companion star does exist, but as the pages at the Institute never mention the existing research they are run-of-the-mill crackpots.

Please consider in this context Walter Cruttenden as the founder of the institute, whose page is also up for deletion. Pilatus 00:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary model of equinox precession, a POV fork of Precession Pilatus 16:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"run-of-the-mill crackpots" ... there's a nice NPOV for you. Further, the pages of the Institute are replete with information and links to the research. Don't let the agenda of militant skeptics fool you. comment left by anonymous user 65.11.192.128
We are not concerned with the veracity of the theory, merely with its importance. If it has ever been mentioned anywhere in the press (not the vanity press!) it would boost the case for keeping. Pilatus 00:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Please see my comment below for a link to a mention in mainstream. Oswax 11:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
"The ground-breaking and richly illustrated new book, Lost Star of Myth and Time, marries modern astronomical theory with ancient star lore to make a compelling case for the profound influence on our planet of a companion star to the sun." is how the review starts. This is hardly a review, it reads like advertisement copy, and on the PBS website there is no trace of the Cruttenden-sponsored documentary "The Great Year" that is mentioned in the text. Pilatus 11:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The point is they didn't ignore the institute and the book they published. So why should we ignore them? Don't mistake me, I think the theory is bull, but you wanted a mention, and there's one, no matter how lousy. Oswax 13:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The same text (plus or minus a paragraph) can be found at physorg, where it has the attribution "Source:Binary Research institute". It looks as if the folks at the Institute sent out press releases to everyone and their dog, and some websites did put them up. Giving space to someone's advertising material is different from reviewing a theory. Pilatus 16:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. Do we have an article on this binary star system theory, however basic (just saying: this psuedoscience theory is x y z)? If we do, I'll shift my vote on this and Walter Cruttenden. Oswax 16:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
There is a small paragraph in the Precession#Alternative views entry (section "Alternative views") where the "double star" theory is mentioned. Binary model of equinox precession is just a POV fork. Pilatus 17:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Alright, I'll shift my vote on both. Oswax 18:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is AFD, if we were to be NPOV in AFD, we would all vote neutral wouldn't we, and everything would be kept, which would probably satisfy many of the inclusionists here. - Hahnchen 00:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-widespread pseudoscience, probably original research as it's extraordinarily unlikely to have received peer-reviewed publicaiton. -Splashtalk 01:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We are not concerned with the veracity of the theory, merely with the verifiability and notability of the subject of the article, surely? Verifiability, not truth, quoth the Five Pillars. I think the theory's utter twaddle, you think the theory's utter twaddle, but then again Phlogiston's twaddle as well, and nobody's putting that on AfD.
    I vote Weak Keep, although I note even the only contributor asking to keep this can't be bothered to quote something that verifies the article, not the theory. The theory is not the concern of this AfD. This crackpot institute exists, as does the crackpot theory. And I will vote to delete any article that tries to promote a POV that the theory is true. Tonywalton  | Talk 01:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not because it's crazy, but because it's non-notable crazy. -- Kjkolb 02:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is currently only a stub. How can the article be developed if it is attacked and shot down as soon as the stub went up. It takes time to attract interested contributors. Modern scientific research into this topic is in it's infancy, even though it was known to the ancient Greeks and other ancient civilizations. Modern science isn't going to embrace it overnight. It is, however, gaining more and more recognition, and I think the topic is important enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Comment left by anonymous user 65.9.1.159.
  • Delete. Attempt to use Wikipedia to promote original research. Not a widely recognized theory either within or without the scientific mainstream. Within: Search of Proquest Research Library, an electronic index of two thousand scholarly journals: Searching for "binary research institute" did not find any documents. Apparently members of the institution have publishing nothing in these journals. Without: 315 Google hits on "Binary Research Institute," high-ranked hit on Wikipedia and its mirrors, most of them referring specifically to Cruttenden. No obvious evidence of widespread belief. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • As an inhabitant of an invisible non-existant planet that happens to revolve around the invisible non-existant binary star that is the focus of the above mentioned group which studies it, I have to say that this is an outrage! No-one is supposed to know about us! Delete! Wait till I tell the Lizard people! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC) This vote on the VfD of an Archeology-Astronomy-Astrology-Hinduism-History-Mythology-New Age-Star stub is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by voting delete!
  • Delete, OR crackpottery. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Sasquatch, would appreciate it if you would please stop vandalizing my work. Thank you, 65.9.1.159 .
  • Keep, if this organization exists and is likely to affect the beliefs of a fair amount of people. Anthony Appleyard 05:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, it's crackpottery, but sadly, I have to acknowledge that it is apparently notable, non-OR crackpottery, in that IMDB confirms the documentary, the producers, and that James Earl Jones appeared in it, and assuming it was released as a film and/or shown on PBS, it had a sizeable mass audience. Sigh. --MCB 06:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Changed my vote due to lack of verification that the film was shown on PBS or anywhere else. --MCB 18:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gee, that's funny, but there's not a trace of this documentary (nor of BRI or Walter Cruttenden) at pbs.org. And having the funds to pay James Earl Jones for a few hours of voiceover work -- if it took that long -- doesn't say a thing about notability. --Calton | Talk 08:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete some crackpottery is be notable, this isn't. Dunc|☺ 08:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - It may be crazy, but it is a real theory and these guys seem to be important exponents. Mention on spacedaily.com here. Oswax 10:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete - Pilatus' has convinced me of it's worthlessness. Oswax 18:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain with comment. People are missing the note in the nom that the idea isn't quackery just the institute. See: Nemesis (star)—it's very much minority but it's not Flat Earth. If the folks at Sol Station see fit to mention a topic (See Sol b? at bottom [2]) then it's usually good enough for me. If the first anon proves the pages of the Institute are replete with information and links to the research (which I couldn't find) I'll vote keep. Marskell 14:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - I voted delete above, because I was voting for the institution. Wikipedia is a place for crackpottery but not minor crackpottery institutes. - Hahnchen 15:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable, self-promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and heavily npov it. this rises a bit above the garden-variety crank site. plus, it has received some attention at large. if they're regarded by reputable folks as quacks, make that clear in the article. but quackery does not imply non-notability. and, yes, this clearly looks like shameless self-promotion, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a good npov'ed article on it. Derex 16:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete less than 100 unique googles? Must not have a very far reach... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per above. Piecraft 16:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn organization promoting unverifiable, probably false science. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Crackpot or no, the group is notable enough to be featured in a documentary. 23skidoo 17:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
On the website for the movie, Walter Cruttenden is listed as one of the sponsors. Vanity press, anyone? Pilatus 18:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Goodness gracious, it was his idea to finally introduce this very ancient theory to the modern day public, the documentary is his work, he wrote it, he worked hard to produce it, he financed it, his institute is the one carrying out the research into it. If that seems like vanity press to you, I wonder how many serious, professional endeavours you've ever been involved with. IP 65.9.158.81
If he financed it himself, then it would seem exactly like vanity press to me. Publication through normal channels proves that the author of the work was able to convince others to put their money where the author's mouth is. A normal book or movie has survived a difficult external review (albeit one based on profitability rather than truth). It sets a reasonably high bar, one which a self-published work does not need to hurdle. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
'I do not know if he financed the entire thing himself, or what part of it he did. A more accurate description might be that it was financed through his institute I guess. I have no idea how much came from where. It is obvious that getting knowledge of this theory out into the public is an uphill battle (that might be an understatement), but the theory itself has the potential to alter the beliefs of many millions of people (the entire population of the planet) if it were to be proven true. Like I said before, research is in its infancy, and faces heavy attack from the scientific establishment. Witness what has happened here, within a few minutes of the stub appearing it was marked for deletion. That is the kind of uphill battle Mr. Cruttenden, the Institute, and the theory face. But the potential for it to affect the lives of every human being is there. IP 65.9.158.81
And when it is proved true, we should have an article about it. More to the point, when it can be shown to have altered the beliefs of hundreds of thousands of people, we should have an article about it. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promulgation of worthy theories. It is a encyclopedia, a secondary reference, that reports facts that are already widely accepted. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Crackpottery indeed, but a very notable one at that. Owen× ☎ 18:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, those who are referring to this article or it's subject as crackpottery should re-think their statements, what is crackpottery one day is factual science another. Piecraft 22:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • In the words of Carl Sagan - "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown". Sometimes a crackpot is just a crackpot.Average Earthman 22:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Some who have voted keep here and at the Cruttenden vote are basing their votes on the existance of the DVD narrated by James Earl Jones. It should be re-stated that no-one knows for sure if the thing has even aired on PBS, which throws into doubt it's notability, and thus the notability of both related articles. In all seriousness, these need to go. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • good point, i have removed PBS claim from article as it is unverified. Derex 06:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      • If it actually aired, it should not be hard to verify this. Any supporters of the article care to step up to the plate? Dpbsmith (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Did it air on PBS or not? This is important to me, at least, in assessing whether we should have an article on it. If it did, it should be easy to provide verifiable evidence, and I hope some supporters will do so. For my part, I note that the Amazon listing makes no such claim (nor do any reader reviews). It is trivially easy to self-publish books and get them listed on Amazon; I don't know if this is true of DVDs. Search for "Cruttenden" at www.pbs.org yields six hits, none referring to this film. ("Abigail Cruttenden is a British television and film actress...") Search for "Great Year" at www.pbs.org yields 46 hits, non referring to the film. Search for "James Earl Jones" returns 40 hits, none referring to the film. DID IT AIR? IF SO, WHEN AND ON WHAT STATIONS? If someone will provide this information I think it could be verified quickly. I can't find anything at http://www.thegreatyear.com/ suggesting that it ever aired. If it aired on the PBS network I would change my vote. If it aired on a single PBS affiliate station, I would want to email them and find out more about the circumstances. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
23skidoo has verified that it aired January 28, 2004 on KOCE-TV in Huntington Beach [3]. That reference doesn't indicate whether it was distributed by the PBS network, or whether it was aired by one PBS affiliate (not the same thing). I've submitted an email query to KOCE's program department inquiring about the circumstances of its airing. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, those opposing these articles should have the ability to simply type: Walter Cruttenden in Google to come up with many sites relating to the man and his research along with the PBS broadcast. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this is a factual and notable person who has already been discussed throughout: [The Great Year] Piecraft 10:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This is the discussion about the institute. The man, the theory and the movie have each their own discussion. As far as the "Binary Research Institute" goes, it has 300 Google hits, 97 of which are unique. A bunch of these are speaking engagements on the esoteric circuit, the rest are copies of the press release on the movie and Wikipedia entries. There is no indication that the institute or the theory ever hit the mainstream. A Google search for '"The Great Year" Cruttenden' returns 48 unique hits; again many of these are copies of the press release. The movie is self-produced; there is no inducation that Cruttenden managed to find an investor. No indication is given anywhere that it was shown on PBS or anywhere outside the esoteric circuit. Walter Cruttenden himself heads an investment firm with a staff of three. Cruttenden exists, sure, but he has done nothing but finance a movie and set up a website. Even fervent inclusionists usually draw the line at personal vanity and self-promotion. Pilatus 13:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      • It hardly seems like a vanity page and does not fall into what appears to be the category of the WP:NOT - you can find further relevance to this article by seeking out the official site of the [Binary Research Institute] and checking the link for Board of Advisors, the names placed are of notable people which can also be Googled, this is a relevant Institute which has been around since 2001. Even fervent deletionists can't come up with a good enough excuse for deletion, until you can prove to me this is purely for vanity purposes than I rest on the case that it is a relevant encyclopedic article that ascribes to an Institute founded by a notable individual as can be seen from the notable and reputable background and coverage on the Net. Piecraft 13:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
        • This discussion is about the institute. It was founded four years ago, and if it had made any impact it would by now clock up more than 100 hits on Google. Again, the discussion is not about the qualification of the members, it's about what the organization has achieved. If they haven't done anything except self-publish a movie and a book they ought to go. (I guess I'm applying a standard similar to WP:MUSIC.) Pilatus 14:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

If this discussion is about the article about the Binary Reasearch Institute, then I would suggest it be kept - i've read it's less than 10 lines several times, and found it not objectionable at all, nor it falls into any category of non NPOV - it's merely a stub about what IS this institute, nothing else. If the pseudoscientific theory they're trying to promote shouldn't be here according to wikipedia (original research) then well, that's another thing - the article about that theory should be deleted. The same about article on Walter Cruttenden himself and the film "The Great Year". Registered at least, hope this helps (BattleTroll)

  • Delete. Non-notable crackpot institution. If it is kept I will say that the article shows remarkable restraint for a crackpottery-related topic and sticks to neutral and verifiable (or practically verifiable) statements. Quale 08:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, this is obviously a bad faith nomination. The delitionist attitudes here are unbelieveably oppressive. The rabid, visceral comments reek of hidden (or not so hidden) agenda and ulterior motives. Why are they are trying so hard to silence and suppress. It's suspicious. Earthian 16:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC) User registered on September 27 and made contributions only to this and related AfDs. Special:Contributions/Earthian
    • Comment, thank you Pilatus for proving my point. I couldn't have done it better myself. The rabidness with which you are going about this, and the fact that now you are stalking me and adding "special comments" to my contributions here further proves that these three nominations were in BAD FAITH. You proved it better than I or anyone else could. Earthian 17:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • If your edits are only to this and related VfDs Pilatus has every right to point that out. Roughly, 100 diverse edits prove an editor stopping by a VfD is "disinterested" rather than pushing their own cruft or creations. Marskell 18:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Conflict of Interest - Question: should the person who nominates articles for deletion also be making changes to those articles? In this case, Pilatus has nominated these three articles for deletion - Walter Cruttenden, Binary Research Institute, and The Great Year - and has made extensive changes to them. In most of his changes he leaves behind typos and grammatical errors, broken links, and straggling headers (i.e., after he's removed everything that was under a header), not only messing up other users' work but leaving the article in much poorer shape than it was before. He also deletes extensively, and removes categories and stubs aggressively. He goes in after anyone adds anything to an article and removes everything the other person contributed. He seems to be working to increase the chances for deletion of the articles. In light of this, it would be appropriate, in order to avoid this obvious conflict of interest, for the person who nominated the articles to refrain from modifying them until the decision has been made? Syug 21:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Most articles up for deletion are not judged upon the quality or quantity or their content, but rather the appropriateness or notability of the topic. Any edits that Pilatus may have made to the content of the article are irrelevant, for he cannot make a worthy topic unworthy by bad grammar or misspellings. Oswax 21:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • AfDs are closed by an admin who was not involved in the debate to prevent conflicts of interest. The offer still stands: instead of complaining feel free to add content to improve the article. Also note that there is broad consensus for my edits. Pilatus
    • Syug, your comments are vague and general. We're talking about one particular article here. I infer that you think Pilatus has intentionally damaged the article in order to influence voting. Which are the specific edits where you think he's done this? I looked at one case of an editor "(correcting more Pilatus syntax errors)" and it didn't look to me like anything that would affect voting. Your own edits, which he removed, didn't seem like anything that would have led people to vote "keep" had they been left in. Nor do I see any evidence in the discussion that anyone is complaining about typos or grammatical errors or using them as a reason for deletion. If you think that Pilatus has been deliberately damaging the article in order to influence people to vote for deletion, you really should open a WP:RFC on this. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please this might not be good faith here Yuckfoo 21:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons expressed many times already. -R. fiend 14:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is exactly zero primary evidence for Cruttenden's notions about the Sun being part of a binary system. There is no excuse for inclusion of this trash in an encyclopaedia, except as an example of pseudoscience/bad science. Comment left by anonymous user 62.64.220.164 who has only participated in this and the three other related articles being nominated for deletion and left the same comment in each.Red herring! Surely it is the content of the comment, not who left it, or where else he left it, that is relevant? 62.64.237.112 15:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research, unlikely to have many non-POV contributors.--inks 08:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as the institute has not yet had enough impact on the world to be encyclopedic. The Literate Engineer 22:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Proposal Though I know most would like to see these three artciles deleted, why not merge them altogether into one article describing the phenomenon, the man and the institute (including his film) - as for the title it could be placed under "Binary model of equinox precession" Piecraft 12:33, 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Walter Cruttenden

Walter Cruttenden is an investment banker and has its entry here as the founder of the Binary Research Institute, which is also up for deletion. Please consider the two AfDs together. Pilatus 00:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binary model of equinox precession, a POV fork of Precession Pilatus 16:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

And what is wrong with being an investment banker? Or the founder of a research institute??? comment left by anonymous user 65.11.192.128

Since you asked, the fact that his theory and the institute devoted to it have attracted no attention from anyone are reasons that it shouldn't be listed here. Sources that the institure (and its founder) are somehow notable are good grounds for inclusion. Pilatus 00:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - speedy? I'm going to guess that the anon editor is our Walter, am I correct? He's an ex-investment banker and this is his attempt at creating a money spinning cult. Hey L Ron Hubbard managed it! - Hahnchen 00:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete doesnt seem notable. Anon IP isnt helping it very much either. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ditto on lack of notability. Shauri 01:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, probable vanity spawned from the entry just above. -Splashtalk 01:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, vanity, only 577 google. -GregAsche (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Binary Research Institute and delete. No intrinsic notability. Tonywalton  | Talk 01:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Note that the target you suggest is also on AfD. -Splashtalk 02:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. Amren (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is currently only a stub. How can the article be developed if it is attacked and shot down as soon as the stub went up. It takes time to attract interested, knowledeable persons who can make valuable contributions. Modern scientific research into this topic is in it's infancy, even though it was known to the ancient Greeks and other ancient civilizations. Modern science isn't going to embrace it overnight. It is, however, gaining more and more recognition, and I think the topic is important enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. I posted this as IP 65.9.1.159 (haven't registered yet).
  • As the previously aformentioned inhabitant of an invisible non-existant planet that happens to revolve around the invisible non-existant binary star that is the focus of the above mentioned fellow who knows a bit too much, I have to say that this is an outrage! No-one is supposed to know about us! Delete! Oh, the Lizard people are on their way! I give them a ring, and they are positively cheesed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC) This vote on the VfD of an American-Business-Hindu-Writer-Mythology stub is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by voting delete!
  • Comment: Now there's stub vandalism, someone must be bored... Sasquatcht|c 04:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete', whether the theory is kept or not, its creator has absolutely no notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Sasquatch, would appreciate it if you would please stop vandalizing my work. Thank you, 65.9.1.159 .
  • Weak Keep. The subject may well be (and probably is) a pseudoscientific crackpot, but he is listed with the writing credit of the film The Great Year, apparently funded or whatever by the Binary whosis, and it';s listed in the IMDB, was narrated by James Earl Jones, and was asserted to have been shown on PBS (and I think I remember something like that). --MCB 06:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Changed my vote, as above, due to lack of verification that the film was shown on PBS or anywhere else. --MCB 18:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Self-promtional OR -- and there's no trace of this documentary at PBS's website. If Cruttenden had enough money to pay Jones for a little voiceover work, he probably had enough to pay for showing it on a few public TV stations that needed the money, so it proves nothing regarding notability. --Calton | Talk 08:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. Dunc|☺ 08:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Quoted in this spacedaily.com article here. Definite delusional, but hey, we have an article on Napoleon. Oswax 10:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete - See the VfD for Binary Research Institute. Non-notable. Oswax 18:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable, self-promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The orginazation itself has less than 100 unique googles.... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Tonywalton. Owen× ☎ 18:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the article needs time to grow, this is a notable person that requires further detail to information. Piecraft 00:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Some who have voted keep here and at the Institute vote are basing their votes on the existance of the DVD narrated by James Earl Jones. It should be re-stated that no-one knows for sure if the thing has even aired on PBS, which throws into doubt it's notability, and thus the notability of both related articles. In all seriousness, these need to go. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, those opposing these articles should have the ability to simply type: Walter Cruttenden in Google to come up with many sites relating to the man and his research along with the PBS broadcast. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this is a factual and notable person who has already been discussed throughout: [The Great Year] Piecraft 13:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

If this discussion is about the article about THE PERSON, then I would suggest it be kept. If the pseudoscientific theory his "Binary Research Institute" doesn't deserve a place at Wikipedia for being original research then the article about that theory deserves being deleted, but not the stub about this guy. The same about article the film "The Great Year". Now I'm a registered user (BattleTroll)

  • Delete. If the crackpot theories were encyclopedic, Cruttenden should be mentioned on them. I think they're not encyclopedic, and Cruttenden himself does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Quale 08:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, this is obviously a bad faith nomination. These delitionist attitudes are unbelieveably oppressive! The rabid, visceral comments reek of hidden (or not so hidden) agenda and ulterior motives. Why are they are trying so hard to silence and suppress. It's suspicious. Earthian 16:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC) User registered on September 27 and made contributions only to this and related AfDs. Special:Contributions/Earthian
    • People are included in an encyclopedia because of a degree of importance, not because of personal vanity. Instead of crying "Oppression", why don't you list Walter Cruttenden's achievements? Pilatus 17:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I have no reason to list his achievements, they are readily availble on the net for all to see. They were included in the articles, with links, and you deleted them. The fact that you feel the need to stalk me and add the stupid disclaimer above to my contributions in the deletion pages only further proves my assertion that these three nominations you made are in BAD FAITH. Why are you so afraid of Walter Cruttenden, his Binary Research Institute, and the film they produced that you must work so hard to censor them? You vandalized the articles, removing other people's contributions, you hang here 24 hours a day making sure your supress any information that appears. I am no longer suspicious, after reviewing your history here, I am certain that you have hidden agendas and ulterior motives. Furthermore, if one were to apply the unbelieveably strict standards you are setting up for these three articles to all the articles on Wikipedia, half the articles would be deleted immediately, and on further consideration, few of the other half would survive. They'd be lucky if 10% of the articles survived. I repeat, this is BAD FAITH. Earthian 17:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Conflict of Interest - Question: should the person who nominates articles for deletion also be making changes to those articles? In this case, Pilatus has nominated these three articles for deletion - Walter Cruttenden, Binary Research Institute, and The Great Year - and has made extensive changes to them. In most of his changes he leaves behind typos and grammatical errors, broken links, and straggling headers (i.e., after he's removed everything that was under a header), not only messing up other users' work but leaving the article in much poorer shape than it was before. He also deletes extensively, and removes categories and stubs aggressively. He goes in after anyone adds anything to an article and removes everything the other person contributed. He seems to be working to increase the chances for deletion of the articles. In light of this, it would be appropriate, in order to avoid this obvious conflict of interest, for the person who nominated the articles to refrain from modifying them until the decision has been made? Syug 21:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Most articles up for deletion are not judged upon the quality or quantity or their content, but rather the appropriateness or notability of the topic. Any edits that Pilatus may have made to the content of the article are irrelevant, for he cannot make a worthy topic unworthy by bad grammar or misspellings. Oswax 21:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is exactly zero primary evidence for Cruttenden's notions about the Sun being part of a binary system. There is no excuse for inclusion of this trash in an encyclopaedia, except as an example of pseudoscience/bad science. Comment left by anonymous user 62.64.220.164 who has only participated in this and the three other related articles being nominated for deletion and left the same comment in each.Red herring! Surely it is the content of the comment, not who left it, or where else he left it, that is relevant? 62.64.237.112 15:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Proposal Though I know most would like to see these three artciles deleted, why not merge them altogether into one article describing the phenomenon, the man and the institute (including his film) - as for the title it could be placed under "Binary model of equinox precession" Piecraft 12:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and No to the proposal all of them likely to get deleted --JAranda | yeah 21:42, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ky-Mani Marley

Tagged as a speedy for not asserting notability, as it stands I'm inclined to agree with that. Not sure if it's a speedy though. --fvw* 00:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. So is he a singer or what? According to article, only claim of notability is being the son of Bob. Owen× ☎ 00:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Change to Keep following Flowerparty's re-write. Owen× ☎ 01:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He has an AMG page and two albums, so meets WP:MUSIC. Flowerparty■ 00:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep All Music Guide page certainly shows that hes notable. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: rewritten. Flowerparty■ 01:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep barely. Notability is not acquired from being nearby other notables. But if we're going to cite not meeting WP:MUSIC as a deletion criterion, then I suppose we must cite it as a keep criteriod when it is met, which it does seem to be. -Splashtalk 01:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite works for me, change my vote to keep. --fvw* 01:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Guettarda 01:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Shauri 02:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the references given in the article suggest to me he's worth an entry. - Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep looks decent flower :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable. Cnwb 23:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep FlowerParty's rewrite as per WP:music and well done to him. Capitalistroadster 07:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please we all agree now so can we take it off here Yuckfoo 21:39, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Station V3

Total webcomic vanity, see the webcomic here and its ghost town forums here. A webcomic reaches its audience purely by the internet, so a current ongoing webcomic, if popular, should have a decent Alexa rank, ie one which is better than 5 million. (note that it's web rank will probably breach the sub 5million mark if people visit it from this AFD) This one however, doesn't. - Hahnchen 00:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn webcomic among hundreds of millions. Also has only 230 non-repetitive Google hits. -Splashtalk 01:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Shauri 02:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Hahnchen. I'm glad someone's checking these out. -- Kjkolb 02:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Besides pennyarcade and ctlaltdel, every webcomic is not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Amren (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Alexa rank, google hits and their forums all suggest it's not as popular as it claims to be. - Mgm|(talk) 10:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Generally, webcomics on Keenspace are non-notable, in 99% of cases. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment As the author of the comic, I figure I should at least make a few comments here. I didn't write the article, and haven't made any claims about the comic's popularity apart from the fact that it has on occasion made the top 40 on some of the voting lists (buzzComix, TopWebcomics, Webcomics List). I was surprised when the article appeared, since it didn't meet the original notability guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics. It did meet the alternate proposal guidelines (and the alternate alternate ones, with well over 500 comics), though. But I'm not the one interpreting the guidelines, and I can't exactly claim that Station V3 has a great rank on Alexa or an especially active forum! I'll leave this up to you guys - the article's been copied over to Comixpedia's wiki and expanded there anyway. - Axonite 02:01, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Bottle District

Ad. --fvw* 00:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Owen× ☎ 00:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I thought this was up for speedy. Shauri 01:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete This should have been speedy. Olorin28 01:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ads aren't speediable, regrettably. -Splashtalk 01:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:ISNOT a crytal ball which almost every word of this article is. It can be remade once someone can actually say something definitive about it. Or it can be rewritten to include what may already be verifiably known, but only if that information is not likely to be stable. (I don't think this is an ad though: it's just too bad!) -Splashtalk 01:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I disagree with Splash It is an ad and it is bad. Avalon 04:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    I think you misunderstand Splash. He also thinks it is an ad, and he hates ads as much as you do. He is lamenting the fact that ads are not eligible under WP:CSD for speedy deletion, which is why we have to waste time here on AfD to get rid of them. Owen× ☎ 15:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising for place that doesn't exist yet. Feel free to rewrite if something definitive and non ad-like can be said about it. - Mgm|(talk) 10:05, 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, content is already at Wikibooks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goodbye Russia With Love

A recipe for a cocktail. WP:NOT recipe book. DeleteOwen× ☎ 00:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Change to Abstain; we already have hundreds of other cocktail recipes. Owen× ☎ 00:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks Cookbook, and delete. Recipes are not encyclopedic — they are how-to's. If the article were to discuss the concept of a Goodbye Russia with Love cocktail, or its impact on society, or on cocktailing, or perhaps if it had some interesting history or some media attention for some reason beyond being alcoholic, then it would have some encyclopedic mileage. It does not cover any of these things. That we have other, equally inappropriate, articles should not be an excuse for hanging onto this one. -Splashtalk 01:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for already existing on Wikibooks. - Mgm|(talk) 10:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • We do have some cocktails on wikipedia, but the articles should have more than the recipe listed. For good examples of cocktail articles that fit well into wikipeida, see One-Balled Dictator or Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. This is nothing more than a recipe, and wikipedia is not a cookbook. Plus it's already in wikibooks. Delete. --Jacqui M Schedler 12:24, 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 Janice Dickinson for now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No Lifeguard on Duty

No useful information. Looks like a 3rd grade article. .::Imdaking::. Bow | DOWN 00:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Owen× ☎ 00:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or BJAODN per nom. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Janice Dickenson. Redirects are cheap. Pilatus 01:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Pilatus. Shauri 01:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete No useful info Olorin28 01:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Janice Dickinson (note spelling differs from previous entry, which is a redirect). If and when an article is written about the book, this article can be filled out and the redirect moved. ♠ DanMS 01:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per DanMS, unless somebody can rewrite it with a lot more information. If redirected or deleted, then unlink all of the book titles at Janice Dickinson to discourage creating articles on the other books. --Idont Havaname 02:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator. Amren (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Pilatus. Not only are redirects cheap, but they can also keep things off of AfD. WCFrancis 16:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Janice Dickenson. It's a real book, but the article needs wikifying. If someone wants to wikify the article and/or add a section to Janice Dickenson they are welcome to do so. Andrew pmk | Talk 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Janice Dickinson unless someone is willing to rewrite. Andromeda321 23:21, 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 Redirect to The Simpsons DVDs Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bart Wars

Article contains the same information as its corresponding section in The Simpsons DVDs. -Kaizersoze 00:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. same as above --.::Imdaking::. Bow | DOWN 00:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Simpsons DVDs. Kertrats | Talk 00:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Kertrats. Shauri 00:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect would be useful. Flowerparty■ 01:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Amren (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect likely search term. - Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Kertrats Ryan Norton T | @ | C 16:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Saberwyn 03:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect (as Kaizersoze said).  Thorpe talk 22:42, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-ana

I have been contributing to this article for a little under a year in hopes of making it something worth keeping on Wikipedia, but recently I've realized that it is not only unencyclopedic, but completely unverifiable. All of it is hearsay. Not an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 00:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - It is heresy, but I'm pretty sure it exists. It was probably on Something Awful at some time or other. It does present another viewpoint into anorexia and it should be shown on wikipedia. However, it may be better serving as a section in Anorexia nervosa. - Hahnchen 00:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It exists, but is it verifiable? Are there statistics on pro-ana? Sources? Articles? No. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 01:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I applaud the nom for investing time into what I find a reprehensible topic, but it appears legit and encyclopedic. I'd have no objection to the above section suggestion, though. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 01:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Pro-ana and Pro-mia have become important topics lately, and we must have an article on the phenomenon. As for verifiability, I've stumbled myself upon that sort of webpages, and with medical articles that deal with the subject also. The way I see it, we should work on improving the article, not on deleting it. I also commend the nominator for his courage, but this is simply not the way to deal with the problem. Shauri 01:14, 25
    • Keep. I agree with Shauri. Wikipedia is especially important as a source on controversial subjects, even though it's especially hard to keep things factual/descriptive. Galaxiaad 03:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have to disagree with Angel on this one, although I often tend to agree with her. This seems to be a legitimate and growing phenomenon. Keep up the good work, Angel! ♠ DanMS 01:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable [4] - I first heard about this stuff in the linked WaPo article last year. The WaPo article is a solid link. Guettarda 01:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable phenomenon. Amren (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't like the phenomenon one bit, but it's certainly real, verifiable and notable. It's also been around for some time now; Here's a 2001 article on the topic from The Observer (UK). Loganberry (Talk) 23:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A few years back, LiveJournal was swamped with these sites and, I believe, started a pretty active campaign to remove them. Possibly more useful in shortened form as a merge with existing Anorexia nervosa page? Jessamyn 21:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep WebMD has an article on this. There have been countless self-help and talk-shows about this topic. It has been featured in books and magazines. It is a real thing in the real world and we need an article on it. Qaz 00:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep a local news paper did an article on pro ana/mia recently, and true it may be getting smaller its still going and was at one point quite large. dragonriseing 10:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Shauri. Maybe this should get a peer review or similar. --Apyule 05:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm voting for a keep on the article and a round of applause for the nominator, who evinces such a conviction in the tenets of scholarly writing that she's willing to put something she worked on for a year on the chopping block if might be unverifiable.—encephalon 11:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep notable internet subculture. Klonimus 20:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Census is no longer valid, sure. But that's because it's been a while. Look for new stats. However, pro-ana sites ARE growing, and there are many campaigns to stop them, news articles on them, etc. They're important. We NEED a page on them.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE by FCYTravis on 20:53, 11 October 2005. >: Roby Wayne Talk • Hist • E@ 05:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Sound of Animals Fighting

Re-created by an anon, copying their bio off their myspace page. See below from late September when I posted this on AFD and it was deleted. Kertrats

  • speedy of course. It's already tagged. (I fixed the AFD nom since it was ending up merged with another dicussion.) — brighterorange (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You may want to block from recreation. --CastAStone 00:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 20:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Sound of Animals Fighting

Non-notable side project of a member of the band Rx Bandits, who themselves are on the low end of the notability scale. Barring a wide interpretation of article 5, they fail to meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC and should be removed. Kertrats | Talk 00:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per Kertrats. -- Kjkolb 02:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - As nomination. Hear that? It's the sound of articles dying. Oswax 11:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, side projects are even more notable than albums. Kappa 15:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This is The Sound of Editors Deleting. Side projects are even less notable than albums. Often indifferentiable from Guy Who Had a Fight With His Real Band Goofing Around With His Buddies. Notability of the specific "project"'s actual work, demonstrated through major media or a zillion non-fansite Google hits or something, would be needed to get my "keep" vote; and the work is barely being recorded, let alone released. The only external link, to an AbsolutePunk.net "article", is actually just to a chat board where some fan claims a person will be their new lead singer. No indication of passing WP:MUSIC enough to overcome "not a crystal ball". Barno 05:17, 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 A Narrow No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cat Town

Does a website with an alexa ranking of 1.2mil notable enough for a wikipedia article? Probably not. What about a subpage of that said domain at CAT TOWN. A set of captioned photos, each one featuring a cat. Apparently, it's some sort of fumetti, and is listed as a webcomic. There are some sites which intentionally look bad to be funny, this one tries, but fails at being funny. Just because it's a webcomic does not mean it is notable, this entry is pure vanity. - Hahnchen 00:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn webcomic vanity. To be notable among 8 billion websites, you've really got to go some. -Splashtalk 01:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Hahnchen. -- Kjkolb 02:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Shauri 03:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable site. Amren (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Miaow. Not notable. Delete. Leave it at the animal refuge. Anthony Appleyard 05:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Refer to the August 2004 VfD for arguments which remain valid. --Jake 16:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Up for deletion before and voted a keeper. -- Gunther 16:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's only vanity if the article is written by the creator - so, the vanity rule does not apply. Nor do opinions about whether it is funny or not count. Keeping this article doesn't harm wikipedia. --Fangz 16:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - There are many unfunny things on Wikipedia. The reason I nominated it to be deleted, is that it is a website, with 1 million more popular websites before it. How many websites should we allow on wikipedia? 1 million? more? Wikipedia is not a web directory, and should never turn into one. I'm sure someone's personal "My first page on the web" on geocities is more popular than this, that does not mean it should have its own article. - Hahnchen 23:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I count 23 strips (not enough for WP:COMIC) and an alexa rating of 1.2M (ditto). This strip's VfD appears to have been closed more than a month ago, which IMO is enough time. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn comic. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable comic as far as I can see. Piecraft 00:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete First of all, it looks like someone's first attempt at a animation series AND a website, somethin that does not automatically qualify for an article. Second, the series is in no way noteworthy, so I see no reason to keep it. -bjelleklang 01:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep' please this is not vanity it is notable Yuckfoo 21:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete good this hadn't closed yet ;) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:19, 3 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 SPEEDY DELETED. Either a user test or an A1. -Splashtalk 01:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cruzes

An entirely perplexing entry on the plural for the Spanish word for Cross followed by some entirely unrelated website. Delete (if not speedy). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete - nonsense. - Hahnchen 00:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy nonsense although slightly hilarious nonsense ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 01:07, 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 MERGE to Consumerium. -Splashtalk 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ConsuML

ConsuML is not notable and never was and will likely never be since the design paradigm of Consumerium was changed to heavily utilizing wiki on August 31, 2003 --Juxo 14:09, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Consumerium. Not notable as a separate article but notable as an aspect of Consumerium history. — Phil Welch 23:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Relisting in search of more discussion. -Splashtalk 01:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Consumerium as per Phil Dlyons493 03:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to consumerium because it is defunct. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:10, 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 REDIRECT to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series). I'll add a link to the dab page, too. -Splashtalk 21:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carter (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles)

This article states the name of a character from an old tv show, but provides no other data. It doesn't even say whether "Carter" is a first name, last name, nickname, etc. I don't think it adds anything to Wikipedia. -- Supermorff 19:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisting in search of more discussion. -Splashtalk 01:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as originally suggested by Philwelch. Shauri 01:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with no redirect, no one's going to search for that. -- Kjkolb 02:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*Delete as per Kjkolb. If anyone knew enough to search on Carter (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles) rather than Carter then they'd have gone to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the first place Dlyons493 03:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete outright, per Dlyons493. --Calton | Talk 08:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as suggested and link it on the Carter disambiguation page, where people looking for the character are likely to start their search. It's bracketed disambiguation info is needed to distinguish it from other Carters. - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Redirect as per Mgm|(talk) That seems best solution. Dlyons493 15:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirects are cheap. Making a redirect helps discourage recreation, and directs the original author to the correct place, if he or she needs some encouragement. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 11:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect — easy and cheap. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:11, 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. The nominator appears to retract in their later comment (perhaps an accident, but important nontheless) — since some cleaning has been done their later comment certainly leans in the direction of a keeper. Given the work that was done and the wavering of the nominator, and the lack of an outright consensus to delete, I'm not persuaded that there is a rough consensus on what should be done, so I shall do nothing. -Splashtalk 21:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The College of Wooster Greeks

No way to verify, as far as I know, and any attempts to get original poster to edit the page have met with silence. --Jacqui M Schedler 03:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC) (Sorry, signing things is generally considered good Wikiquette)

Relisting in search of more discussion. -Splashtalk 01:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Don't see that there's antyhing worth keeping (neither does its author apparently). Dlyons493 03:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. College cruft. TheMadBaron 05:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment (no vote). Some attempt at verification has been made, though the listings could sure use some author names. I personally would like having an article on this topic once it were properly cleaned up, but as I am indeed a College of Wooster student, I believe my opinion to be biased. --Jacqui M Schedler 00:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I cited my sources (and recited once I had time to return to the College of Wooster special collections to find the Independant Study and Book authors names), and worked to clean up any hint of an agenda (I had none in creating the page except to create an easy-refrence guide to the greeks for students and others; as I belong to none of these groups, I have no benefit from setting any agenda in regards to them. The problem probably stemmed from writing too late at night...). This was only my second major edit to a Wiki page, so excuse the mess if the page started out poorly; I feel my changes have improved it significantly.--CastAStone 21:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • At the very least, if you don't keep, userfy, as I researched exhastively.CastAStone 18:31, 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. Content is already on Wiktionary. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dumbass

Another perfectly good dictdef that I cannot imagine could ever be anything more. Jkelly 01:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to insult or something and add as an example there. gren グレン 01:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless dictdef. Shauri 01:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense, it can also be redirected --.::Imdaking::. Bow | DOWN 01:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ASAP. Not an encyclopedic entry. Probably someone's idea of a joke, to make a page of this. ♠ DanMS 01:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Amren (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Creator using IP 24.161.115.114, home of one or more vandals. There have been ten deletions of Dumbass articles in the past. Spock: "Double Delete on you". WCFrancis 05:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsensical dic def. Would support a redirect to insult or a list of insults or something similar to avoid recreation. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to dumbass on Wiktionary. -- BD2412 talk 15:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and Transwiki to Wiktionary, offensive but unfortunately very common slang.
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Smerdis of Tlön 22:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect from recreation. -- Kjkolb 01:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not encyclopedic. doesn't belong on wikipedia.--Alhutch 02:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this dumbass misdefinition, no transwiki (it's already there). Barno 05:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN Dudtz 9/29/05 6:51 PM EST
  • Delete Arker 19:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Robert Fisk otherwise delete. Klonimus 20:35, 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. Hermione1980 00:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MPI Home Video

Delete. No content other than advertisement. ♠ DanMS 01:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Although I have just excised the worst of this blatant adspam (contact details etc), IMDb does suggest they have distributed (but not made) many films [5]. This rather inflates their Google count, I expect, since they will be in the small print all over the place. Whether doing something that is not notable of itself (distribution) and collecting lots of small-print mentions adds up to corporate notability, I am unsure, but doubtful. -Splashtalk 01:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Major distributor of home video since the 1980s. They were the first to release The Prisoner to home video, for example. Needs more content, but this isn't an advertisement. To my knowledge, being a distributor doesn't disqualify a company from being notable. 23skidoo 05:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per 23skidoo. - Mgm|(talk) 10:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Major home video distributor. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this too please they are pretty important Yuckfoo 21:40, 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. — JIP | Talk 09:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] نتائج مسابقة الفنون النسوية

Very short article in Arabic which has been on WP:PNT since 11 September. If someone wants to translate it, go ahead, but I cannot see much harm in deleting something so short (and in an alphabet which is hard to handle for most en: users). Physchim62 13:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Should it be transwikied instead? Alba 14:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I looked at the article and a lot of the words in it look exactly the same as the ones in the title. Specifically, the last three words of the article. In that case it could be speedied as "a rephrasing of the title" or just "patent nonsense." ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 16:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Machine translation of the title (from Systran): "Results contestant of the arts the feminism"; of the body: "Results contestant of the arts the feminism number 1930 Manal Mohammed [e'bwd]". Seems to be rephrasing of title with a small amount of stuff added. Andrew pmk | Talk 18:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pretty, but ultimately useless. --Apostrophe 03:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, its two weeks at WP:PNT are up. (Pretty, but ultimately useless? Sounds like several movie stars I can think of!) --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is not suitable for WP. -- Eagleamn 07:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense..::Imdaking::. Bow | DOWN 23:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete-Hardly any info and not appropriate for the English Version of Wikipedia.

Dudtz 9/29/05 5:06 PM EST

  • Delete - It's already been given vastly more time than something this short deserves. --rob 00:17, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Donald Alasky

Marked for speedy deletion as being a hoax. No vote. --fvw* 01:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete / Speedy. No mention of this guy anywhere outside WP, which is puzzling considering he is claimed to be an Oscar winner, no less. Probably wishful thinking on someone's part. Owen× ☎ 01:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain, umm... if there is no evidence for him really being the creator of Mr. Game & Watch then delete... but, if he did then definite keep. Someone with Nintendo games want to look at the credits? gren グレン 02:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. How could a successful video game developer not show up on google at all? Occam's razor suggests hoax. Chick Bowen 03:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete apparent hoax. Dlyons493 03:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax. If he did develop the character it should be mentioned in the article on the character. And since game character developers don't win Oscars (and usually show up in Google searches, I'm quite confident in saying this is a hoax. - Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete We can't even confirm the exsistence of the supposed cartoon Mr. Game & Watch exsisted in. I also don't belive anyone "created" him; he's a fairly generic character, sort of resembling a plump stick figure with a large nose. -- gakon5 (talk)
  • Delete unverifiable/nn video game developer. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:02, 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 KEEP and clean up. — JIP | Talk 09:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Gordon Teather

Claim to notability is that he saved two fishermen. Displaying heroism is non-notable for Canadians. On a less flip note, a similar article in French about someone who saved some people from a fire I just tagged as nn-bio speedy, as it had been tagged as a "speedy transwiki" to the French wikipedia. Jkelly 01:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Changing vote to Keep, as per unsigned User:Maclean25 below. Jkelly 02:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

See also: Eric Meunier. Someone is copying everything from the Governor General's honours index. Jkelly 01:40, 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. Well, the numbers are towards three-quarters at 11d-5k. This is the kind of debate that could be swayed by work during, though. That does not appear to have happened as the deleters continued to stack up throughout. Also, Piecraft's comment though numerically I put it as a keep, sounds more like a categorify, without any particular desire to retain the article. -Splashtalk 21:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of famous hypochondriacs

Unsourced, useless, possibly libelous. Delete. Neutralitytalk 01:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - unless rewritten with sources and facts, the 2 ingredients of wikipedia. - Hahnchen 01:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and add sources. Owen× ☎ 02:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this information should go into the articles on the people listed, if it can be verified. -- Kjkolb 02:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but add sources and some introductory information. Unsourced != deletable, because then we could delete all stubs and would have to really raise the requirement for a newly-created article. --Idont Havaname 02:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • How long can an article remain in an unverified state, once serious questions are raised? I've rather assumed that once seriously challenged, any item of information is deletable if not sourced fairly promptly. Surely verifiability does not mean that any assertion can remain in Wikipedia indefinitely until it is proved false. In fact that page, which is official policy, says in so many words: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit." Dpbsmith (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I've moved the unsourced entries—that is to say, all of them—to the article's Talk page and replaced the opening sentence to one similar to the opening of List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder, namely "This is a list of people accompanied by verifiable source citations associating them with hypochondria." This means the number of valid items presently on the list is zero. I've also added Oscar Levant to the list on the talk page, as I'm about 99% certain he has discussed this in his own autobiographies, and our article on him asserts that he was a "notorious hypochondriac." I sort of think sources can be found for Samuel Johnson and Hans Christian Andersen. I think it is sloppy and irresponsible to put up an unsourced list like this and expect others to do the work of digging for verification. Find sources first, add names after sources have been found. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I've started adding sources to some of the more well-known cases. Any help would be appreciated. Owen× ☎ 03:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Much better done by putting the information in the bios of the individuals involved and creating a category for hypochondrics. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A subjective term anachronistically applied to people from an era with a complete different understanding of disease, before germ theory. . . impossible to write verifiably. Chick Bowen 03:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Exactly, Chick. Diagnosing historical figures and/or people who have never been diagnosed by a doctor (not a historian, fan or gossip columnist) is sketchy at best. -- Kjkolb 04:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete possibly create a category. Dlyons493 03:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and make a category if this list can be verified. 23skidoo 05:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I have an extreme dislike for these types of lists... for one thing, "famous" is POV. Another is the self-diagnosis thing which is both annoying and libellus. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Better as a category, if at all. Superm401 | Talk 21:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a category, useful and informative list for future reference. Piecraft 15:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep. If able to be verified. Roodog2k (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep this if they can be verified it should not be erased Yuckfoo 21:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete could only ever be a category at best. Cursive 02:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This information belongs in one of only two places on Wikipedia: in the article Hypochondria or nowhere at all. Since there doesn't seem to be any interest in merging it (or else somebody'd have suggested that already), I call for it to be Deleted. The Literate Engineer 04:51, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vendmax

Ad. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, ad. Shauri 02:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ad. Dlyons493 03:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ad. *drew 03:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ad Amren (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC
  • Delete Amen Avalon 04:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, no vote. I don't know how notable this company is but it appears to be a legitimate vending machine company. See their website. If kept, the article needs to be completely rewritten so that it does not read like an advertisement. ♠ DanMS 05:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't an article about Vendmax the Canadian vending machine company. It's an article about Vendmax, a software product of the U.S. Streamware corporation. (WP:CORP has notability guidelines for both companies and products.) Uncle G 14:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Uncle G is correct. My apologies, Uncle G. I should have read the article more carefully. Changing my vote to Delete. I wonder if the software company is impinging on the trademark of the vending machine company. ♠ DanMS 16:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This article about the vending machine company is not a simple parroting of the company's "about us" page or its press releases, and thus means that the Canadian company satisfies the first WP:CORP notability criterion. However, I have yet to find any independently written published works about the computer software. All articles turn out to be simple regurgitations of Crane Streamware's own press releases. A wide circulation of press releases and submitted business directory listings by the vendor of the software itself is not grounds for an encyclopaedia article. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages nor a product catalogue. There has to be evidence that people know about the software product, and the litmus test for that is whether other people have published things (manuals, reviews, courses, guides, commentaries, and so forth) dealing with it. No-one has, apparently. Unless completely rewritten to be about the notable company rather than the non-notable software product, delete. Uncle G 14:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ad Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:01, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ras El-Khaimah cave monster

This article discusses a minor internet hoax that seems to have long since died out. Most of the Google hits are to Wikipedia mirrors. Delete. Chick Bowen 01:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 05:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not-notable today, positively obscure tomorrow. Oswax 11:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Oswax. Maybe the content could be merged someplace else or put a on talk page before deletion if it warrants it Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Oswax.--Alhutch 17:16, 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 09:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Lyons

Colin Lyons is supposedly a playwright, writer, director and actor, but I was unable to find evidence of this through Google or IMDB. I especially like this sentence, "In his early twenties he has become a bit of an alcoholic but great things are expected from him." -- Kjkolb 02:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. For a writer, assertion of notability has to include having written something (i.e., something in particular), surely. Chick Bowen 03:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete probable hoax. Dlyons493 03:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • He has become a bit of an alcoholic... hmmm... if he's Shane MacGowan's left testicle, or something, I suppose we should keep him. Otherwise, delete. TheMadBaron 05:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vizjim 15:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. he's nobody. not encyclopedic.--Alhutch 17:18, 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. Hermione1980 01:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zohar Manna

This page surivied vfd back in April but only got 4 votes 2 Del and 2 Keep and this page havent expanded since. Looks like a nn professor. Delete --Aranda56 02:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, he seems pretty well established... maybe an ego but definitely on par with many other articles we have here. gren グレン 02:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say Keep and expand if possible. Google search gives 63,400 hits [6]. I can't say they all correspond to him, but at least the first 10 pages of results do in full. Shauri 02:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. He is the author of a textbook from a major press and reprinted by another major press, which has been established by consensus as sufficient notability for academics in other cases. I've added book info. Chick Bowen 03:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep adeqautely notable Dlyons493 03:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep His work seems to have been translated into several other languages, seems notable. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 06:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and EXPAND lots of googles, medium-notable author. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I also agree that this one needs to be expanded. --Keyfinder
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Klonimus 21:28, 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.
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 06:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] God's Fury

Article about software which doesn't exist yet. Delete. Owen× ☎ 02:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete crystal ball. Dlyons493 03:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with above. Amren (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, ditto. Shauri 03:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The Lizard Peo-- oh, wait, nevermind. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:01, 25 September 2005
  • Delete. TheMadBaron 05:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete *sigh* more non-notable crystal-ball-esque vanity Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Article about software which doesn't exist yet. covers a lot of Microsoft's products. I'm not saying that this product is any better than Windows 2008, or even Microsoft Word 13, but.... -- Arthur Rubin 01:34, 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 No Consensus... Redwolf24 (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Vestibule

Non-notable forum. --fvw* 02:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • delete per nom. Joyous (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Have given it a rewrite and moved it to IGN. Not necessary. FF CID 02:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That has been reverted and the page has been protected (not by me, though). -- Kjkolb 04:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per fvw. -- Kjkolb 06:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with IGN --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 06:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with IGN Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:08, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Midnight Macabre

  • Del. Nonnotable 2005 webcomic. Only 149 unique google hits. mikka (t) 03:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Alexa rank is 138,988 (above the minimum suggested on webcomic notability), and is a spin-off from the author of the much more notable Something Positive (as per "new webcomics authored by creators of an existing webcomic that meets the above criteria"). Ziggurat 04:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge - As noted above, this webcomic is notable in that it's a spin-off of Something Positive. This article was created as a way of introduction to that webcomic. Should a keep not be reached, I strongly suggest merging the article with the Something Positive article. Diego001 13:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Meets the criteria as per Ziggurat above. Keep. Vizjim 15:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep number of unique googles is decent too for a webcomic. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets webcomic notability requirements as described above. -Abe Dashiell 18:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per previous. Superm401 | Talk 21:39, 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 09:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ResMap

This article is an ad right now, and it doesn't seem very notable. -- Kjkolb 03:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Copyvio from [[7]] Dlyons493 03:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Or it was put up by a member of the ResMap firm. Anthony Appleyard 06:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a copyvio no matter who put it there. Delete, speedy if possible. Chick Bowen 16:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, let's Delete the ad please. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:14, 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. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rusty Foster

This survived a Wild and Confusing VFD back in March Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Rusty Foster so i going to placed this article again hopefully not as crazy as last time. Looks like a nn blogger vanity page Delete --Jaranda | yeah]] 03:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC) My new sig

  • Keep. Unless I am missing something, this guy verifiably created Scoop, and is the founder of Kuro5hin. The article could use some attention, but that's not enough reason to delete. Jkelly 04:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. You were right to re-list it given the whole Grider2 business, but the guy really does appear to be notable. The article needs some cleanup. Chick Bowen 05:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article leaves much to be desired, but Rusty Foster is notable.. the claim that the subject of the article is a "nn blogger" seems rather silly. --Mysidia (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and ask for clean-up. Vizjim 15:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Chick Bowen.--Alhutch 19:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable enough for me chowells 04:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable as creator of Scoop engine and founder of Kuro5hin, more notable than most software programmers or website founders. It could use some expansion, but I would bet it's been vandalized in the past. Barno 05:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable blogger, founder of Kuro5hin. Jessamyn 21:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article has never been very informative, has been the target of vandalism (and you can bet it will continue to be), and I agree with those who say I'm not noteworthy enough to warrant a page in the first place. The most informative a page about me is ever likely to be is "Created Scoop." Can't that just be said on the Scoop (software) page like it already is? Kuro5hin 01:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If it's true that you're CTO of Armstrong Zuniga in addition to your work on Scoop, then that would seem to give you notability beyond your half-sentence in the Scoop article. If the article is deleted, and you keep doing newsworthy things, it will inevitably return anyway. Repeated vandalism has never gained consensus on AfD as a criterion for deletion, for obvious reasons. Chick Bowen 22:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep and please stop renominating things over and over and over Yuckfoo 21:42, 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 06:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fang Technologies

Spam. NN. Jwissick(t)(c) 03:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Copyvio from[8] (although they presumably created this advert themselves). Dlyons493 03:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete commercial spamming crap chowells 04:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advert. TheMadBaron 06:05, 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. Once again, sockpuppet votes have been ignored. — JIP | Talk 09:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shinra Online

Non-notable message-board, Delete Amren (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Alexa rank of 607,931; so Delete Ziggurat 04:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Article contains some POV, and is, as Amren put it, a non-notable message-board. Nihiltres 04:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Other articles are more questionable than this one, like the donkey-punch article. At the same time, there are various important articles that seem to be missing due to a contrast of opinions in history. Also this is a article based on fact not POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.34.221 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Gamaliel 07:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Shinra Online has been one of the longest consistently running communities on the Internet, which is astounding given it has no real content other than the forum itself to keep people coming back. SO was once said to be the forum equivalent of a cult film; this can be seen in its hardcore member base, as it is ranked #6 out of ~1,400 on Big-Boards.com (a site dedicated to statkeeping for forums possessing over 500,000 posts, a milestone in all itself) for average posts per user. Keep It. Gerk 07:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 07:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Shinra Online admins have created their own vb coding such as the Store exclusively into existance for the website which many other forums have tried to emulate. Shinra features forums like the War Room which was one of the premier flaming websites on the net. It has had over 12,000 members register in the five years since it was created. Certainly notable. Keep It. Chibi Hikaru
  • Delete Not notable, poor Alexa rank. Sockpuppet supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Innovative site with large member base and wide spread notability among other forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.211.74 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. One of the first forums to use a form of currency (gil) that could be used to buy items from the store. This feature was widely sought after for years.--Picard102 14:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A crap site seeking only to advertise and find new members from people looking up Final Fantasy topics.
  • Delete This is a commercial site that promotes acts that would be illegal in most countries with the exception of Aruba, Let them spend their own money advertising, rather than use Wikipedia to anonymously communicate. 15:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC) User:209.178.165.58

*Delete, for the sentence "We offer many free pictures of underage girls and boys that will get your whilstle blowing" if nothing else. Vizjim 15:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC) Didn't spot that this was vandalism. Still deserves a delete, though. Vizjim 22:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep It Don't let the white man get us down! Black Power! 81.159.235.251 17:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It This is not advertising, but a archive of the site's history. Also, "Sockpuppet Supported" and "Crap site only based on Final Fantasy" are poor and unsupported claims for deletion. Keep the childish excuses to yourself please. Also, why would we communicate through wikipedia if we already have a forum?
  • Keep It If you look at the history, some anonymous member decided to edit our article to the point of non-recognition. Someone with the ip 71.114.80.103
  • Side Note: All comments ranging from "A crap site seeking..." to "Delete for the sentence..." were made based on vandalized versions of the page created by the IP Address 71.114.80.103 (the first comment mentioned having been created by said IP Address, no less), and I move they should be stricken from the record. Gerk 18:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ziggurat. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable Internet bulletin board. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep It For the record, I am one of the admins over at www.shinraonline.com and having read some of these comments, there are a few errors which I would like to take a moment and address and correct.

1. It was one our members who approached us asking to create this wiki article to record some of the sites rich history. You can read that for yourself here: http://shinraonline.com/board/showthread.php?t=139474

2. Why are you using Alexa Rank? Everyone knows that its not a true estimate or accurate guage of a sites popularity since only a select portion of surfers use thier software. If you would like some better statistics, try our google rank of 4 (not bad) or our stats over at www.big-boards.com where we are ranked 581 in posts made just last week, this is great considering slashdot, dslreports, offtopic and howardsterns forum rank at the top of these lists. We are also ranked very close to the top in other catagories.

3. "No evidence of notability" - our site and our reputation are duly noted at a dozen other internet sites.

We are also the creators of the "forum points and store system", a system which was copied onto every major bulletin board package available, including phpbb, and has had well over 5 thousands unique installations across various incarnations. Please see http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=35267 for some of the demand prior to its first release in which even a vbulletin developer said they may code something akin to it.

4. We are not a commerical site, at this time all expenses are paid out of pocket with the occassional member initiated donation. We have no advertisements, no adsense, nothing. We make not one dime, it's a labor of love.

Now that that has been said, I personally think the article itself could use some work as I feel it would be more appropriate to chronical the actual history of the site rather than list the forums we have which change continuously but like all articles, this was something a member initiated and not something I or any of the staff had been actively engaged in until this moment.

  • Delete more annoying sock-puppet-supported vanity of a non-notable web board Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Delete poor quality, vanity, non notable 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, kyl määki Turuus. — JIP | Talk 12:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unikankare

Non-notable webzine: it has an Alexa rank of 3,290,532, and 152 backlinks. There's a link to it on Turku, and that's quite sufficient. Ziggurat 04:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete low alexa rank and no other claims to notability --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 06:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not-notable, and unlikely to be expandable. Oswax 11:14, 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 12:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Webscope.tv

Non-notable website, spam.--Shanel 04:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, this is an ad. Jkelly 04:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ad WCFrancis 05:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Linkspam ♠ DanMS 06:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ad *drew 07:20, 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 speedy redirected. — JIP | Talk 12:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unschool

obvious reason.. Yonir 04:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete and warn the user against adding things like this. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:34, 25 September 2005
  • Speedy Delete Isn't there a specific criteria to speedy stuff like this? WCFrancis 05:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy ♠ DanMS 06:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Malformed redirect to a user describing himself. Sling it down the dev/null. Anthony Appleyard 06:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Should Unschool redirect to Unschooling? Natgoo 19:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Support a redirect to Unschooling per Natgoo. - Mgm|(talk) 21:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the new redirect. Good common sense. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:49, 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 12:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Albions Crusaders

nn gaming guild, first person. Created by User:AlbionsCrusaders. User:Zoe|(talk) 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. — JIP | Talk 12:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A T M

nn musician. "No exact release date has been set for ATM's Album but Dynasty has mentioned you can expect it very soon.". User:Zoe|(talk) 05:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 05:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. “Rumors”. ♠ DanMS 06:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above --Mysidia (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. worthless.--Alhutch 19:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to ATM (the bank machine). Andrew pmk | Talk 23:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Vanity. Cnwb 00:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Andrew pmk --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, even the redirect. No one's going to search for that. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:49, 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 12:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] T.E.R.R.O.R. (band)

nn vanity bandcruft. Delete with fire.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 05:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. WP:MUSIC. Gamaliel 05:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep~ Representative of a new style of music and a style of music found in Schenectady New York —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martren (talk • contribs)
    • Sorry, Martren, but unless they pass the WP:MUSIC test, they don't get articles on Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Martren was also the author or at least major contributor to the article (see history). ♠ DanMS 06:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The band has not even released an album yet, and the album they are working on will be “self-produced” according to this page. ♠ DanMS 06:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. *drew 07:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as complete garbage. That unrelated image, too. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete looks like a vanity article. PRueda29 10:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Very rude comments towards the author in his inbox from deleters. When this band becomes big, and it is perminantly deleted, wikipedias database will be incomplete. When they reach the top 100 billboards or reach a level of superstardom, there will be gnashing of teeth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.194.111.145 (talk • contribs) User is a contributor to the article and possible transparent edit by Martren, who ha also modified the disambig page Terror, adding a link to this one.
  • When that bright and beautiful moment arrives, we'll be sure to congratulate you sincerely, and I'll be the first one to request for the article to be re-created. Until then, unfortunately, we should delete it. Shauri 16:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? Neither User:24.194.111.145 nor User:Martren even has, nor has ever had, anything in their Talk pages. Where are their "inboxes" that you are complaining about? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:09, 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 12:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Select Start

nn band, no artistdirect or allmusic entries. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. No assertion of notability, no public performances, no albums produced. ♠ DanMS 06:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn band. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability can be established. Cnwb 00:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

There may not be, but I've seen them perform twice and they do a mean Zelda. -Hawk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 12:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An introduction to Valiant

I suggest not merging this with Valiant Comics. It is pure POV and wildly overstates the company's historical importance. Delete. Gamaliel 05:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. There's a perfectly good (in fact, better) article over at Valiant Comics. No harm in leaving a "redirect", though. Vizjim 15:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think anyone would search for this. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:10, 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 12:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of rights

My main reason is to nominate an invalid speedy candidate. I however vote weak delete in the sense I have really no idea in what context this article is about, whether it is redundant or not, and not sure if it's complete nonsense and will readily change my vote if someone else can justify this article's existence. Natalinasmpf 05:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - A very short article with no context -- it's also just plain nonsense --Mysidia (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - no context. Dlyons493 12:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom Jwissick(t)(c) 16:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - article claims that protection of rights is restriction of rights of one group for the sake of another (I think). Google does not support that as the primary meaning of the term, which is used to mean pretty much what it sounds like in virtually every context. Chick Bowen 17:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologistic use of term, personal essay, original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED. A7, almost A1.-Splashtalk 02:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anastacia donde

NN. Not found on google or amazon. Jwissick(t)(c) 06:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Not to be found anywhere. Oswax 11:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Obvious A7 candidate Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:19, 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The bradley

Complete and utter neologism Malo 06:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --TM (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. ♠ DanMS 07:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - nonsense, and Wikipedia is not a howto book. --Mysidia (talk) 08:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - The sooner the better. Jwissick(t)(c) 16:55, 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!) 13:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bullshit Blvd.

Non-notable website, or at least fails to provide a purpose for its existence on how it adds to the project of documenting the total sum of human knowledge. For one, it seems to detract from human knowledge by representing subjective opinion as fact, while not adding anything significant. This is different from the addition of a school, for example. Looks like a POV advertisement with severe factual inaccuracy, with weasel word statistics. Plus, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but it argues that it will soon "become a hot spot on the internet". Way to go. I have no doubt the vain author will engage in an edit war over this to try to find some excuse or justification this outrageous act of misinformation and obvious intent to deceive the public, but I rest my case. Therefore, it fulfils the critera for deletion. Delete. Natalinasmpf 06:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Yay! Becoming a hotspot! I'll go tell Kevin M. right now. Sheesh. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 2:10, 25 Sep 2005 (CDT)

  • Delete. NN. *drew 07:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. non-notable website, forumcruft --Mysidia (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete CalJW 08:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • DeleteMONGO 11:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom Jwissick(t)(c) 16:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, bullshit article. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 10:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, The site is about two weeks old as of this vote. More than a whiff of self-promotion.Bjones
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Arthur Ray

Vanity page apparently created by its subject. There are a lot of millionaires out there, most of whom aren't notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. —Brent Dax 07:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertisement, unencyclopedaic. Dlyons493 07:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Userfy --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. *drew 12:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am related to two millionaires and neither are notable. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:13, 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 14:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry W. Pedler Company

  • Non notable. I did a google search and all I found were sites pointing back to Wikipedia. Also reads like a copyvio. Woohookitty 07:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I was being generous by asking for the article to be wikified. Top Google hit on this is this page, no real notability. Budgiekiller 09:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. *drew 12:16, 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. The only keep vote is by User:J87, who is a sock puppet (only contribution ever is to this AfD). — JIP | Talk 14:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Kennedy (writer)

Non-notable, vanity type article CambridgeBayWeather 08:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable guy. His website looks like a blog to me. *drew 12:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom Jwissick(t)(c) 16:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well respected writer and satire developer, may need editing though. J87 05:56, 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 14:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CHANGES IN THE EARTHS DAY DUE TO MOONS ROTATION

This article is very odd Swollib 09:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, highly POV, highly crackpot. Not speedy, though; I can see a glimmer of hope for cleaning it up, NPOV-ing it, and moving or merging it somewhere, if anyone feels up to it. --Ashenai 09:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, original research. Pilatus 11:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Patent nonsense. *drew 12:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless cleaned up during vfd. Dlyons493 12:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete:
    • The only salvageable content here would be the fact that the moon's gravitational influence affects the Earth's day over geologic timescales, already covered under Moon and Earth articles. Studies that the author suggests, such as examination of tree rings, etc. to ascertain day and year lengths, have already been done and/or are less reliable than other methods.
    • Original research.
    • POV, especially concerning Biblical descriptions of astronomical timescales.
    • Redirects are unneeded, as this title is not likely to be used. Alba 14:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - TIME IS CUBIC INFINITE. SAY NO TO YOUR WORD GODS. - Hahnchen 15:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are some grains of truth in this article, but they are covered elsewhere. By the way, the author of this article is also the article of the article “PROJECT TIC TOC”, which is on the AFD list below. ♠ DanMS 17:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Or at least redirect to a page that talks about this sanely. Dsmouse 02:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and no chance for redirect. Is someone really going to type this phrase in the search box? In all caps, no less? --Jacquelyn Marie 03:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete There is no "salvageable" content in this article that isn't available elsewhere on Wiki - in a place it might actually be searched for.--CastAStone 17:43, 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 14:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PROJECT TOC TIC

Non-notable, incomprehensible crackpot theory --Ashenai 10:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. *drew 12:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Although the wine aged with radio waves bit may be true - think I've drunk a few of those in my time. Dlyons493 12:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Incomprehensible flummery. By the way, the author of this article is also the author of the article on the AFD list above, “CHANGES IN THE EARTHS DAY DUE TO MOONS ROTATION” ♠ DanMS 17:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've seen alphabet soup with more coherency. Delete Oswax 17:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. Articles like this reaffirm the thought that the criteria for speedy should be expanded. Shauri 17:43, 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 14:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 19th Street Subway Station

Was speedied once as nonsense - that version was all in caps and the designer was Harold Jackson. Is it nonsense or just 'very badly written in need of cleanup'? -- RHaworth 09:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. *drew 12:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.Still nonsense.Logophile 15:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It’s beyond hope of cleanup. ♠ DanMS 17:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense — claims that it was built to replace the 66th Street subway station. They are quite far away from each other. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There is certainly no 19th Street station in New York. zOMG 76th Street is real delete. --SPUI (talk) 22:54, 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 14:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Levitica

Fiction, hoax. Can find no reference on Google. -- RHaworth 10:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, leave a redirect to Leviticus. Can't hurt. Proto t c 11:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Proto. *drew 12:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. TheMadBaron 12:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete apparent hoax. Don't see much point in a redirect - it's an unlikley mistake for anyone wanting Leviticus. Dlyons493 12:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was speedied as patent nonsense/possible attack page --Doc (?) 23:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jarrod Herscu

  • Nonexistant person, nonsense--MONGO 10:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete for utter stupidity--SoothingR 10:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Maybe it can be listed on BJAODN. --*drew 12:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. TheMadBaron 12:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • WTF! speedy deleting --Doc (?) 23:00, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Evidently not a delete, but much uncertainty over whether to merge or keep outright, especially as several people give both options without a conditioning (note to such editors: it's hard to know what you really want.) -Splashtalk 21:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Banana (person)

dicdef. I propose transwiki to wiktionary 202.156.2.75 11:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. This is a mere discussion of the meaning, origins and usage of this particular slang phrase. It has already been transwiki'd to Wiktionary. See wikt:banana. Note, however, that transwiki is a pagemove from one Wikimedia project to another, not a deletion from the project altogether. As such, transwikis do not have to be discussed first on AFD. This particular pagemove has been contested and is being discussed on the article's Talk page. I would ask that the interested parties make their comments on the article's Talk page instead of duplicating the conversation here. Rossami (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, ethnic stereotype. Kappa 15:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge all articles (incl. this, Egg (person), Oreo (person), etc.) on terms used to describe persons with physical attributes of one culture and social attributes of another into a single article on Responses to acculturation. -- BD2412 talk 15:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Just changed my vote to Merge. If Banana (person) proves itself that it can grow beyond the dicdef status after being merged, then it will have the right to become a separate article. --202.156.2.75 16:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of ethnic slurs or keep as their are articles on Chigger and Coonass. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 16:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per  BD2412 talk. Piecraft 17:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I personally like the suggestion of BD2412. If a project to merge all ethnic stereotypes get through, I'd like to partcicipate in it. Shauri 17:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this has been VFDd so many times before. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 18:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge all of these per BD2412 - SimonP 18:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, per BD2412. Superm401 | Talk 23:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, common, offensive slang. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's more content here than a dictionary definition. I also disagree with the "merge" proposals from various folks. Wikipedia is not paper and we can leverage hyperlinks. I personally do not like long articles as they are much harder to edit than short, focussed articles. Samw 03:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect as per BD2412. Saberwyn 04:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge per BD2412's suggestion. Nae'blis 15:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Many are voting to to "merge". Would you vote to "merge" for "nigger"? Why or why not? It would seem to me this article and "nigger" are in exactly the same category and decisions made here should apply equally there. Samw 00:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Nigger (unfortunately) seems to have much greater use and history than this particular slur. (No vote.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • No, that's a false analogy. "Nigger" is a word with a long history associated with social and historical ideas. In fact, it's the title of two books and a play, and has 1.7 million google hits. "Banana" is a word of far less significance and of recent invention. Neutralitytalk 00:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Ah so I finally got people to admit the issue is notability and not the fact that this article is an alleged "dictdef" per the original nomination since it's only about the word and not about the subject. So how do we go about establishing "notability" criteria? For those in the ethnic group, "banana" is far more notable than "nigger". No doubt "nigger" has more google hits but where do we draw the line? The whole beauty of Wikipedia is that it can cover the "long tail". Restricting articles to "notable" subjects actually hurts Wikipedia in the long run. So long as the article is factual, it should be kept. Samw 01:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
          • The argument is still that this cannot expand past a dictdef. There's much that can be said about nigger, but not much that can be said beyond a defition and context for Banana (person). This is, however, an argument to merge this into a list or transwiki it to Wiktionary, though, neither of which keep this term from being covered. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
        • "Banana Boys" illustrates usage of the word. "Banana Boys" has 12,000 Google hits. It's not only a book but a play[9] that has been reviewed by major Canadian newspapers, is supported by government arts funding agencies and has toured in the Canadian national and provincial captial cities. I believe that establishes notability for "Banana Boys". If we agree "Banana Boys" is notable and worthy of a Wikipedia entry on it's own, then I would argue the root word "Banana" is also notable. BTW, I learned about "Banana Boys" from this article. Samw 23:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per BD2412. Neutralitytalk 00:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There's valuable information here beyond a dicdef. If someone actually merges it gracefully rather than just voting for it to happen, there'll be no objection from me. However, hyperlinks preclude the need to merge. Unfocused 02:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep  --  W  P Talk 10:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - There's also an on-going discussion at Talk:Banana (person) Samw 00:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep anons are not allowed to delete anyway `Yuckfoo 21:44, 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 3 del, 1 keep, 1 copyvio and it was copyvio indeed. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International Schools Invitational Basketball League

This is a school basketball competition. It is not an elite competition but one where every student gets a guernsey. This is all very well but it is not encyclopaedic. Comment by User:Porturology


Keep! I the writer- this is one of the major secondary school basketball leagues in Singapore. Thousands of students are involved and it is very well organised. --Sand-Bar 12:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio I have deleted and sent to the appropriate place--Porturology 12:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Singapore is a city-state with a population of roughly 5 million. The equivalent would be an intramural league in a city like London, and considering the fact that about a dozen teams compete I must say that this is below the bar of notability. That competition isn't even like regional league football. Delete Pilatus 13:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete why does everyone from Singapore want to write about their schools? Dunc|☺ 19:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • According to the Singapore telecommunications authority, broadband internet access is available almost everywhere in Singapore, and as of 2002, 1240000 households had subscribed to it. [10]. That should explain the influx of Singaporeans. Pilatus 22:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable league. *drew 01:03, 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 KEEP but MOVE to Undercover Teacher. Mgm is welcome to do the rephrase he requests. -Splashtalk 21:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Dolan

Tagged as an nn-bio speedy, but it's not quite. However, nominator wants it deleted and I'm completing the malformed nomation (see the discussion on the article's talk page). --Doc (?) 12:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. *drew 12:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. It's real and raising many issues at present in UK Education - see: [11]. Dlyons493 12:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - if this was an article about 'undercover teacher', I'd agree with Dlyons493. But it isn't, and until someone writes one so this can be merged with it, this chap just isn't notable. Naturenet | Talk 15:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Change title to Undercover Teacher and keep. Vizjim 15:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'll go for that - we solve two problems at once --Doc (?) 15:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Change title to Undercover Teacher and keepas per Vizjim

sounds good to me. Dlyons493 19:55, 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 05:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magnet Theater

Bad ad for this website which started in March this year. Site has no Alexa rank and article lacks serious context too. Because of the lack of web presence of the site, I don't think a rewrite is useful. Delete - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC) Delete as per nom. TheMadBaron 12:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Advertising. *drew 12:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Delete (I've always wanted to be a pirate nun) unless rewritten with basic context - like where is it!!! Dlyons493 12:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, due to lack of notability and verifiability. Superm401 | Talk 23:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — nn website. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:19, 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 speedy redirect, -- RHaworth 08:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Da Vinci Code paintings

It is a personal essay of a speculative nature. KindOfBlue 12:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per KindOfBlue Dlyons493 13:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It appears to be an informed (if unencyclopedic) treatment of some of the issues raised by The Da Vinci Code, but these are perhaps best dealt with at the pages dealing with the paintings themselves, as listed at The_Da_Vinci_Code#Facts_and_mythology_behind_the_book. (See, for example, The_Virgin_of_the_Rocks#Use_in_The_Da_Vinci_Code.) It's arguably a valid topic for a new article, but it would need to be completely rewritten, and existing pages edited in order to give a consistent treatment of the topic throughout Wikipedia. TheMadBaron 15:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've got the distinct feeling something similar to this has been on AFD before (back when it was still VFD). Could someone look into that? - Mgm|(talk) 22:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to The_Da_Vinci_Code. If people want info on the paintings in the book, they'd be best to go off to the individual pages, and the main article for the Da Vinci Code provides a good start point for this kind of searching Saberwyn 04:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete in light of Mgm and Andrew pmk's revelation that the article has been deleted once already. TheMadBaron 05:44, 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 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 deleted by Android79. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Itoko Otoko

Tagged for a speedy, but it's not exactly a bio. Report of someone's incest being posted on an image board. Really! --Doc (?) 13:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Unencyclopedic.Logophile 15:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete subtrivial forumcruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:20, 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 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 05:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo Forum

Tageed as a speedy for'useless advertising' - not a CSD (I wish people would read WP:CSD!). However, this does look like a useless plug for nn site so sendng here. --Doc (?) 13:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertising. Dlyons493 15:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Ad. Not a significant website and Wikipedia is not a web guide. --J. Nguyen 21:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising, unnotable, Etc. Procus the Mad 22:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. Nintendo has forums for each language for which they have a site, so naming an article on a Norwegian forum like this is incorrect. Also, admins and moderators shouldn't even be mentioned in notable forum article as such info only helps to stroke those people's egos. - Mgm|(talk) 22:13, 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. -Splashtalk 21:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cherry Blossom Clinic

A local radio show. -- Curps 13:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. Dlyons493 15:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep The radio station WFMU is notable by default, especially since its in the largest media market in the US. Having said that, the show itself may not be too notable. Due to the independent, Freeform radio format, it could be gone tomorrow. Roodog2k (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep it sounds like it is notable to me Yuckfoo 21:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Could it ever be more than a stub anyway? Cursive 02:55, 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural borrowing

Nothing more than a dicdef. JobE6 Image:Peru flag large.png 14:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • This isn't even a dicdef, it's just a restatement of the title. I speedied this once already as nonsense - and I'd be happy to do it again - bet delete anyway - unless someone can think of a suitable redirect. --Doc (?) 14:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete contentless. Dlyons493 15:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Provides no useful information. This could actually be an interesting, informative subject, but this article is not the one. If the article is reposted with content, I would be happy to see it. ♠ DanMS 17:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ditto Dlyons493 19:58, 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!) 12:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protex Blue

Does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. No allmusic entry, apparently no records released. Joyous (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity. Martg76 14:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No attempt has been made to assert notability. TheMadBaron 16:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. CambridgeBayWeather 16:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -feydey 16:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not even an organized band. By the article’s own statement, they “play music [only] for their own enjoyment.” ♠ DanMS 17:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN band. Cnwb 01:01, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spitfire black

Band vanity; does not meet WP:MUSIC. Joyous (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Destroy. Use the anti-aircraft gun. The big one. TheMadBaron 15:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until such time as they become a worldwide success. CambridgeBayWeather 16:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom Jwissick(t)(c) 16:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN band. Cnwb 01:02, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Desa7

Not notable band almost formed in 2005. No releases, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. feydey 14:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Band started last month, line-up not finalised, described as "nondescript" in the article itself. Hunt them down and slap them with a kipper. Oh, and delete. TheMadBaron 15:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the reasons given by TheMadBaron above ♠ DanMS 19:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 01:27, 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 1 del, 1 comment -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Von Braun Moon Rover (Orbiter sim)

I'm not sure what this is, but it sounds like it is a non-notablke item from a game. The fact that it has no Google hits doesn't help. [12] Sonic Mew | talk to me 14:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment - see World of Colliers (Orbiter sim add-on). TheMadBaron 15:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Dlyons493 15:30, 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. -Splashtalk 21:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Camstreams

Not notable small company, with the web page Alexa rank >300,000 [13]. feydey 15:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn. Near copyvio from [14] but they probably put it up themselves. Dlyons493 15:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete self-promotion. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Not self-promotion. The purpose of this article was to

1. show how the web casting experience has been enhanced to provide smooth video and audio streams 2. show how emerging technologies are combining to enhance user experience 3. record significant developments in technological use of the Internet 4. record a notable event (nobody else is providing a similar non commercial service of benefit to the public at large) Peter Haycock 09:44, 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.
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. Has been completely re-written. -Splashtalk 21:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarias

Content is not syntactically correct, and the entry should refer to the family of catfish, not some obscure self-promoting band. 68.161.60.90 15:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. The band is not as obscure as I thought, but this article definitely needs to be cleaned up and renamed to Clarias (band) or something similar. Searching on google shows that the catfish is much more well known than the band ;-) 68.161.60.90 15:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Disambig for this page to (catfish, band) and cleanup band article. Dlyons493 15:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Article rewritten to cover the species. (It is now a long red link list, not pretty). The band information is still in the history Clarias (band) if anyone wants to create an article about the band. Keep rewritten article. Zeimusu | Talk page 16:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep props to the person who rewrote it. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Allmusic entry. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:29, 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 2 keep/9 delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Binary model of equinox precession

This is nothing but a POV fork of precession to give voice to Walter Cruttenden and his Binary Research Institute, which are up for deletion here and here.

Also consider The Great Year (film), whose AfD page is here. Pilatus 17:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The "double star" theory is mentioned somewhere near the bottom of the Precession entry. Pilatus 16:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete POV promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV promotion and BRIcruft. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Pseudoscience. Dlyons493 19:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete patent nonsense. Dunc|☺ 19:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promotion. Original research. Title embodies a point of view. To keep it, it would need to be moved it to a neutral title and rewritten to a neutral viewpoint. But it is not a belief system that is widely enough held to need an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Complete drivel. --Ian Pitchford 20:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The article as it stands today (2005-09-26) clearly states that the standard physics theory completely disagrees with this model. It also states that most mainstream scientists regard it as nothing more than pseudoscience - this is stated not once, but three times during the article, as well as 2 reasons for considering it pseudoscience (lack of empirical evidence and unfalsiability) are provided. However, if these 2 criteria were universally applied, the theory of superstrings should also be clasified as pseudoscience (it's unfalsifiable and right now there's no evidence for it), as well as the "dark matter" theories (MOND does have empirical evidence in it's favor, predicted acurately some behaviour of low emission galaxies and is falsifiable) I wrote the entry on the double star theory ("Nemesis", which itself was proposed by a respected mainstream scientist, though not well regarded today) was deleted from the Precession "alternative views" entry. I left it out for I wanted to settle down the controversy surrounding the article. I myself find some aspects of the "bin. model of eq. prec." objectionable, and it's proponents don't do their own theory any favor (trying to pass ancient Indian religious texts as scientific evidence isn't sound to say the least) but nonetheless interesting as it relates very well to the Nemesis theory and could have something to do with it - it could very well be possible that a rotating sun/nemesis system induced a slight parallax change thru millenia, which could add to the natural precession of Earth due to gyroscopic effect. Mr. Pitchford, if you don't mind a little criticism... have you ever read Kuhn or Feyerabend? Sometimes you sound REALLY dogmatic on your writings, as though your views on science were more akin to August Comte's positivism than to modern epistemology as put together since popper, kuhn, lakatos or feyerabend's times... By the way, now I've registered. BattleTroll

    • I agree with Battle Troll. Many of these scientific apologists are as closed-minded and dogmatic as the religious folks they despise so much. In fact, many of their views and exclusionist attitudes are as bad as anything in Catholic Church history, including the Inquisition that so many of them love to use as an example of oppression. The irony is, they're members of a Science Inquisition that is going on in modern times that's just as bent on silencing differing views as the Catholic Inquisition was. They also have a lot in common with the Christian fundamentalists that they criticize so much. Earthian 16:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

*Delete POV fork written to promote a specific point of view, one which does not have enough adherents to warrant documenting as a belief system. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC) See below.

  • Keep nuff said. Piecraft 01:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - it isn't even pseudoscience - if anything, it is complete gibberish. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:53, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, this is yet another BAD FAITH nomination by User:Pilatus trying to censor alternative scientific views. Disgusting. Earthian 16:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC) User registered on September 27 and contributed mostly to this and related AfDs. Special:Contributions/Earthian
    • This debate isn't about censorship. Creationism, Alfven's plasma cosmology and the Electric Universe concept all have entries here. (I actually voted keep on the Electric Universe.) Please show that someone actually cares about this model, and the entry will be kept. And stop shouting Bad Religion, they are a band. Pilatus 18:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Earthian, would you mind citing something that would tend to convince me that as of 2005 this particular theory has a significant number of adherents? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I am about to try an informal test. I do not know how it is going to turn out. I am going to search the "bad astronomy" site and see if Cruttenden is mentioned. If so, I will change my vote to "keep." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Darn, ambiguous outcome. Although it is mentioned, it is only mentioned in a discussion forum, not on the main site itself. Trying to be as fair to myself as possible, I am withdrawing my "delete" vote, but I'm not going to change it to "keep." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pseudoscience. Self-promotion. There is exactly zero primary evidence for Cruttenden's notions about the Sun being part of a binary system. There is no excuse for inclusion of this trash in an encyclopaedia, except as an example of pseudoscience/bad science. 62.64.220.164 08:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC) Comment left by anonymous user 62.64.220.164 who has only participated in this and the three other related articles being nominated for deletion and left the same comment in each.
    • Red herring! Surely it is the content of the comment, not who left it, or where else he left it, that is relevant? 62.64.237.112 15:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes it is, and I agree with your point of view, but to stop anonymous users from rigging votes, we suggest that you Log in before participating. Dunc|☺ 15:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I decided to consult my university library's online-access-to-scholarly-journals service. The journal Solar System Research (English translation of Astronomicheskii Vestnik) has 23 articles since November 2000 containing the word "binary", 23 that contain the word "equinox", and 2 that contain both. One's about the binary asteriod 423 Diotima and the other's about the Ephemerides of Planets and the Moon. Neither mentions this theory, and no article mentions Cruttenden. The journal Astronomy and Astrophysics (affiliated with the European Southern Observatory) has, since 2001, 0 articles mentioning Cruttenden, and 0 results for the search [binary AND "equinox precession"). The journal New Astronomy has, since July 1996, had 0 articles containing the word "Cruttenden" and 0 articles containing the three words "equinox", "binary", and "precession", in any order. In light of this, I think this is a violation of the general policy espoused in WP:NOT Sec. 1.4, as the hypothesis lacks the widespread notability/influence to make it legitimately encyclopedic. This is also a potential violation of WP:NOT 1.3.1, as the lack of acknowledgement outside the originators suggests that this article constitutes "proposing theories". As such, I am convinced that the proper course of action is to Delete this entry. The Literate Engineer 23:16, 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 05:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mc Holy Ghost

No evidence of notability. Googling "MC Holy Ghost" yields 14 hits, not all relevant; no evidence of any albums released. Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • This artist is one of the most famous underground producers and artists of the late 80's, 90's and 2000's. His song "Apocalypse the Book of Revelation" can be found on Mang Dub records "Hub Cap House" he has produced several albums including a national award for best "world music" for the group Casablanca 68. The website is www.mcholyghost.com [[141.154.243.177 15:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)]]
    • The above comment was posted by the author of the article. ♠ DanMS 20:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nom Jwissick(t)(c) 16:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability. The website could do with a cleanup. Dlyons493 19:08, 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 05:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catherine Calpito

I think the article is trying to assert notability, but I don't think there's enough. Joyous (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - per nom Jwissick(t)(c) 16:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and should have been speedy. CambridgeBayWeather 16:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, nn-bio. -feydey 16:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The author of this article 203.51.14.33 (Talk • Contributions) is highly suspect and has been blocked for vandalism. He or she vandalized the Bible article here (vandalism was reverted). ♠ DanMS 20:30, 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 REDIRECT to Room 101. — JIP | Talk 05:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Room101

NN. No goggle hits that i can see. Jwissick(t)(c) 16:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Edit conflict on listing it. Fails to establish notablility, fails WP:MUSIC. Nothing on allmusic (although there was an entry on "RM. 101" with no content in it). Plenty of hits on Google, but "Room 101" is extremely common, esp. in the US, where it's used to note a primer class in high school or college (e.g. Chemistry 101). I don't know if that's true elsewhere. --Blackcap | talk 17:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Our encyclopaedia articles on Room 101 and Room 101 (TV series) provide other reasons that you'll find this turning up a lot in Google searches. ☺ Uncle G 17:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I forgot all about the 1984 connection. Good point, and what a great book. --Blackcap | talk 17:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per blackcap. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Room 101. -- RHaworth 18:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Confused Is this band notable - if so keep. If not then turn into a redirect to Orwell's Room 101. Is that what we're saying? Dlyons493 19:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Who are you talking to? This is a vote, so we're not saying anything collectively. See WP:AFD and WP:DP. If what you're asking is what's been said up to this point, then it's that this band fails WP:MUSIC and thus should be deleted, while RHaworth says that this should be turned into a redirect to Room 101. --Blackcap | talk 14:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, the one thing that it isn't is a vote. It's a discussion, to obtain a consensus. Uncle G 22:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
        • That may be the idea, but from the AfDs and RfAs that I've been in or witnessed, it's more of a vote counted somewhat like but not actually consensus (i.e. a majority won't win, but a large majority, anywhere from 2/3+ will depending on the admin, his/her mood and the article in question). As I am part of a cohousing community, where consensus is used to solve all problems and do everything (establish the community's budget, landscaping, etc.), I am intimitely aquainted with how consensus works. If one person says no, consensus is not reached. Consensus doesn't mean that everyone agrees, it just means that no one is actively blocking consensus by saying, "This is unacceptable." WP, on the other hand, likes to say that we work by consensus, but we don't. We work by majority rules, and instead of having a 51% majority count, we say that a 67% majority (more or less) counts, and 80% for RfAs. The fact that we require a high majority doesn't change the fact that rarely is there actually a consensus in an RfA or AfD. And anyway, few AfDs are actually discussions. It's often taken as rude to ask about or otherwise query into someone's vote, as their vote is their vote and it counts as much as anybody elses regardless of their reasoning (unless they're a sock or their vote is completely irrelevant to the topic). I have seen, both AfD and RfA, people ask about a user's vote and recieve an answer of, "I don't have to or want to tell you," which here is considered a completely valid answer. So, in a place where that's acceptable, there's hardly a discussion or a consensus. I could write for hours about this, but I don't want to take up too much more of your time talking about this semi-unrelated topic in this AfD. --Blackcap | talk 00:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You have expressed the decision succinctly. The only question therefore is whether the band satisfies the WP:MUSIC criteria. It certainly doesn't going by what the article says. There are no hits, no albums, no tours, no notable members, no awards, and no press coverage. The article also cites no sources and no sources of information about the band can be located. (What 84.191.192.85 points to below actually tells us less than the article at hand does — which also raises a question about how much of this article is verifiable.) Uncle G 22:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Room 101. --TM (talk) 01:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Don´t DeleteIt cant be found on google if you write it like this. I tried out " Room 101 Crust" and there were tons of hits concerning the band -Unsigned post by 84.191.192.85. This is this user's first post. --Blackcap | talk 14:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Just because it's on Google doesn't make it notable. For information on band notability, see WP:MUSIC. Also please see WP:DP. --Blackcap | talk 14:43, 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 00:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] The Great Year (film)

This is the Walter Cruttenden-sponsored movie from the Binary Research Institute where the Binary model of equinox precession is put forward. All three articles are up for deletion.

I couldn't find any proof for the movie being aired by the PBS as the entry says. Pilatus 16:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete said it was voicedover by James Earl Jones. I smell a hoax here - cannot verify from google. Will vote keep if this can be verified. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this attempt to have all three articles deleted seems to be a bad faith campaign by rogue elements to censor views that are alternative from the mainstream and to silence anyone and anything that deviates from their deeply held gospel of their one and only brand of science religion. It is so transparent. As to the narrator, yes, it is James Earl Jones, I have the DVD and he narrates throughout. And it was shown on PBS stations in California, not sure about other parts of the country. Posted by IP 65.9.158.81, haven't registered yet.
    • Comment - to the person who placed the above, please sign your vote if you want it to count. 23skidoo 18:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. I don't know if PBS showed it, but the DVD is for sale on Amazon. 23skidoo 17:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I would call this self-promotion, as the anonymous editor has almost exclusively made contributions to Walter Cruttenden and the Binary Research Institute, whose ideas are put forward in the movie. Wikipedia isn't a medium for spamming or gaining a high Google rank. Pilatus 18:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hello, it is me, the big bad "anonymous editor". I'm sorry I have offended so many. I just haven't gotten around to registering an account yet. Though I doubt that will stop the insults from coming, or keep the vandals from vandalizing my work. Once again, for the record, I have nothing to do with this organization, I've never even so much as exchanged an e-mail with them or with Mr. Cruttenden. I just simply believe in the theory and would like to see it someday either proved or disproved. That's all. I first read about it more than 10 years ago in the book The Holy Science by Swami Sri Yukteswar, (which I think was the first mention ever of it in the Western World, as far as I know), that's why I added the bit I did to his article, which Pilatus promply deleted, as he follows me around deleting whatever I write. Apparently the fear that I might be connected to this organization (I am not) or worse, that I might be Mr. Cruttenden (I'm not) strikes fear in a lot of people's hearts. I'm sorry I have offended the sensibilities of so many. Posted by IP 65.9.158.81, haven't registered yet.
  • Keep per 23skidoo. I'll delete the PBS mention though as that's what I was referencing as dubious (it can always be re-added later if it is verified). Not a speedy keep though :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - I suggested speedy because IMO it fits all criteria for being kept as per precedent with other film articles. 23skidoo 18:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment I was just pointing out that this was not really a bad-faith nomination as that's what speedy keeps are generally for. It obviously fits criteria for keep now. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 18:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Weak Keep Dlyons493 19:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Being available for purchase on amazon is not verificaton of notability. There are lots of self-published books for sale on amazon, but we don't want them. Or do you think that we should have an article on every single book and film sold at amazon? This is self-promotion, pure and simple. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising of pseudoscientific, unverifiable original research. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Zoe. -- Kjkolb 02:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • In line with my other votes, Delete. It's a non-notable crackpot theory, spread by a non-notable crackpot with too much money, who used that money to produce a vanity DVD that, for some reason, may or may not have aired on PBS. In all seriousness, these all need to go. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Did it air on PBS or not? This is important to me, at least, in assessing whether we should have an article on it. If it did, it should be easy to provide verifiable evidence, and I hope some supporters will do so. For my part, I note that the Amazon listing makes no such claim (nor do any reader reviews). It is trivially easy to self-publish books and get them listed on Amazon; I don't know if this is true of DVDs. Search for "Cruttenden" at www.pbs.org yields six hits, none referring to this film. ("Abigail Cruttenden is a British television and film actress...") Search for "Great Year" at www.pbs.org yields 46 hits, non referring to the film. Search for "James Earl Jones" returns 40 hits, none referring to the film. DID IT AIR? IF SO, WHEN AND ON WHAT STATIONS? If someone will provide this information I think it could be verified quickly. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
P. S. I can't find anything at http://www.thegreatyear.com/ suggesting that it ever aired. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The Great Year aired on PBS on January 28, 2004, per KOCE Huntington Beach, CA 23skidoo 17:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I thought a while about this. Basically no one can find a source for the PBS claim other than message board posts and statements from the organization, which leaves it highly suspect. Without the PBS claim its just another DVD. Would support a Merge to binary research institute if it survives the VfD. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


  • Same thing (my God, this is insane). If this discussion is about the article about THE DOCUMENTARY FILM, then I would suggest it be kept. If the pseudoscientific theory his "Binary Research Institute" doesn't deserve a place at Wikipedia for being original research, or not enough mainstream, or not sufficiently recognized... well, then the article about that theory deserves being deleted, but this stub... how does it promote a POV? It merely states what the film is about, who produced it and who narrates it... Now I've registered (BattleTroll)
    • A film produced by the subject in order to promote the subject's crackpot theory does not deserve an article in an encycloedia. ***User:Zoe|(talk) 01:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
        • It does deserve its entry when it's sufficiently well known. Instead of finger-pointing on all sides we should ask ourselves how well know it in fact is. Amazon gives a sales rank of 18000. How much is that? Considering the fact that Amazon quotes a delivery estimate of 3 to 4 weeks I'd guess that it doesn't sell that well. Pilatus 18:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Where are you seeing 3 to 4 weeks for shipping on Amazon? I'm looking at it right now here and it says "Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours Only 2 left in stock--order soon (more on the way)." Earthian 03:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
            • Seems they received new stock. Anyway, I tried to find movies with a similar sales figure in Amazon. Looking at the section DVD→Independently Distributed→Documentary ordered by sales figure these are titles that come up on page 4: Manchester United 1001 Goals (sales rank 11973), The Complete Massage Pack: Basic & Professional Massage Therapy (# 14751), Open Mic - Dave Chappelle (#13881), Complete Taekwondo Kicking (# 10497). Any questions about the impact of your movie? Pilatus 12:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep simply because I find the deletionist attitude on all three related articles to be extremely oppressive. It has already been verified that these three individual articles are notable and based upon an existing Binary model of equinox precession. Piecraft 01:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The contention has been made that these articles are notable, it has not been "verified". User:Zoe|(talk) 01:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The contention has been made by some participants that these articles are notable. Pilatus 02:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I see nothing but assertions of notability, apart for one sole reason: it is said to be notable because the Binary Research Institute produced a DVD. That's verifiable, but not very compelling. Did I miss something? Has other evidence of notability been presented? Has the DVD been reviewed by a science magazine? Did it ever air on national television? Has the theory been presented in any print publication not directly associated with the Binary Research Institute? Dpbsmith (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, this is obviously a bad faith nomination. I echo the comments of Piecraft, the delitionist attitude is extremely oppressive! The rabid, visceral comments reek of hidden (or not so hidden) agenda and ulterior motives. Why are they are trying so hard to silence and suppress. It's suspicious. Earthian 15:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC) User registered on September 27 and made contributions only to this and related AfDs. Special:Contributions/Earthian
    • Comment, thank you Pilatus for proving my point. I couldn't have done it better myself. The rabidness with which you are going about this, and the fact that you are stalking me and adding "special comments" to my contributions here further proves that these three nominations were in BAD FAITH. You proved it better than I or anyone else could. Earthian 17:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: although I have as yet been unable to find a PBS airdate for this (I am seeing signs it may have been aired as an episode of another program), and PBS stations don't tend to archive their listings online, I have found reference to the documentary being shown at the Southern California Writers' Conference sometime in early October 2005.[15] The film was also nominated for a CINE Golden Eagle Award [16].
    • Comment - I got curious about this when I saw the rabidness with which they are trying to get it deleted. I did a google search, and there are many mentions of it being shown on PBS. A search on groups.google.com turns up this, where a person wrote about it after seeing it on PBS: The Great Year and The Wheel of Time in 2004. One thing I will say about those who are looking for it on the PBS website, I think PBS only keeps webpages about specials that they produce, or their affiliates around the country. This wasn't produced by PBS, that might be why there isn't mention of it on their website.Earthian 18:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Conflict of Interest - Question: should the person who nominates articles for deletion also be making changes to those articles? In this case, Pilatus has nominated these three articles for deletion - Walter Cruttenden, Binary Research Institute, and The Great Year - and has made extensive changes to them. In most of his changes he leaves behind typos and grammatical errors, broken links, and straggling headers (i.e., after he's removed everything that was under a header), not only messing up other users' work but leaving the article in much poorer shape than it was before. He also deletes extensively, and removes categories and stubs aggressively. He goes in after anyone adds anything to an article and removes everything the other person contributed. He seems to be working to increase the chances for deletion of the articles. In light of this, it would be appropriate, in order to avoid this obvious conflict of interest, for the person who nominated the articles to refrain from modifying them until the decision has been made? Syug 21:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - Most articles up for deletion are not judged upon the quality or quantity or their content, but rather the appropriateness or notability of the topic. Any edits that Pilatus may have made to the content of the article are irrelevant, for he cannot make a worthy topic unworthy by bad grammar or misspellings. Oswax 21:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is exactly zero primary evidence for Cruttenden's notions about the Sun being part of a binary system. There is no excuse for inclusion of this trash in an encyclopaedia, except as an example of pseudoscience/bad science. Comment left by anonymous user 62.64.220.164 who has only participated in this and the three other related articles being nominated for deletion and left the same comment in each. Red herring! Surely it is the content of the comment, not who left it, or where else he left it, that is relevant? 62.64.237.112 15:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Try not to take it personally. It's not fair, but it's done for fairly good pracical reasons.
There is a longstanding tradition in Articles for Deletion of pointing out remarks left by users without accounts, and users with very, very new accounts--specifically users who have made very few edits except to matters closely related to an AfD. The reason for this is that a) because of WIkipedia's openness and anonymity, there is absolutely no way to know for sure whether the same person is casting multiple votes under different identities; b) it frequently occurs to people that this is possible, and virtually all Wikipedians believe that "sockpuppets" are very common in AfD, and virtually all Wikipedians believe that it is frequently possible to recognize them; c) ignoring sockpuppet votes is a matter of judgement; d) ignoring votes by not-logged-in users or very new user accounts is generally accepted as a reasonably neutral guideline. It's not fair to legitimate users with IP-address or very-recently-created accounts.
It is the vote that is being ignored, not the comments that accompany the vote. Wikipedia is probably the least authoritarian organization you are likely to find. If you make a cogent comment in AfD, your comments will influence the subsequent discussion, no matter whom you are. Since creating a Wikipedia account does not require disclosure of any personal information at all--not so much as an email address--everybody in Wikipedia is judged by the identity they create by themselves by their writings within Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'd like to remind everyone that the subject under discussion is this article, about a particular film, not this article, about a hypothesis. The latter half of this article doesn't address the film, which leaves a stub that amounts to vanity/advertising about a documentary of debated legitimacy and notability. As such, in accordance with WP:NOT Sec. 1.4.3, it ought to be deleted. The Literate Engineer 22:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Nom and Literate Engineer --JAranda | yeah 21:39, 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. -Splashtalk 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ned (Scottish)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ned (Scottish)1 for the first debate]] Was marginal consensus to redirect to Chav the last time, but editors don't want to respect that and insist on keeping the article. It is an identical term to Chav, merely scottish, and it seems that some Scottish patriots are insisting on a separate article even though it is identical in meaning to chav, SqueakBox 17:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Contrary to the assertions of Squeakbox, 9/7 is by no means a consensus. The previous AfD was closed as a keep by another admin and this decision was changed by Squeakbox two months after the initial closing of the AfD. Although the two terms bear some superficial resemblance, they are by no means the same. The use of "ned" pre-dates "chav" by at least forty years. --GraemeL (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

If the issue is to decide between keep and merge the article shouldn't be discussed here. Speedy keep this, Pilatus 17:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Scotland != England
Scotland != England
Image:ENG.PNG
NO
Scotland+England+Wales+NI= UK
Scotland+England+Wales+NI= UK

(erm, what about Wales and N. Ireland then? Just arrogance ignoring them really, isn't it?)

Wales and NI don't have their own versions of Chav, SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The Northern Irish version is a 'spide'. David | Talk 14:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
That is not true. This is the place to discuss it if it needs to be redirected, SqueakBox 17:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The deletion policy is here: WP:DP. You want to put merge tags on Chav and Ned (Scottish) and discuss the move on the article talk page. Pilatus 17:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable term that is used in Scotland as an equivalent to the English Chav and Irish Scallywag. Piecraft 17:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree. You have reverted in defiancce of a Vfd and now you are claiming we cannot put another vfd on it, SqueakBox 17:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It was me that reverted the redirect, not Pilatus (who I assume the comment was directed to). Personally, I have no problem with you taking the issue back to AfD. --GraemeL (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

And I have no problem not making it a redirect but just merging relevant material and deleting. I am not arguing that scally should get the same treatment because Ireland is a separate country. We have already deleted Charver and Charva on the basis that they are other words for Chav, and it should be the same for Ned, SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It may interest you to know that England and Scotland are also separate countries; They just happen to be part of the same state. Charver and chavra are obviously derivatives of chav and do not deserve separate entries. The same cannot be said of ned, which is of completely different origin. --GraemeL (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am English but I respect the indisputable fact that Scotland is a nation with its own culture. By the way there is no such thing as a "marginal consensus" only a marginal vote, which is not a consensus at all. CalJW 18:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why does everything that is distictively Scottish have to be homogeneised and fitted in to an English perspective of the planet? Variety is the spice of life. For another example of this linguistic levellerism, see Talk:Public school (UK).--Mais oui! 19:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepThis is distinct to Scottish culture, irrespective of similar expressions that may or may not exist in other Britannic cultures.--Nicodemus75 22:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Neds are particularly and peculiarly Scottish, in the way that Bogans are Australian. There is no such thing as an English Ned. Average Earthman 23:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That's an argument that doesn't work. Consider gasoline and petrol. That "there's no such thing as American petrol and no such thing as English gasoline" doesn't mean that we have two separate articles. See below. Uncle G 00:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Keep. This argument relies on a false analogy. "Gasoline" and "petrol" are synonyms: two words used to refer to the same concepts, albeit in different dialects. On the other hand, "chav", "ned", "bogan", etc. refer to similar -- but not identical -- concepts, because they refer to different subcultures of people. Colin M. 01:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
        • You're missing the point, and you aren't citing sources for your bald assertion. Again, I point to what I wrote below. Uncle G 22:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, shouldn't the article be called Ned (slang) or something more obvious?--nixie 23:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It's best not to. This is not supposed to be a dictionary article about a word, but an encyclopaedia article about a type of people. For a dictionary of slang, see Wiktionary, which has a long list of these regional slang words. (See Wiktionary:chav and what it links to.)

      The discussion on whether or not to merge is not a linguistic one, as several editors above have erroneously painted it, but a sociological one. We don't have separate articles where the titles are merely synonyms for the same person/place/concept/event; nor do we have separate articles where it is simply the case that different countries have different words for the same things. (Witness gasoline/petrol, squash/marrow, and so forth.) This is an encyclopaedia, with one article per concept, not a dictionary with one article per word. The important question to answer is not about the words at all, but is whether the two concepts are in fact the same. That's (a) a discussion that belongs on the talk pages not here (since merger of duplicate articles doesn't involve deleting anything) and (b) a question that can only be answered properly by citing sources on the subjects of these concepts.

      Unfortunately, citing sources is exactly what is almost never done in chav, charva, townie, bogan, gogan, westies, feral, and their ilk. The articles are perennial original research magnets. (Witness as an example the edit wars over what vehicles certain stereotypes own and drive, and the lack of cited sources on all sides of those disagreements.) These discussions have been, too, with editors using "I am English", "I am from Newcastle", "Xe is not Scottish", and so forth as the sole bases for their arguments — bald assertions that that add no weight at all to the arguments that they supposedly support. I encourage both editors who assert that neds and chavs are the same and editors who assert that neds and chavs are different, to cite sources. Uncle G 00:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - Neds are a different group altogether. Typical Anglocentricism. Why not merge chav into Ned? Vizjim 01:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, as nobody at all wants this deleted, including the nom. Slap a disputedmerge tag on both pages, and argue about it on the talk pages in question. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Neds, Bogans, Hoons, Westies, Scallywags, Chavs et al. Fight Saxon imperialism! Grutness...wha? 04:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the ned phenomenon has a depth which appears to be lacking in these chavs come lately, and is well worthy of an article...dave souza 00:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Neds are distinctly Scottish and predate chavs on the evolutionary timeline by quite some distance. --Cactus.man>Reply 07:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • merge with Chav. They might be slightly different, but the differences will be best explained by having the two on one article rather than an extensive duplicated comparison on different articles. Thryduulf 13:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- If anyone needs merging, it is the chav newcomers. Both articles should be kept separate though, as there are enough substantive differences to merit this. Leave wur neds alone ;-) --OorWullie 17:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Unless of course you want to merge Chav with White Trash because those are identical terms, but Chav is mearly used in the UK rather than in North America --Colin Angus Mackay 23:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Personally I think the definition of Chav, at least as given in the Wikipedia article, is much less precise, and also that article is subject to a factual accuracy dispute at the present time. That dispute, for me, is enough for me to support keeping the articles separate for now. The term Chav, as used in England, is much more wide-ranging than ned, being used to label anyone who is alleged to demonstrate poor taste in their choice of clothing, motor vehicle or lifestyle, even if that person of royal blood (Prince Harry). OTOH, "Ned" is a much more precisely defined term, covering mainly teenagers who are almost exclusively working class. English teens with a similar lifestyle are only one part of the amorphous Chav grouping. If the Chav article is improved then I might support a merge, but not at the present time. -- Rugxulo 22:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Un-merge. Definitely distinct from chavs. --Meiers Twins 09:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I have just read the Chav article again and see that Ned (Scottish) has already been merged, by User:Squeakbox on 24 September ([17]), yet his listing here (25 September) states: "Was marginal consensus to redirect to Chav the last time ..." So why the pre-emptive merge without discussion on the relevant talk pages? There is also a discussion starting about this on the Chav talk page. The merge should be undone, pending concensus. --Meiers Twins 09:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Also, I can't find the previous AfD discussion to check User:Squeakbox's assertions, it just keeps coming back to the current AfD page. Anyone have the correct link to the old page? Cheers. --Meiers Twins 09:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
        • The previous discussion is here. Squeakbox did link it at the top of this discussion. It was closed as "keep, strong suggestion to merge and redirect." by admin Dmcdevit·t on July 27. For some reason, Squeakbox decided to overrule that decision two months later. --GraemeL (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually I followed the strong suggestion to merge and redirect, and got reverted, which is why we are here. So I did it for the rather obvious reason that that is what was suggetsed in th elast Vfd. Your comment aqbout my overturning the decision is false and makes no sense. I enacted the decision, not overturned it. Or are you suggesting that merging with and redirecting to chav was not a "strong suggestion to merge and redirect." SqueakBox 14:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and recognise charva as a totally different thing too. How do you reopen these deletion votes? I never got a say on the last one.

>>We have already deleted Charver and Charva on the basis that they are other words for Chav, and it should be the same for Ned,<<= BS. Charva is totally different, I suppose in southner terms it is a mixture of a chav and a hoodie (though it does mean more then this). They are certainly not 100% chavs. Charvas also predate chavs by a decade or over, you have only started hearing about chavs this century but charvas have been a common part of the NE for as long as I can remember. >>Charver and chavra are obviously derivatives of chav and do not deserve separate entries. The same cannot be said of ned, which is of completely different origin. -<< Again total rubbish. Chav is the derivative of charva, chav is a more mainstream, non-criminal popularization of charva culture with far heavier american aspects mixed in. Just as Scotland has its own culture north east England also has its own culture equally distinct from that of the south. The petrol argument doesn't work. It could apply if we were talking about western petrol and that totally different stuff they used to have in eastern Europe though for petrol/gasaline, two words for the same thing. Definatly not.-Josquius

  • Keep and Un-merge. Is it not time we wrapped up this strand and just get on with un-merging the Ned content that was prematurely tagged on to the Chav article?--Mais oui! 10:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as separate article. Notable also for the political fallout when Rosie Kane (Scottish Socialist MSP) said the term should be avoided. David | Talk 14:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and unmerge. The term is in widespread colloquial use in Scotland,among all classes. It certainly deserves its own article. Its not as if we are going to run out of pages, and it prevents suprprise when someone follows a link and ends up in an apparently unrelated article. --Nantonos 19:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time Up

Ding, ding. Time up gentlemen please, drink up now. This discussion has surely run its course. Can some well balanced admin please do the necessary closing up procedure in accordance with the voting. Thank you. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:28, 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. Redwolf24 (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion of Theed

Fancruft, just a minor element of the movie, already covered by Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace and half a dozen other Star Wars related articles. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 17:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC) RRC:

  • Delete ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 17:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. feydey 17:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep many other elements of Star Wars also have articles. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am the writer of this article and ALL of Episode I is based around the Invasion of Theed. Amidala must save Theed from the Trade Federation Droid Army. I'm amazed the topic hasn't been brought up on wikipedia before this

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockrunnercard (talk • contribs) Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Battle of Naboo. --Maru (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and replace with a redirect to Battle of Naboo or Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, whichever seems more appropriate. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Battle of Naboo. Saberwyn 04:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Significant plot element in notable (although lousy) popular movie from highly-notable series, so merge any non-duplicate but important material per WP:FICT. If the two articles cited by AMIB contain sufficient Invasion-related context for their levels, then just delete and redirect to one of them. Barno 05:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The information in this article is already covered in Battle of Naboo. The author of this article even states that the Invasion (Siege) of Theed is usually grouped as one of the actions of the Battle of Naboo, and directs people to the main article. Although it is a major plot point, I don't think there's enough context to justify an individual and seperate article. Saberwyn 06:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Battle of Naboo if the article's claimm that more details can be found there is true. If there is anything in this article which is not in that article, merge it in. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Battle of Naboo. This event is basically part of the battle of naboo, it was the initial act in that battle, and should be described in that article. The Wookieepedian 11:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Battle of Naboo, which probably won't take long, than redirect. If people want to delete fancruft, there are many things out there that are considerably less important.-LtNOWIS 01:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • merge sounds ok but do not erase it totally Yuckfoo 21:46, 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 05:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rescue the Scientists

A nearly meaningless stub - the only info I could make out of it was that this was a DOS video game. Googled hard to find some form of notability, but was unable to. If notability can be established, it would fine to have an article on this, but this particular text is so small that it would be trivial to recreate. Delete, as notability not established and content-less. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment I searched for quite a while and couldn't verify it either. I did find it mentioned in the same breath as bigger games such as carmen sandiago though.... can't decide. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no need for an article on every video game in the world. Maltesedog
  • Delete Can always be recreated if the author has substantive material. Dlyons493 19:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn DOS video game. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:44, 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 clean up. — JIP | Talk 05:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NationMaster

I put this in votes for deletion because it seems to have started as promotion for this site and then backfired to morph into a screed against it. Although I go to Nation Master a fair amount the problems with it being an article here seem insoluble.--T. Anthony 14:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I found it helpful to have this page when I asked my self the question: "What is nationmaster and why is its content for this article exactly the same as the wikipedia article I was just looking at?" If they are scraping wikipedia I think there should be some information up on 'our' site about what they are doing with our information. AMB 04:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Complete POV article. I think that anyone wanting to start a better article will need to start from a clean slate. --Hottentot
  • Keep Even though the article has a npov, it content is quite relevant. Arrange and retain 212.56.128.185 17:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and REWRITE Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and address POV issues. Dlyons493 19:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:10, 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. On simple counting it's 5d-2k which I would not ordinarily write out an explanation for. However, in this case there has been much well-argued debate. The fact is, however, that nobody has been persuaded to shift their position as a result of it, and the deleteists are still sure of themselves even after the Unfocused-Hoary exchange (which I thought was quite an illuminating conversation). Tancarville, in my view, weakens his position by having to resort to the tourist trade for extraneous notability having not won much ground with the title alone. All of that taken together is enough to give the deleters their way. -Splashtalk 21:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Sant Fournier

Delete - a signed article on a person which is not notable and does not fall under the rules on Biographies of Wikipedia. Note: The man in question is an accountant with a degree in IT and not in accountancy. Maltesedog 17:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Undecided All sorts of issues with POV etc. Re notability - would the titles alone make him notable in modern or historical Malta? Dlyons493 19:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP is not the social register. -- Hoary 01:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Following deletion of Charles Gauci, as far as I know there was concensus amongst users that unless notable for something else a listing in the Maltese Nobility page would be enough. Maltesedog 11:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that Maltesedog Dlyons493 Talk 21:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Charles Gauci has arisen from the dead, as Dr Charles A Gauci. -- Hoary 04:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
      • PS an admin has speedied the latter. -- Hoary 03:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The results of one other AfD cannot be presumed to represent a "consensus amongst users" other than perhaps a consensus among those few who found time to participate in the previous discussion. Unfocused 13:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete still POV issues. Both his titles are in Maltese Nobility and are Googleable but that's nn enough as per above. Dlyons493 Talk 21:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Counts and other nobility were highly notable during the period of their dominance in history. Highly notable in their relevant time period is more than notable enough for inclusion here today. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the title is inherited the notability follows. I can wish the world was more egalitarian, but the notability of people like Paris Hilton convinces me that it never will be. Unfocused 15:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Response: That's an interesting point. From my limited knowledge of Paris Hilton, her surname and inherited wealth were essential to the formation of her celebrity. But whatever the methods used and however undeserved her celebrity may be, celebrity she has most certainly achieved. Google tells me that a search for "paris hilton" -hotel gets about 10.6 million hits. Even discounting a large majority as vacuous bot-bait ("the Paris Hilton tapes they never showed!!!" etc etc etc), that's a large number. Meanwhile, "stephen sant fournier" scores 95, and as far as I can see every single one of these is either from Wikipedia or copies thereof or some kind of social register. But is he better known as Steve? Er, hardly. Google offers just eight hits for "steve sant fournier". Should PH be noteworthy? Probably not. Is she noteworthy? Definitely. Is SSF noteworthy? No. -- Hoary 03:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
      • My point wasn't about the relative fame levels of notability/notoriety, but instead that we don't get to choose who joins the "lucky sperm club". They are similar in that each is notable by virtue of being born to certain parents. Of course, PH later used the media to make herself more notable (and then even more so), but the fact is, she and SSF had a similar head start that 99.999% of the world doesn't get. Unfocused 03:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry if I misunderstood your earlier remark. I'm not sure I fully understand the latter one, either. However, I believe I understand one part: that SSF and PH are similar in that each is notable by virtue of being born to certain parents. I'd say/guess that PH inherited an extremely minor degree of notability until she (or others) decided to exploit it. She has now indisputably achieved notability (of an particularly cheap and transient kind, perhaps, but notability all the same). I don't see that SSF is notable in any way, unless one is to suggest that anybody who can call himself "Count", etc., is thereby notable. (Moreover, the number of Google hits implies to me that there's virtually no interest in him.) If you take the latter position, then you open up WP to mostly genealogical articles on a vast number of people. I think that, say, the principals of grade schools (or those of whom verifiable info is available) are vastly more deserving of WP articles: these are people who are contributing to the world. (NB I've nothing against the fact that SSF is a count. On the strength of his verifiable position as managing director of a notable newspaper, some months ago I was arguing "keep" for the VfD'd article on some "noble" German gentleman. Sorry, I forget his name.) -- Hoary 04:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I suppose we'll continue to disagree. Parentage often equals notability: if Barbara and Jenna Bush were born to a truck driver and a Wal-Mart associate, there would be no article on them. I certainly wouldn't mind if everyone who can legitimately call themselves "Count" had an article here. It would certainly be interesting to compare their achievements and career paths with those who aren't born into peerage. Unfocused 05:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
            • I think that B&JB too are unremarkable. However, (i) their pop is famous and SSF's isn't; (ii) they're famous and SSF isn't. (I hope I don't have to labor the point with numbers of Google hits, etc.) -- Hoary 14:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
              • As I said, we'll continue to disagree. It's still a matter of parentage as B&JB haven't done anything noteworthy enough on their own to have an article. Who your parents are matters. Now I think you can agree that this is a question of degree that will have to be decided individually in discussions such as this. Unfocused 14:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What's notable isn't verifiable and what's verifiable isn't notable. All these Maltese nobility articles are extremely problematic and should be flushed as original research. Quale 19:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, It seems that Maltesedog and Hoary have no background on History and are picking on my work alone. Just view their logs alone. This is not fair and they should be BANNED. Their comments do not make sense nor are suitable for editing or placing any item for deletion. Its about time Wikipedia puts these two to rest. Tancarville 06:38, 28 September 2005 (EST)

Hoary 03:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

    • Same as above
  • Delete, no evidence of notability given. --fvw* 06:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, Evidence of notability can be found not only on web sites and www.maltesenobility.org but also on each year book of Malta which lists the nobility. Steve is also a recognisable artist whom rarely sells his works without a hassel. Steve displays his news works once a year, and let me say, people come from all corners of the world to take up his works. Must not only mean he is notable for his noble connections but for his passion for Maltese hertiage. Though most are blinded by the fact that this gentleman is titled. Tancarville 18:20, 28 September 2005 (EST)
  • Comment, Tancerville, before placing the article for deletion I have placed a comment on the talk page, asking you to proof notability. As already stating nobility does not fall as a category in the Wikipedia polciies on biographies. Being a Maltese, I have never heard of his fame, however if there are other Maltese who know about his works and can provide more detail on him this should be done over here. The comment I have placed in the talk page was evidently removed by you. Maltesedog 17:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Response User:Maltesedog refer to your Userpage for my comment.Tancarville 06:43, 29 September 2005 (EST)
  • Comment Its a pity that now we have Stephen Sant Fournier similiar to Charles Gauci close to deletion as both have contributed highly in the world of Nobility in and out of Malta. Stephen is not only notable but also a leader amongst the nobility leading them both out of the 19th century into the Modern times. Without Stephens' help, the Nobility in Malta would have been extinct in a matter of heritage in Malta. Both Stephen and Charles Gauci are leaders in the fight for restoring some cultural benefits to the Tourism for Malta as the nobility is considered a MAJOR interest to the Tourist trade and importantly keeping many employees in Malta in a job. Please rethink your decision, as this is of essence. Thank you.. Tancarville 06:48, 29 September 2005 (EST)
    • Comment: You seem to imply that without the effort of these two people (of whom one has had article already deleted via AfD), the Maltese people and nation would have forgotten about Maltese "nobility". Quite aside from my own attitude toward inherited titles, this seems somewhat unbecoming; or anyway I hardly think it "aristocratic" to embark on a PR job on behalf of one's own "aristocracy". The tastefulness of their campaign aside, they are of course free to pursue it -- but I hope that WP is not being employed as part of it. Hoary 04:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm far from a deletionist, especially concerning articles on people, but I just don't see the basis for including this. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:27, 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, Pcb21| Pete 20:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Www.palmwalk.com

Advertising ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 17:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable - like 6 googles. like hot or not only no consent from people posted.... no way. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 17:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not-notable, and currently offline to boot. Does this site exist outside of the horny minds of some lads? Oswax 17:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ryan Norton. -feydey 18:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don’t know whether or not this site is notable, but the article consists of basically just an attack on the site. This is definitely not encyclopedic. ♠ DanMS 21:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:44, 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 Merge and redirect to Microsoft Powerpoint -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Death By Powerpoint

Dicdef, neologism. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 17:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • KEEP - 27,600 entries for "Death By Powerpoint" on Google = very notable 82.35.90.111 17:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Only 769 of which are unique. android79 18:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The Keep vote above was posted by the anonymous author of the article, 82.35.90.111 (Talk • Contributions). ♠ DanMS 21:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge into Microsoft PowerPoint. android79 18:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge as per android79 Dlyons493 19:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything retainable per Android. --Celestianpower hablamé 19:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I was bold and merged the content into Microsoft Powerpoint, where it worked quite well with existing content on Powerpoint criticism... as well as editing that section there, people here should feel free to redirect or delete the AfD as they feel appropriate. Alba 22:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Such a merge completely invalidates any delete votes already made here, as the article must now be redirected to comply with the GFDL. Please do not perform any such merges during an ongoing AFD in the future. android79 22:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
      • It should be clearer that you shouldn't merge or redirect while a nomination is still open. I've seen several admins and veteran users do it. Can this be added to the AfD notice? There's a link on it already, but apparently it's not enough. -- Kjkolb 02:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
        • It used to explicitly warn against moving or merging. I don't know when/why that was removed from the template. android79 05:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge anything retainable and redirect per GFDL needs. - Mgm|(talk) 08:52, 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 Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suburban Hardcore Records

Band vanity, nn label ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 17:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as patent nonsense, hoax. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Last

No context, almost gibberish. If important will be recreated later. By the way, AFDing this article was my thousandth edit. Congratulate me! ;) ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 17:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This appears to be a nonexistent or future episode of Doctor Who. Nothing like it is on the episode list at List of Doctor Who serials, and while it could be something from the next season, my guess is that it's fanfic cruft. (Oh, and congratulations!) MCB 18:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Incomprehensible, bordering on nonsense. Not encyclopedic. Congrats Angel! ♠ DanMS 21:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I have posted a link to this article on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who to see if anyone knows anything --TimPope 21:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A little research shows this to be a Eighth Doctor Big Finish audio (and a band, but I have no idea if the're notable), so it should rewritten from the top down. Here's a synopsis to get started.--Sean Jelly Baby? 21:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. I'm speedily deleting this as patent, complete, unsalvageable and utter nonsense. This has absolutely nothing to do with the audio play and is made up. The mention of Rose Tyler is the giveaway here. At best it's some fevered non-notable fanfic. Oh. He also created The Next Life, which was also in the same vein, leading me to be confident these were hoax articles. Nice catch, angel, and congratulations! --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:40, 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.
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 05:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portraiture and biographies

This was created by an anon five months ago, and tagged for cleanup almost immediately. At the time it seemed to me that it wasn't really an appropriate Wikipedia article — it's more of a chunk out of some other article. I didn't know what to do with it, though, and so I left a note at Talk:Woman asking for guidance (which shows how naive I was at that stage in my Wikipedia career). There was no response, and it's still there, untouched except for an extra space, and a title-change to correct capitalisation. If anyone can suggest an article for it to be merged to, fine — but otherwise I think that it needs to be put out of its misery. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete (or merge if a suitable article can be found). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge as per Mel Etitis Dlyons493 19:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV feminist dogma. This could be a worthwhile article but it would need a lot of cleanup, discussion of pros and cons, illustrations, examples, etc. Since no one has cleaned it up in five months, dump it. If reposted as a balanced, complete article, it would be worth keeping. ♠ DanMS 22:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Additional comment: It needs a better title also. I'm not sure what it should be but the vague title doesn't adequately describe the subject matter. The subject matter is something like “Depiction of women in art and literature”—but that’s not really a very good title either. ♠ DanMS 22:16, 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. -Splashtalk 21:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nemesea

Not notable group with 1 release [18]. Although could stay if no. 2 in WP:MUSIC is interpreted strictly. feydey 17:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep I think the article first of all has to be wikified. My opinion is to keep it as from their website the group looks like a good one and quite popular. Maltesedog 17:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete band vanity; if they get really popular someone will recreate it later. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 19:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, bandity. What does "Genered " mean? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Jtkiefer Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gothic Wizards

Varsity pinball team? Nn. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 17:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedied as a vanity page Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 17:31, 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 No Consensus. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto-area roads (group 2)

Bulk delete these roads: Brimley Road, Birchmount Road, Pemberton Avenue, Parkwoods Village Drive (Toronto), and Wilson Avenue (Toronto). None of these has any cultural or historic significance. This is a continuation of consensus-building for road articles.

For background, see these AfDs for previously deleted roads:

and these additional AfDs:

Note that this batch of roads have about the same stature as those listed in the previous Toronto-area roads batch. Mindmatrix 17:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Only ever even heard of the first two, and I'm a native Torontonian. Delete. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 17:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. These entries are too specific to be useful. They need to be grouped into a parent article that discusses the road network or transportation. The only thing that links to these articles are other road articles, although a couple have links from a community but the main article only mentions the road exists (ie. list). --maclean25 20:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. These are roadmaps in words with no indication why the roads would be significant. Pilatus 21:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn roads. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wilson Avenue (Toronto) (long street, has a subway stop, formerly a terminus and near a major subway yard) and Brimley Road (Scarborough RT stop at Ellesmere & Brimley); delete the rest. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Question. But do you believe they could ever become decent articles? If so, what can you say about the roads, aside from their geopgraphic position/orientation, the orgins of their names, and a list of whatever exists within a 50m radius of the road. --maclean25 00:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: Who built it, and when. The civil engineering behind it. Images of the road through time. Notable historical people that lived or died there. Parades that use it, demonstrations that happened on it. A discussion of people displaced by its construction, and the people who demanded it. At least some roads have history. Jkelly
        • Reply. That is a great list. I hope one day Wikipedia can be expanded to include all this. As we can all see from these short existing article we are a long ways away from that. I like your suggestion of merging into a parent article. Instead of creating thousands of stubs, lets create a few decent articles. We can expand from there as new sources of information (Ministy of Transportation?) becomes available. --maclean25 03:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest creating an article Major Roads in Toronto, Ontario. Merge at least the first two with that proposed article, and, at such a time when the information on any individual road is sufficient, create an article devoted to the street. Some roads may never get there, while others will demonstrate their encyclopedic nature through a natural wiki process of expansion. Jkelly 03:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the major roads into Major roads in Toronto - delete the non-major ones. Grutness...wha? 04:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Brimley Road, Birchmount Road and Wilson Avenue (Toronto) into Major roads in Toronto. Delete the others. - Mgm|(talk) 08:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I've got some feelings about some of these postings, as I created at least one of these Articles Parkwoods Village Drive (Toronto)....If it is of consensus that PV Drive be condensed into Ellesmere Road and/or York Mills; you have my blessings;
    • Wilson Avenue; a major road; unfortunate that Toronto has not tried to put Ellesmere, York Mills, and Wilson into one name across Toronto; if it is the will of you folks; perhaps merge these three (and Parkwoods Village) into one....
    • Pemberton Avenue--delete; likely submitted by a resident.
    • Brimley Road--keep; Entry acess to Scarborough Bluffs, Scarborough Historical Museum, Thomson Park, Scarborough Town Centre, etc....
    • Birchmount Road delete, but only if Warden Avenue is reinstated! BTW, Birchmount Stadium is at foot of road....
    • Broadview Avenue; I've already stated my case, but could also be merged into Don Mills Road
    • Woodroffe Avenue (ottawa)--Keep part of Transitway.
    • Preston Avenue (ottawa) no opinion.

User:bacl-presby; edited 19:09, 27 September 2005.

  • As I've pointed out before, "there are notable things on this road" does not equal "the road itself is culturally significant". Yonge Street, for example, is culturally significant because rightly or wrongly, it is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the world's longest street. It does not get its significance from what happens to be on it. To deserve an encyclopedia article, these are the kinds of questions that need to be answered in the affirmative:
  1. Does the street lend its name via metonymy to an entire industry (eg. Bay Street, Wall Street, Broadway?)
  2. Is it listed in the Guinness Book of Records for something?
  3. Is it so famous that a person who's never even seen a map of the city in their lives might still conceivably have heard of it?
  4. Is it closely linked to a major historical event or political controversy?
  5. Does it have some unique feature like Syracuse's upside-down traffic light or Lombard Street's switchbacks?
  6. Is it on a Monopoly board? (And yes, Canadian Monopoly counts.)
  7. Is it the primary ceremonial boulevard (eg. Sussex Drive, Pennsylvania Avenue) in the nation's capital?
  8. Have TV shows been named after it?

Being an important traffic route within the city it's located in, or having significant things located on it, do not make a street encyclopedia-worthy. None of the streets in this debate meet any criterion of notability higher than these two, so delete all. Bearcat 22:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep all -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep Pemberton Avenue? You're kidding, right? Completely trivial residential streets less than three blocks long are encyclopedic now? Bearcat 05:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Lists of the directions streets go, which streets they intersect, and "things to see" along the road are all non-encyclopedic. Do these articles say anything about why the streets are important? Can you use them to find an address or place? Does it say if the street is a good place for a home or business? No, the articles are completely useless. If someone wanted real, useful information about a street and Googled this, they would decide Wikipedia is worthless. -- Corvus 17:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep all and stop the bullshit mass nominations. zOMG ROADCRUFT --SPUI (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • On what grounds is Pemberton Avenue keepable? Bearcat 03:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete-Just a street that is not well known. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:09 PM EST

  • Keep all These roads are important to people in Toronto, and at least there is the (Toronto) after the name so they are disambiguated... --Rschen7754 05:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
    • purplefeltangel said above that he is from Toronto and he has voted delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:55, 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 05:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Tibetians

Not notable by WP:MUSIC, no releases, google doesn't know them [19], did not even try Allmusic. feydey 17:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • delete band vanity; no AMG. — brighterorange (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Band vanity. Cnwb 01:28, 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 05:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Decrepit Birth

Nn band vanity ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 17:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • delete bandity. — brighterorange (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless notability is established. Cnwb 01:28, 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. -Splashtalk 21:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane proof building

Inherently POV how-to guide ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 17:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Nuke it. --Golbez 18:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete howto guide. could be rewritten - but currently is probably a speedy candidate. LOL Golbez :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Very useful topic and needs to be expanded to help people make good decisions about building in hurricane prone areas. More knowledge in this area could save lives....
  • we have a guide for seismic retrofit, why not a guide for hurricanes, etc?
  • If it's really useful, it should be transwikied to Wikibooks and a link created from the page on hurricanes, yes? Alba 22:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep at least for a while. The article was posted only today and it looks like the author intends to expand it. I certainly would be interested in reading how buildings are built to be hurricane-proof. However, the article should be written not as a “how-to” but as a discussion of the methods used to reinforce buildings to withstand hurricanes. ♠ DanMS 22:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, perhaps move to a better title like Hurricane precautions. Notable, useful, can easily be presented in an encyclopedic tone ("Authorities typically recommend..." or "A common practice is for people to...") instead of a how-to. Cite copious sources, as plenty exist. -- BD2412 talk 00:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per DanMS and BD2412. -- Kjkolb 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is not enough in there to save. If kept, the title should be changed to something like Building Cyclone ressistant structures. I think it would be better to change Building standards to an article that would cover issues like this or issues like snow load and cyclones or freezing temperatures. Since there is a lot of common information there, one article would be more encyclopedic than several articles. Vegaswikian 06:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I already voted keep above, so I can’t vote again. But I like Vegaswikian’s idea about expanding this article to include not only hurricanes but other natural and weather phenomena that have to be considered in housing construction. Would be a very interesting article. ♠ DanMS 22:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's info about hurricane proof building design, but it is scattered all over the internet. Wikipedia is a good place to consolidate it all. However, all work stops on an article after vandals threaten to delete it. I've had several works in progress deleted by people who just sit around all day deleting stuff on wikipedia.
    • I wikified the formatting of the comment above, which was malformed. The comment was posted by 71.131.43.185, whose IP address is similar but not identical to that of the article’s author. People should realize that a vote or comment carries a lot more weight when it is signed. ♠ DanMS 22:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see why you would think this is Point of View. Wind loading, etc is an architecture topic. Maybe the recent hurricanes have made some people a bit too sensative. I would not combine it with a building designed for snow load as they are different issues and different solutions. It's a stub (basically a request for article outline) which should be added to if it gets past the AfD trial.
  • Rewrite - this topic could be rewritten as an overview of different techniques that are used to hurricane-proof buildings. However, as it stands it's a how-to guide, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia (it is appropriate for Wikibooks, however; see Wikipedia is not an instruction manual). Ziggurat 23:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep definitely needs a rewrite, but definitely could prove encyclopaedic after that rewrite. Certainly wouldn't be POV after a rewrite - either something stands up to a hurricane or it doesn't - there's no two ways about that, and a Force 12 wind is pretty objective in its assessment of buildings. Grutness...wha? 09:18, 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 05:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sipi

Dicdef, doesn't even say what body part specifically is, archaic, out of use. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 18:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete (marked as such). Not in OED. Chick Bowen 18:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Speedy on the basis that it is nonsense. I also checked the OED and did not find the word. ♠ DanMS 22:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I removed the speedy tag because it did not mention a specific CSD ("not a word--not in OED" is not a quote from one of the CSD), and it did not seem to be Wikipedia:Patent nonsense - as that page specifically says Hoaxes are "Not to be confused with..." patent nonsense. If you have further questions, I'd be delighted to explain further. Nevertheless, it is obviously a hoax, or neologism, or otherwise inapproriate for Wikipedia, and so I have voted. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:52, 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 REDIRECT to Colleen Fitzpatrick. — JIP | Talk 05:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vitamin C (Artist)

Dicdef, neologism, never heard of it. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 18:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Colleen Fitzpatrick. NatusRoma 19:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per natusroma. Heck, even I'VE heard of Vitaman C!!! Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per NatusRoma. I don't know where the author got the idea that "Vitamin C" is a term used to mean "various artists." --Metropolitan90 21:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Colleen Fitzpatrick. *drew 01:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Colleen Fitzpatrick. Vitamin C had a number 1 hit in Australia with "Graduation (Friends Forever)" in late 1990. Capitalistroadster 08:59, 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.
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 23:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Christie

Non-notable poet just starting out; contains mostly academic information. Note that Matrixbooks, listed as his publisher, is a print-on-demand press (see [20]) Chick Bowen 18:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy A7 ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 18:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nyn. He does seem to rouse emotions though maybe Dean Humphries can hold you down while Jason Christie carves his name into your face with a soldering iron. Dlyons493 19:39, 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 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. Purplefeltangel sounds like a delete to me.-Splashtalk 21:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mezmerize/Hypnotize

These are two separate albums by System of a Down.. we have individual articles at Mezmerize and Hypnotize, making this article redundant. It's also an orphan. Rhobite 18:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • delete redundant article, merging content if necessary. — brighterorange (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I just thought maybe for someone who doesn't want to go back and forth between those two individual pages for info or who just want info on the double album as a whole they could just visit one page. Is there anything I can do to keep it on? Sorry for any trouble. RageAgainstTheSystem.
    • It's no problem. Parts of Mezmerize/Hypnotize are a little opinionated, but the rest can be merged into the individual album articles. Rhobite 18:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That's perfectly okay. We're all newbies once and we all make mistakes. Unfortunately, since the two albums are indeed different, they're limited to having two articles. But I look forward to seeing more contributions from you in the future. :) By the way, you can sign things on Wikipedia with four tildes. (~~~~.) ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 18:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So I have to delete it?
    • Don't blank it (if you mean this). Wait for a sysop to delete it, including the page. --Army1987 18:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You can't delete it as you're not an admin. But it will be deleted. That's okay -- try again! There's a list of links of useful articles you could create on the Community Portal. And please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 18:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete redundant Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:10, 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 09:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OpenRIA

Delete. Non-notable software. Article seems to be vanity/advertising. KeithD (talk) 18:21, 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. ~~ N (t/c) 20:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cove Reber

This article consists of a single, poorly written sentence, which offers little information. Simply put, the subject of the article doesn't seem worth creating, if more information cannot be provided. Arc Orion 18:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - if his band is worthy of an article and he is the frontman, I reckon he deserves an article. I've tagged it as a stub - perhaps this will encourage further edits. Having his own article also allows him to be categorised by year of birth, which could be of use to anyone researching that particular year. CLW 18:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete non notable claim (nnbio) and also fails WP:MUSIC -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Nebergall

Delete This guy has apparently only published through vanity presses, which to me makes him inherently non-notable, and this a vanity page... --Etacar11 18:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - as per nomination CLW 18:50, 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 09:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disneyfication

Pure dicdef, neologism. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 18:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and Arrange Quite a few interesting entries in Google, but the article should be done better. (unsigned vote by Special:Contributions/212.56.128.185
  • Comment: I really think an article on Disneyfication belongs here, although I'm not sure this is it. I'd love to see a rewrite, because I think it's an important concept. Joyous (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • More comment: We have an article called Disneyization, which seems to be the same concept. However, I think "disneyfication" is the more common term. Joyous (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment yea I agree - that should be merged with this article and this one should be expanded. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have attempted a rewrite of the article, although I haven't yet done a merge with disneyization. How does it look for starters? Joyous (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It’s an interesting idea and worthy of discussion. I would like to see this expanded. Joyous did a good job for starters. ♠ DanMS 23:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand, merge in Disneyization, less common term for the same phenomenon. -- BD2412 talk 00:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and do as  BD2412 says. Vizjim 01:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have notice a lack of articles in Wikipedia on urban planning, and specifically dealing with Placelessness (it gets 33,000 google hits;15,000 relevant - but 5 Wikipedia hits; 1 relevant). This article can help fill the void. --maclean25 01:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Thanks to Joy for the rewrite. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • 'keep now that it is rewritten it is ok Yuckfoo 21:47, 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 09:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Board 313

Nn forum ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 18:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - nn CLW 18:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Del aggree with nominator -- (☺drini♫|☎) 18:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, get rid of it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Kaosnoway is discounted, of course. -Splashtalk 21:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cheese House

Seems sound enough at first glance, but a Google search for "cheese house" + "Marshman Warren Taylor" only seems to bring up hits for Wikipedia and mirror sites - suggests that the phenomenon is not in fact particularly notable. To me, the article seems to be part of an attempt to increase the Wikipedia presence of Arthur Marshman - propose delete and merge info to Arthur Marshman. CLW 18:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete and Merge per nom. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - these are part of the social development in the 1970's - may not be exciting - but there a lot of these houses around - particularly in Northamptonshire. ...en passant! 06:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Uh, play fair and mention that you wrote the original article :) CLW 07:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Happy to confirm that - but didn't think it was particularly pertinent! ...en passant! 06:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Why should you deleted it?Kaosnoway 14:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Curiouser and curiouser. Kaosnoway cast this vote within the same minute as his/her first user contribution. Only contributions to date are four AfD comments/votes made within the space of two minutes. These are made in rather broken English and yet he/she feels strongly about a middle-class 1970s Northamptonshire-focussed type of housing. "Why should you deleted it?" is, IMO, answered in the nomination. CLW 14:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Very odd - he hasn't done any more edits since either. ...en passant! 06:54, 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. -Splashtalk 22:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dope-ass

non-notable slang dictdef. Someone marked it for wiktionary but I doubt they'd want it. RJFJR 18:40, 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 No consensus, positions all over the place. Rx StrangeLove 05:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] January 1, 2005, January 2, 2005, et al.

Copies of what can be found in January 2005 (he's now transcluded the days). There's no need to have the information presented by day, every day. Ral315 WS 18:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete daycruft ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 18:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with January 2005. This is generally not the kind of place for that kind of thing, you know :). Next time maybe try a merge sticker :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The reason that I brought it up here, rather than at merge, is that it was originally part of January 2005, and was "un-merged", if you will. So, I figured this was better. Ral315 WS 19:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge if there's anything new since the "un-merge" Dlyons493 19:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Note this is only about organisation. No-one is suggesting removing any content. Ral315 says there is "no need" to have day-pages. Good, Ral315 can read the (unchanged) month pages as his preference. I prefer day-pages, so I can read them. Organising the content this way, we all get the display we prefer. The re-merged way, we are restricting choice with no gain. I urge votes not to re-merge, because there is no benefit in doing so. Pcb21| Pete 20:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, Delete the redirects.  Grue  20:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Revert to merged version and delete. � Phil Welch 20:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all similar articles. Daycruft indeed. / Peter Isotalo 20:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • For the sake of my sanity, could one of you explain why my argument doesn't make sense to you? You don't want to view day articles? Fine. But why deny me that possibility? Pcb21| Pete 21:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that these should be kept but transcluded into the years and the days. I really hate when I'm fixing links to a disambiguation and I have to change the same text in multiple places. --SPUI (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You do realise that is exactly the situation already, right? There is nothing to delete. Pcb21| Pete 23:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Uh, no? January 2005, January 1 and 2005 all have a blurb about January 1, 2005 (or would if anything happened that day), each of which has to be fixed. --SPUI (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant. If I understand correctly, you would like 2005, January 2005 and January 1 to contain the same information about that 1/1/2005.... until this afternoon this was impossible... it has now become possible because of the creation of January 1, 2005 which can be transcluded in all three locations if you wish. Pcb21| Pete 00:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Hmmm, looking at it, there seems to be a lot more in January 1, 2005 and January 2005 than the other two - and the others would be rather big otherwise. --SPUI (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Agreed, that's why I had that "if you wish" clause ;). In practice, the daily/month articles will be the detailed view to enable us to build up a really useful historical timeline, whereas the anniversary and years will be of a different format, more high-level and generally more topic based than time-based. Lots of ways into the actual articles is a good thing though, IMO. Pcb21| Pete 01:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect It will be too difficult to keep the articles consistent with each other. Pick one. --Ryan Delaney talk 23:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you misunderstand - this operation has not created any more separation of content than before. Contrarily, it has made it *easier* to manage content - see my note to SPUI above. Pcb21| Pete 00:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Re-merge with the months. Indivudual days clearly don't need articles.--Sean Jelly Baby? 02:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge content back to individual months, and delete redirects. It was interesting idea, but after consideration I don't think it's the best thing to do. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you'd care to explain why? Pcb21| Pete 08:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Certainly. With few exceptions, I don't believe individual days are notable enough to merit individual articles. If you desire a specific reason from Wikipedia:Deletion policy, then "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" would probably suffice (although I don't believe the redirects would need to be kept). I just don't feel that January 8, 2005, for instance, is significant enough to merit being in its own article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I would be extremely grateful if some contributors would take a wider view than just articles. We have a tens of thousands of pages in the main namespace that are not articles - lists, disambiguation pages and component pages such as found on the cricket pages. These individual day pages are not so much articles in themselves but building blocks so that we can create more useful articles (see above). With this point of view, I think your concern goes away? Pcb21| Pete 11:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
          • I should also add that in general, I disapprove of article text being transcluded (and I was opposed to the cricket pages being transcluded, as well). Lists and disambiguation assist with article navigation; I don't belive that this sort of transclusion does. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Re-merge, no redirects. These are so small that having extra articles for them seems to me like unnecessary clutter. ~~ N (t/c) 14:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I am going to call you on that. Define "clutter". A database is not physical space. Pcb21| Pete 15:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      • The main thing is that it complicates editing because when you hit a section edit link and edit a day, you end up at the day page and have to hit "back" to go back to the month page. Nobody wants that. Also, it's probably slower. Those are the only real issues I can think of. ~~ N (t/c) 15:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Seems odd that the day-by-day log is an acceptable method for AfD but is not for actual real-world events worthy of going in the encyclopedia. If that editing problem really bothers you, then AfD must be a nightmare ... get a tabbed browser. Pcb21| Pete 15:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Your logic is severely flawed. AfD has 100-150 entries a day; January 1, 2005 has only eleven. AfD gets thousands of edits a day, the only people to edit January 2005 this month have been you, and a couple interwiki bots. Ral315 WS 16:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Ok, I am stupid. Explain the logic flaw to me. Pcb21| Pete 16:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
              • You're trying to explain that a relatively small, rarely edited page needs to be split up by comparing it to a large, frequently edited page. Ral315 WS 16:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
                • Lol, ok let's follow the chain of events that led you to cause me of logical flaws.
                  1. Nickpar dislikes the extra mouse click required when finishing up editing transcluded pages.
                  2. I put out that the current events page are a drop in the ocean compared to AfD pages, and so he may as well succomb and get a tabbed browser.
                  3. You tell me that AfD is busier (The number of clicks required is identical no matter how busy the page is).
                  4. You then tell me that actual you were really talking about the utility of the pages themselves rather than the number of clicks required.
                • So it is you that is jumping around with the logic. Anyway all of that is irrelevant. You seem to agree that transclusion is good thing for AfD. Maybe it won't be such a huge boon for date pages (I think that it will, but it will take time as we learn that it useful to link to individual dates sometimes - e.g. dates of people's deaths) but the size of the boon doesn't matter. As long as it's a boon, and the cost to people who prefer to continue to look at the unchanged in look month pages is minimal, then there is absolutely no need to delete these, because they are providing a positive benefit. I note that no-one has argued against that. It all appears to me to be arguments about strict definitions of what is in the article space and an unwillingness to try anything new.... I am glad this feeling wasn't around when Wikipedia was much smaller else we'd have never got anywhere! Pcb21| Pete 19:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
                  • No, I disagree. Transclusion is bad in any event. The only reason it's used on AFD is because it's a necessary evil. And they're not creating a positive benefit- I could split up any page by sections, and they wouldn't create a benefit. That's essentially what you're doing. To view your articles by section, one would have to manually enter the URLs- something it seems like only you would be doing in the first place. In any event, I'm done arguing with you, because no matter what I say, you have your feelings, and nothing I say is going to change them. Ral315 WS 20:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
                    • So you're allowed to say "transclusion is bad in any event" and I'm not allowed to ask you why or disagree? Pcb21| Pete 08:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    No vote now. I see absolutely no reason to care. ~~ N (t/c) 23:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge back from whence it came, but I see no reason not to 'redirect. A date seems like a natural search term. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep, after taking a closer look at the pages it looks like this does indeed work alright, with some nice flexibility addded. For now, however, I would strongly oppose going back and making single-date pages for the times prior to our own compilation of current events. Give this time to settle before expanding the new organization substantially. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, else merge, and potentially sanction serial responder for being querulous. Ambi 14:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It's actually policy for you to have to give a reason for deletion. So I hope you don't think my asking you to do so is also querulous! I'm sorry if I sound frustrated, but I know being able to link to individual dates is going to be a big boon for Wikipedia long term and I am frustrated that I have not summoned up the linguistic skills to convince others. AfD is a frustrating place when you are trying to change the status quo. Pcb21| Pete 16:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep From what I noticed, on the main Jan 2005 page, the transclusion works good, so we need separate pages to make the transclusion work. Zach (Sound Off) 20:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Also it would be great if interested parties could check out January 1 (the new box on the right) for a way of presenting information that has opened itself up now that we can link to individual pages. Pcb21| Pete 20:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I can understand why these pages would have been unwanted in the past; but now that wikipedia itself has become one of the best online sources for current news, and background on news events, I think there will be enough content for these pages, at least for now on. (But don't create pages yet for dates more than a few years in the past). Eugene van der Pijll 22:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep with Community Discussion about future standards for this type of information. In the long term, cataloging individual dates could be a very useful and innovative use of Wikipedia. The massive hypertext data of Wikipedia enables a better cataloging of the events of an individual day than ever before. However, currently we can only search it by year and day only, not the two combined. Wikipedia should eventually be considered a resource for social science data mining. Combined with semantic tags, maybe we could discover for example whether people are more or less likely to commit suicide on days with bad news or disasters. Or whether different periods of the year are more likely to be associated with different types of historical incidents. Although the standards for this information need to be discussed, a day actually ranks pretty high there up on the quality of encyclopedic knowledge. I think this is an excellent test by Pcb21 and a taste of the future of Wikipedia. Don't cut Wikipedia short.
On top of that, it has immediate value because people are interested in what happened on their birthdays and wedding days, etc. And the edits to Pcb's article will give us ideas about how to manage this information. That's the beauty of Wikipedia. Tfine80 22:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Well thought-out attempt to produce a more versatile structure to the way this data is held, and should be supported on those grounds alone. SP-KP 22:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. To tell the truth, a day and year article is probably more useful than a day article alone. A day page (ie. January 1) is only useful for commemoration and superstition. Different and changing calendars, leap years, and other things make them pretty meaningless anyway. Day and year pages would solve the calendar problems through redirects and would open a huge new use of the database. The status quo set-up for dates is NOT the future, and the longer we use it the longer it will take to convert eventually. This is a huge project however. Tfine80 22:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep there is enough content, and the transclusion method works quite well for the time being. Sam Vimes 14:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/move to wikinews and delete it off of the face of wikipedia. :P --Cool Cat Talk 23:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    They have an incompatible licence these days :(. Pcb21| Pete 23:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    I'm sure if Wikinews wanted this system they'd already have it. ~~ N (t/c) 23:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's a suggestion: Move it to a subpage of a WikiProject. This way it is not in the main article space, but it's still exists. Maybe like a Wikipedia:On this day project. --AllyUnion (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - If I understand this correctly, this transclusion system will make watching the articles harder (for vandalism and content) and seems unecessary. Broken S 03:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tecno DJS

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines. Band vanity. Joyous (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep May not even have a label, yet, I have listened to their album, and it sounds rather good. They may have an actual shot at a label. It can be noted that almost nobody has heard of them, yet, I have a good feeling about this band.Legendary 18:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Still nn. Sorry. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 18:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I had guessed that this would be deleted near instantly. Though, I feel that any band that is willing to use a large amount of their time and work to keep working and making music for almost no one is a very good, worthy band. I would have given up if I had no fans, but they keep working. A good notability for some people so young. Legendary 19:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
        • They may be good and worthy, but unfortunately they aren't yet notable enough for Wikipedia. Perhaps someday all that hard work will pay off. By the way, if you thought it would be deleted, why did you create it? Common sense is always a good idea. ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 19:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, yeah, I guess. Sometimes, I don't think. But, please atleast become on of their members people, or find some money to donate. Morgan needs his money to expand his band's popularity and buy more software. Well, that's what he said.Legendarydairy 19:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete bandity ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 18:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete bandity, even if music is slightly better than most of the stuff that is pushed here Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a not notable band. I admit that I didn't bother listening to their music before casting my vote, so my opinion on whether or not it's any good must be withheld. Lord Bob 23:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article even admits they are non notable! Cnwb 01:31, 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 and REDIRECT ~ Veledan • Talk + new 19:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smooth Brain

Found this one while googling for "==Headline text=="-type newbie errors on en.wikipedia. If this article is legit, it belongs on wictionary not here. Originator is an ip address without a talk page, so I didn't create one just to notify it I didn't like the 'article' ~ Veledan • Talk + new 18:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Never heard of it and probably a hoax. I'll WikiFormat it anyway though. As it is, it slurs the Wikipedia name. --Celestianpower hablamé 19:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Cephalic disorder. Its actually a term for a condition of some sort. I found some web references using it [22], also see Cephalic disorder#Lissencephaly. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 19:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. neologism. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect as per Kzollman, as quickly as possible. Jkelly 03:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I've set up the redirect. Now that Kzollman has found out what it means, there's no need for this nomination to continue. Thanks guys ~ Veledan • Talk + new 19:55, 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 Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of German Political parties by dialect area of seat

Nonsense! What next? "Murder rates by icecream sales"? This is a deadend-page. -- j. 'mach' wust | ‽ 19:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete It took me two or three minutes even to come up with what this page is trying to mean: A list of German political parties organized by the dialects spoken in the regions of their political bases. Even if moved to something like List of political parties in Germany by dialect spoken in area of political base, this article would only be about those parties that are so small that the dialects spoken by their supporters are of significant importance to the party itself. There are not enough of these, IMHO, to sustain a separate list. NatusRoma 19:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Indeed, the "Südschleswigsche Wählerverband" is a local Organisation in Schleswig-Holstein, but it is completely mysterious to me, why the DKP should be a "Westphalian" party. Perhaps the author is suffering some sort of misunderstanding. You can be shure, the listet parties are realy not very important. -- Andy.we 21:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense chowells 04:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep All Communist parties mentioned are in the Westphalian dialect area.

Sarcelles 05:54, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James Sainsbury

Utterly unnotable in own right. Shoplifting is his claim to fame SqueakBox 19:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Unless other claims to notability are provided. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 19:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - being related to a famous person does not and should not be enough to have a Wikipedia Article. --Celestianpower hablamé 19:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable.--Alhutch 19:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. He didn't shoplift, he damaged a cafe, while a student. The £25 fine is evidence of how little an event that was. Average Earthman 22:51, 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. ~~ N (t/c) 20:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Teenbeat

Delete Fails under WP:MUSIC criteria Forbsey 19:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


4. Has been prominently featured in any major music media..

The Teenbeat have featured in the NME and recently were reviewed in the Sunday Times music section by Stewart Lee...

caravan to obscurity cd - the sunday times the teenbeat formed in liverpool in the mid-199os, and are led by adrian shaw a dryly amusing fellow often seen rattling the perimeter fence of the london conceptual-art scene. the band record in vast, incoherent jams, then cherry-pick the best bits, which suggest alan bennett fronting the velvet underground, or george formby singing hank williams. with a little spit and polish, they could be as quirky a commercial proposition as pulp once were, but one suspects the teenbeat are reluctant to spoil something secretly special. this best of collection has 62 songs on three discs and costs £12.99 from www.sickhappyidle.com. out of five stewart lee - the sunday times, july 24 2oo5

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 unanimously Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mont Blanc Greta Garbo Party

Google turns up no hits for "Mont Blanc Greta Garbo Party" which suggests that this was not the official name of this event, which in any case is unlikely to have been sufficiently notable to merit an article. Seems to be part of an attempt to create articles for every event featuring Fann Wong - see also A Force In Asia To Create The Future and Huabiao Film Awards Ceremony CLW 19:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree the article should be deleted. Comment by 69.231.247.48
  • Delete as per CLW. -- Kjkolb 02:29, 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 16:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Seago

This fellow is a non-notable newspaper editor. Also, the article is copied almost word for word from here. Oswax 19:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

He is an important figure in Western Washington! Please keep the article, it is legit.

Being a Tacoma resident, David Seago has a huge political influence on local politics and it is important for residents to be able to weigh his background with his current opinions.

We can keep the article if you can show why he is important (and the copyvio is removed). I've no doubt that a number of people who read the Tacoma Tribune know his name. Oswax 19:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • delete notable or not, a clear copyvio. — brighterorange (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC) - article was changed! This no longer applies.
  • Delete Non Notable Olorin28 21:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non Notable Father Dlyons493 Talk 21:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn editorial page editor for a minor newspaper. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:02, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 23:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

(☺drini♫|☎) 23:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Force In Asia To Create The Future

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mont Blanc Greta Garbo Party CLW 19:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 02:35, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Huabiao Film Awards Ceremony

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mont Blanc Greta Garbo Party CLW 19:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, an article about the award might be okay, but not the ceremony. I agree that these articles are probably an attempt to promote Fann Wong. -- Kjkolb 02:34, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laura Seago

Non-notable. A student who wrote an anti-war piece for a minor newspaper Oswax 19:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Notibility is increasing.Dvt62 20:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree the article should be deleted.

Article has been substantially updated since these comments were left. Please keep the article.Dvt62 20:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable Olorin28 21:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non Notable Daughter Dlyons493 Talk 22:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, she was given room on the editorial page of a minor newspaper and it just so happens that her father is the editor of said editorial page? I think he deserves deletion as well. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the moment, however I might change my vote if confronted with evidence that the sit-in she organised really was nationally notorious. Vizjim 01:10, 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 'Delete (btw, it was copyvio too) -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LoopyLoopX

nn software vanity; author admits this on the talk page. May also be speedy since he said "you can delete it," which is almost like a request for deletion. — brighterorange (talk) 19:36, 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 no consensus: KEEP. ~~ N (t/c) 20:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sick Happy Idle

nn publisher of "obscure records". See also The Teenbeat, also on afd — brighterorange (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

They do not publish "obscure records", they have published several records on their record label including "Caravan To Obscurity" which refers to a song lyric on the album, and not a description of the record. It was recently reviewed in the Sunday Times by Stewart Lee, receiving 4 stars in the recommended albums... hardly obscure. There's none so blind as those that cannot see.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. ~~ N (t/c) 20:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adrian Shaw

member of The Teenbeat, also up for afd, is his only notability claim. — brighterorange (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Might be A7 speedy too. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Appeared on the Channel 5 TV series Jerry Sadovitz VS The People. Appears on television narrating for programmes, he recently narrated the Channel 4 documentary on the artist David Shrigley. Organises the music for the Late at The Tate Britain gallery event. Appeared in art galleries and exhibitions over the last 10 years. Curated exhibitions. Music has been played on Radio 1, played live on Resonance FM. His latest album recently reviewd in The Sunday Times Newspaper, receiving 4 out of 5 stars in a review by Stewart Lee. Cartoonist - designed the guidance signs for children that you will find hanging on the walls in the Tate Britain gallery, London (so, yes his work hangs in the Tate Britain gallery alongside Turner's!).

top that :P

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Putas de mierdas

Bad joke? freestylefrappe 20:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Bitches of shit? Delete ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 21:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No hits on allmusic. Suspect joke or hoax. Searched Google for the phrase and came up with no relevant hits pertaining to a musical group. ♠ DanMS 23:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
If you add up the individual times for each song you get about 23 minutes, whereas the total time on the CD is 34 minutes 27 seconds. Maybe this should be speedied. freestylefrappe 21:41, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 500 greatest songs of the 20th century

Wikimedia is not a repository for POV lists Sapient 20:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I agree with Sapient Olorin28 21:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 22:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, POV, and seems to stop at fewer than 500. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
The anonymous author has now seen fit to add the remaining 95 songs that were missing. Ho hum... Sapient 18:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete POV list Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft and inherently POV. --MCB 23:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, irreparably POV. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as irreperable POV unless sourced to be the list of a major publication, radio or tv program. - Mgm|(talk) 09:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV. utcursch | talk 13:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete delete delete. POV cruft, unverifiable, and where the hell is Bohemian Rhapsody ? chowells 16:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete purely opinion. Not encyclopedic. Delete it. Garfunkel4life 23:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete100% Grade A oppinion Dudtz 9/29/05 4:43 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 COPYVIO, so deal with it over there instead. -Splashtalk 23:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Castle On the Cliff

Promotion for a not notable place. feydey 21:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Advertisement. Dlyons493 Talk 22:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, no vote. If this winds up being deleted, merge the castle into Plettenberg Bay. It’s an interesting landmark at Plettenberg Bay. ♠ DanMS 23:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree with that. It's the advertisement links that bother me. Dlyons493 Talk 20:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge non-advertisement parts into Plettenberg Bay i.e. get rid of the commercial links. Dlyons493 Talk 21:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE.. This link is relevant to this section castles see also list of castles. Please rethink. (Goplett 19:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC))
    • Goplett, since you are, I think, the author of the article, could you expand the article? More detail on the history and construction of the castle. How long did it take to build? How many rooms? How much did it cost? What about the nature preserve? Any interesting stories connected with the castle? ♠ DanMS 05:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, article needs to be tidied up.
  • Keep, treat as possible copyvio, probably best to replace it with a stub and a request for more info from people in the know. Usrnme h8er 08:41, 4 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. Woohookitty 09:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The_Good_Shepherd_(2006_film)

Originally to be merged, but mergeto article has more information than this one. Kushboy 21:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • You could have just redirected and saved the paperwork, but, seeing it's here, delete --Doc (?) 22:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: IIRC, isn't redirect itself an AfD debate option? I've seen that choice pop up in other debates, and usually such decisions come with no merge... Wcquidditch 22:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with no redirect as it's an unlikely search term. -- Kjkolb 02:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect What harm can a redirect possibly do? CalJW 04:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, didn't you know? redirects eat babies. Usrnme h8er 08:42, 4 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. -Splashtalk 22:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BSD and Linux

This article is inaccurate from the first sentence. There are too many generalizations about the differences between *BSD and Linux in the article. I encourage anyone to read through the article and make a convincing argument that it should be salvaged. Sether 21:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's a compare-and-contrast essay. That's original research, useless to Wikipedia. Superm401 | Talk 21:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I cannot see how this page can be fixed, it's straining for a far too broad topic and has been done by people that do not even know the facts about the subject. I really can't see anything in there worth saving. Janizary 21:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This page is inaccurate and biased. It has no place on Wikipedia. Cmihai 21:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)cmihai - Cmihai's first edit. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 18:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is incoherent, inaccurate, poorly structured and certainly not NPOV. Nothing in it looks worth saving. NicM 21:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC) - NicM's first edit. See WP:SOCK. --Blackcap | talk 18:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is just an essay, and a lousy one at that. Procus the Mad 22:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorrowful Delete. I've put a bit of effort into this page and I think it has valuable data- but that data belongs on a general BSD page or Linux page. Not in separate article which essentially is an essay. Sorry guys. --Maru (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or revert to earlier version. I started the article when I wasn't quite as aware of our original research policy. I later intended to back it up with published sources, but never got to it. It has since degenerated into a horrid article that isn't likely to serve it's purpose. If anyone cares to, check the earlier versions to see if anything is worth saving. It could be taken from there and redone using the Kirk McKusick's books and a few others to legitimately discuss the differences between the OS families, but I'm not going to get to it. - Taxman Talk 18:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete joining Taxman's and Maru's consensus. The first sentence of this article is, "BSD and Linux are two families of open-source computer operating systems." If a need for deletion is due to the article's being perceived as inaccurate from the first sentence, then the important issue is merely that the two OSs are favorably named on the same page. So be it, give 'em what they want and delete the entire article. If someone wants to recreate it anew in the future, let them take up any founder's responsibility along with the no-win language and cultural hassles. Like Maru, I worked a lot on this. Like Taxman, I was not quite as aware of Wiki's O-R policy when I contributed. Whether this article is horrid, bad, informative, or was consumer useful to me is moot. It should not remain published here if it is undocumented and thus indistinguishable from Original Research. Wiki O-R policy excludes informative insider knowledge because, by "insider" definition, their knowledge is infrequently documentable. My thanks to all who provided content. From the expert editors I've learned much of what I had hoped to find on first arrival at the article. Especially AlbertCallahan who knows a lot about shells (and cooking), a critical choice for new B & L users along with packaging systems. (How are your taco shells? "yum"  :)
    Milo 11:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Too bad content was never completed. Wikipedia "BSD and Linux" is GFDL copyright ("copyleft"), so if you think it can be fixed, copy it from Google's cache:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_and_Linux and pass it on to other web sites. Milo 03:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The article is NOT in the public domain. It is copyrighted by contibutors and licensd under the GFDL. Do not copy without following the GFDL. Superm401 | Talk 12:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
May or may not be true - if he can get permission from all the authors involved and not use the licensed edits then it would indeed be public domain Ryan Norton T | @ | C 01:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't matter in practice. Generic lists of facts and organizing outlines aren't copyrightable; for example, non-telco telephone listings. The paragraphs can be rewritten until a plagiarism detector like free WCopyfind doesn't match any uncommon long phrases other than referenced quotations. Poof, old license gone -- analogously to the way both BSD and Linux came into existence from copyrighted UNIX. Milo 07:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I found the article to be informative, and answered questions that were in neither linux or BSD. I agree it needs to be fixed, but I hate it when useful true objective information is erased. 66.75.49.213
That you found this article to be informative is a key reason to delete it, because it isn't right. It's because of how bad it is that it is up for deletion in the first place. Janizary 21:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I don't know much about Linux and BSD. Why doesn't someone just go in and delete anything that is false or subjective and leave an objective comparison of the two? I came to wikipedia to help me decide between installing freebsd and linux as my first non-windows OS experience. This was the only wikipedia article I could find with a comparison. 66.75.49.213
Because if everything that was viewed as wrong was deleted, you'd end up with an even more useless article. There is a massive conflict of personalities between most Linux and BSD users, from Linux users constantly spreading misinformation and slander to the BSD users constantly belittling Linux users for their usage of a worse system. And that's just the BSD perspective, the Linux users think of BSD as a dead and arcane piece of garbage that only an idiot would use. And even then, there are worse things going on between the two overcultures. The fundamental differences between the two groups causes constant conflict and pretty much constant and embittered arguments, often with no real cause behind them. My opinion, if you want to learn Unix, you go to OpenBSD because it's documentation is better, if you want a Windows replacement you go Ubuntu. Janizary 03:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The term "BSD" describes any modern day derivative of the Berkeley Software Distribution (such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.) or the Berkeley Software Distribution itself. In other words, "BSD" refers to an operating system. The term "Linux" describes the operating system kernel developed by Linus Torvalds – not an operating system. To compare a complete operating system to just a kernel is like comparing apples with oranges. Not only that, but you can't compare "BSD" to any other operating system because "BSD" doesn't refer to a single operating system – it refers to a family of operating systems that are actually very distinct from each other. I don't understand why the article is titled "BSD and Linux" if it's really a comparison of FreeBSD and GNU/Linux. But a change in the title of the article isn't going to fix anything either – why does Wikipedia need a comparison of one specific BSD derivative and "GNU/Linux" (which doesn't refer to an operating system either; there is no GNU/Linux operating system, just distributions that combine the Linux kernel and GNU userland)? The basic idea behind the entire article is flawed. Sether 03:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
(Sigh) There were some old-title links that the linking page editors (maybe you?) needed to update. By talk page consensus, the article is no longer comparing one specific derivative with another entire family. The article compares the two families generally and makes a non-comprehensive sample comparison between one derivative and one distro (copy-editing in "derivative" was on the to-do list). The "just a kernel" objection was already covered in the article. The empty "The Linux Kernel and the GNU Utilities" to-do section was to intended to explain Richard Stallman/GNU's marginalization as being why he started the "just a kernel" issue (see the talk page). If you consider yourself an unbiased Wikipedian, maybe you should read the article again, particularly the Scope section, and withdraw your AfD as based on obsolete understandings (IIRC, you do strike-through formatting of your AfD intro, and add a brief retraction). Milo 07:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, come on. The article is garbage. It varies wildly between being overly simplistic and being terribly confused and confusing. Not to mention often spouting complete rubbish (does anyone really need to be told that new users sometimes have problems? what is all this Major Software nonsense? is Wikipedia really the place for this rather odd Marxist analysis, interesting - if poorly presented - idea or no? what is this rubbish about FreeBSD linux compat? have you even read the handbook?). A clear (simple or in-depth) introduction to the differences between the BSDs and Linux may or may not be useful (I think not), but this article is not it and will not become so short of completely starting again. NicM 15:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC).
To 66.75.49.213 Yours was like my experience, except I wanted to compare of all the BSDs and Linux, for future consumer folks like us. Simplifying, even though BSD and Linux have mostly indistinguishable OS features, a persistent eye-roller objection was that they can't be compared because the two OSs have different cultural names for too many things. That language issue could be resolved ...except that too many objectors don't want it resolved. With persistent nitpicking, the objectors plus normal critics won't give the outnumbered unbiased editors the year or more it would take to document the article's extensive use of O-R look alike insider info. Milo 07:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] THE_BEARTON_AUTOMATIC_RIFLE

No reference of this rifle on Google. Kushboy 21:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not existing stuff. feydey 21:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • delete per above.Austrian 22:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probable joke or hoax. Googling “Bearton automatic rifle” and “Wallace Bearton” was unsuccessful. ♠ DanMS 23:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete never heard of this. Hoax article. Sapient 10:50, 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Qui-Gon Jinn 12" Inch

Not at all notable. I recommend deletion of images too upon close.

  • Ah right, 12" is his height (well, at least that's a novel measurement for crap arround here)delete --Doc (?) 22:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Individual dolls are not notable just because they're "hard to get", and Wikipedia is, presumably, not a guide for collectors. I must admit, though, when I saw the title of the page, I was absolutely terrified thinking about what I was going to see. Lord Bob 23:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge somewhere, real product from notable manufacturer. Kappa 00:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a toy must be very notable to warrant its own article and this isn't that notable. -- Kjkolb 02:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non notable. Saberwyn 04:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not Ebay. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, one individual model of a star wars figurine is not individually notable. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep or merge this somewhere please it is a rare item Yuckfoo 21:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge per kappa and Deletion policy. According to our deletion policy, a subject that is "such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" is one of the "problems that don't require deletion", and the correct action to take is not to list on AfD at all, but "Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect". This article should never have made it as far as AfD according to the deletion policy. Administrators are busy enough as it is. Anybody can merge, and if the're not doing so they need to be told loudly and clearly that AfD is not a place to take articles that are obvious merge candidates under the deletion policy. Just do it. --Tony SidawayTalk 22:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Individual article not warranted, just one unsourced assertion of being "very rare and hard to get." That sort of repetitive redundancy seems to be a pattern (see the title - 12" Inch). Can't find a place to merge to - best candidate I could locate for this sort of phenomenon is that the Star Wars article has a redlink to Star Wars toys. Substantive contributions there would be welcome. --Michael Snow 23:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Individual toys? Why don't we have an article for every single Barbie iteration? NO. - Hahnchen 03:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Please don't give them ideas. Now some wise guy's going to get to work on those and we'll be voting on them for the next four months... Lord Bob 03:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • omg... deleet  Grue  07:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - encyclopedia and not notable --Henrygb 22:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per deletion policy: idiosyncratic non-topic. The Literate Engineer 04:45, 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. Pharos makes a particularly valid point, the deletion is on the button of two-thirds and I am concerned that this may be na artefact of systemic bias. -Splashtalk 22:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rohingya villages

List of villages without any siginificance or notability. Note that this is not a significant list of subdivisions, rather a enormous list of villages. I am not against listing notable entities, but simply creating a list of names of villages does not really contribute to wikipedia.

  • Delete: NN. This is not systemic bias, rather a meaningless and long list of place names. --Ragib 21:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a grab-bag of information or repository of original data. Pilatus 21:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep any part of this which can be verified. Kappa 23:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Ragib. -- Kjkolb 02:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. We have absolutely comparable lists for the U.S.--Pharos 03:26, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 22:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuzzy fuzzy Holloway Zarathustra

Most of the Google links for this phrase link to a porn site. One other Google link is to a fan site with 2 members. I can't imagine anyone searching Wikipedia for this exact phrase. We already have an article on H. Beam Piper and Little Fuzzy, so I'm not sure what purpose this is supposed to serve. Joyous (talk) 21:41, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 23:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exocrew

Non notable web hosting company. Significance not established in article. Most Google search results point to own Exocrew website / advertisment for Exocrew. Hurricane111 22:10, 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. -Splashtalk 22:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wicker People

As the article itself states, nothing is known about the Wicker people. --Austrian 22:03, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, Should not be its own article. Kushboy 22:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • In defense of this article, anyone who watches Batman and wonders what exactly the Wicker People are can look them up and find out for sure that no one really knows who they are, otherwise it could be assumed that they exist, but have no article.
  • Delete what? ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 23:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Wicker Man. Kappa 23:26, 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. -Splashtalk 22:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King of the Wicker People

A fictitious person who is mentioned once in one movie. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicker People. --Austrian 22:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, might belong somewhere, but not in its own article. Kushboy 22:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's a joke about the Wicker Man, not a real fictional entity. Kappa 23:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not a joke, it is actually in Batman. Watch it, it's near the beginning when they are at Wayne Manor. The statue looks ligitmate, leading to the question of whether or no there really are Wicker People. --Rhfactor28 00:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

  • No, no, no - the comment in the movie Batman is a joke about the Wicker Man. See? Delete. Vizjim 01:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If you watch the movie, it looks nothing like a wicker man, but more like some tribal mask --Rhfactor28 19:37, 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 deleted as hoax by Raul654. · Katefan0(scribble) 06:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sher Khan

This is probably a clever hoax created by the same persistent prankster or pranksters who invented the Nasher dynasty (old VfD page). It appears plausible, but:

  • The Ghaznavids haven't ruled anything since the 12th century. The article claimed that they did, but it should be easy to guess who added that fact.
  • Several assertions are verified and unverifiable through any sources I can find, namely:
    • the assertion that he founded the Spinzar corporation. In fact, it was founded as a venture of the Afghan National Bank.
    • the assertion that Kipling named Shere Khan after him. Not only does Shere Khan mean something like "Tiger Lord", according to the commentary in the 1992 Oxford University Press edition, but if this person was born in the 1890s, he would have been no more than four years old when The Jungle Book was published—thus an unlikely source for the name.
    • The assertion that Afghanistan's largest port is named after him. As was pointed out in the previous VfD, Afghanistan is landlocked, thus it's unlikely that it has any ports named after anybody. Okay, Shir Khan is a real port in Afghanistan, but I find no indication that it was named after him.

There may be some parts that are true, or at least based on a real person: see [23], the reliability of which is hard to judge. It appears that the hoaxster took some facts about Farhad Darya's grandfather from that source, mixed them with fiction about the Nasher dynasty, and came up with this article. References to this fictitious person have been added elsewhere and will need to be trimmed out carefully. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • comment I buy that this article is a hoax. Note that the Columbia encyclopedia has an article about "Sher Khan" [24] from a totally different time period. — brighterorange (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Shere Khan as possible misspelling to avoid recreation. - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding Kipling - did he ever go to Afghanistan? Some flicking through a handy biography suggests he spent several years in Lahore and got as far as the Khyber Pass, in 1885, to report on the visit of Abdur Rahman Khan; he doesn't seem to have travelled there, or if he did his biographer didn't think to mention it. As far as I can tell he'd have been in the UK or America by the time Khan was born, and it beggars belief a character written in 1892-4 would be named after an infant - possibly not even born - who he'd have no reason to be aware of. I'm not voting either way on the article, but that part's definitely got garbled en route; I'll remove it... Shimgray | talk | 00:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • (That said, if it does get deleted concur with Mgm - redirect as plausible mispelling rather than outright delete)

Support I was the one who created this article about Sher Khan. As a matter of fact, I created the original version which has been altered by other users. When factual errors appeared, I corrected them. I am a PhD student at Brown, specializing in Afghan history. Sher Khan is a key figur in post-British Afghanistan and should thus remain in the dictionary. About your points: True, the Ghaznavids have not ruled the country after the 12th century as Kings, but they lived as hereditary Khans in their home area, having some sort of 'traditional' power. The Spinzar Company was founded by Sher Khan, but largely owned by the Afghan Government through the Bank-e-Milli. Sher Khan held about 5 % and some percentage in the ACG (Afghan Cotton Company) in Gulbahar and Pol-e-chumri. After Sher Khan's death, his son Gholam Serwar served as CEO until the war with Russia broke out (most literature on Afghan history is - ALAS!!! - almost impossible to get, this you can check online on http://www.institute-for-afghan-studies.org/HistoricalResearchCorner/ACFAE9.pdf). He was then imprisoned by Daoud. The Spinzar Company is back in action today, ran by Mr Arianpoor. I do not know much about the association to Kipling. I do however know that Kipling spent some time in Kunduz. Sher Khan Bandar was named after Sher Khan Nasher, this fact is undisputed among anyone dealing with the history of Afghanistan. As a matter of fact, the Sher Khan Road leads from the Spinzar Company up to Sher Khan Bandar (passing Sher Khan high school). In 2002 the Afghan government wanted to change the name to Massoud Bandar. An outrage, followed by a quasi-riot broke out in Kunduz up to Sher Khan Bandar which made the government change its mind. The Columbia article deals with a different Sher Khan, mostly referred to as Sher Shah. He was an Afghan ruler of the Mughal empire for five years (1540–1545) who had defeated Homayun. So: except for the Kipling part, all the info is accurate. Steve

(the above posted by someone using the South African IP address 209.203.60.6 (talk • contribs), who also removed the AfD tag from the article and deleted the reference to the old Nasher hoax from my initial post. —Charles P. (Mirv))
Hi Steve. Are you LloydHughes (talk · contribs), who created the initial revision of Shir Khan, or are you 141.2.161.249 (talk · contribs), the Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universitaet IP address who created the initial revision of Sher Khan, or are you both? Can you cite any sources for the claims here and in the text of the article? It's important that information in Wikipedia be verifiable, and without sources, it's very hard (you're right about the paucity of literature on Afghanistan) for anyone else to check the facts—and they certainly need checking. I have access to a first-rate university library and should be able to get my hands on any relevant English or French works. (also, just FYI, it's generally considered impolite to edit other people's signed comments in a way that changes their meaning.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Mirv We appreciate your effort very much. We are all trying to get as close to historical accuracy as possible. There is no need to act offensive. This service of writing about something I know much about (and spend my life with) is something I am giving to the Wikipedia community. I defended the points but I am not writing a scientific text scattered with footnotes for you as I have many other things to do (namely do research about other historical incidents and people I do not know much about). Regards, Steve

I am not asking for exhaustive footnoting of each and every point; I just want to know where you got the information contained in this article. My own research has turned up nothing that confirms what is written here; this, plus my experience with the previous Nasher hoax, leads me to believe that some or all of the article is erroneous or fictitious. If the facts cannot be verified, then the article will probably be deleted. I am willing to take the time to verify it, but I've hit a dead end in researching and don't know where to continue. If you name a few of the sources you used in writing the article, other editors can check them and be convinced that the article is not a hoax. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I note with dismay that you have again edited my signed comments in a way that changes their meaning. This is considered vandalism and is not acceptable behavior. Please do not do it. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC) [This post was deleted; it has been reinstated. Please do not delete others' signed comments. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)]

Reply For the info on the Spinzar Cotton Company and Sher Khan and his son check "Light Garden of the Angel King: Travels in Afghanistan" by Peter Levi; Binding: Paperback Publisher: Trafalgar Square Published Date: 05/01/2001. The Kipling part I cannot confirm. The rest is 100 % accurate, see above. Dear Mirv, please understand that I cannot and will not leave personal indiscretions on this site which are of no concern to the matter discussed.

Thank you. As it happens, the Bibliothèque nationale has a French translation of that book; I will go there tomorrow and see if it confirms what is said in this article. I am also going to ask you one more time to stop altering and deleting signed comments from this page. This is impolite, unethical, and a violation of Wikipedia policy; if you persist I will have to ask another administrator to block you from editing. Removing information about an IP address from my post does not remove it from the site; it is still recorded in the page history, and whois searches are trivially easy. Furthermore I consider it highly relevant to this matter, because it originates from the same part of Germany as the IP address used by the creator of the original Nasher hoax (according to the Geobytes IP locator). One address is from Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, which is in Frankfurt am Main; the IP locator places the second in Bensheim, which is (according to its article) within an hour's drive of Frankfurt. I doubt this is coincidence. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I am now monitoring this page. If anyone deletes, modifies or otherwise tampers with other peoples' comments on this page, I will block them immediately. · Katefan0(scribble) 01:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified. --Carnildo 18:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete due to evidence of a hoax. We can't take a chance with that. Provide evidence it's real or it has to go. Everyking 22:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Everyking. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I've deleted, per what appear to be accurate assertions that it is a hoax. →Raul654 05:34, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 -- Francs2000 23:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nonmagel

Recipe created by "Marla"; do you really need a reason? ♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 22:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I have speedied it. -- Francs2000 23:09, 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 Redirect to Selfless Service, Rx StrangeLove 03:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sevadar

Dicdef not English not good candidate for Wiktionary♥purplefeltangel (talk) ♥ (contribs) 22:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki wiktionary:. Superm401 | Talk 23:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Selfless Service. Kappa 23:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect User:Nichalp/sg 13:20, 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. Note that the author may recreate this article at a later date if it is substantially different than this version. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] String inverter

The whole thing is completely POV and very original research. It's probably a press release by some company promoting the idea. It also seems very vapor ware/crystal ball. Let's just purge it. Superm401 | Talk 23:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete It might be able to stay if it was cleaned up, but it has been tagged as such for over a year. Let's just put it out of its misery. Sonic Mew | talk to me 15:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete what Sonic Mew said...--Kewp 17:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete ant_ie 12:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Bash 21:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Why doesn't someone mail the author for more info? Address on user page. Rich Farmbrough 22:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I have just emailed the guy. Let's see what he has to say. Also I don't think it is fair to delete an article just because it was tagged as needing clean up for a year. Renata3 14:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the author replied in 40 minutes saying: Nevertheless - it is my fault to have not cleaned the article. I will take care within the next 4 weeks - so please be so kind and give me this more time. I think that he should get it - it waited for a year, it can wait for one more month. Renata3 16:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep under the conditions that the original author will fix it soon. --Cromwellt | Talk 00:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This is currently (since 19 September) being cleaned up by the Cleanup Taskforce (see: Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/String inverter) so you should expect it to improve in a big way over the next few weeks. So strong keep for now unless we cannot improve it. Andreww 02:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think even a major clean up would help. delete the whole article and if someone wants to re-write it, let them. --Banana04131 15:53, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jocularfilms

Non-notable website. --fvw* 23:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Not only that, it doesn't appear to be very active at the moment. [25] Sonic Mew | talk to me 15:51, 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 17:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SB Designing

Website vanity/Ad. --fvw* 23:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for reasons stated above. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN website promo. --Hurricane111 02:59, 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 17:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poppycock Circus

Although this comic has been on a hiatus since February this year, I really don't think it's notable enough to have its own article. There is no alexa rank, and the graph shows that there hasn't been any traffic for the past 2 years of data (as far back as alexa stats show). In the end, Poppycock circus is just a website which no one ever visited, just because it was a website with a comic on, does not mean it deserves an article. - Hahnchen 23:38, 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. -Splashtalk 22:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Simpson

Probable hoax Google for "Wild Myers", the trilogy he supposedly stared in, turned up nothing except false positive hits. There are three Jack Simpson's in IMDB, none of them particularly significant, and none of them this guy even if he be not a hoax. Caerwine 23:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete for reasons stated above. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the reasons given by the nominator. Hall Monitor 23:56, 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 merge and redirect -- Joolz 15:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo of Canada

Well, A substub about a subsidiary of a major company; despite notability it may remain a substub.

  • Redirect&merge with Nintendo. --SuperDude 23:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. Redirect and merge. --YUL89YYZ 10:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect&merge with Nintendo. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 03:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect&merge. I could see it standing on its own, though, if it had substantial content.--Pharos 03:28, 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.