Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 26

< September 25	September 27 >

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, which defaults to keep. Ral 315 W_S 02:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Jaded

See the webcomic here and their one man band forum here. Webcomics reach their end user purely through the means of the internet, so Alexa ranking is a good way of finding out how popular one is. When you have a ranking of over 2 million, this is clearly not good. This is a none notable webcomic with a tiny readership, and with 2 million more popular sites out there, it's time to remove this from wikipedia. - Hahnchen 00:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Question. The rank only hints at the lowness of the readership. How big is the readership, actually? Moreover, does size of participation or readership necessarily determine notability? — Rickyrab | Talk 00:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- On the other hand, maybe delete, on notability grounds. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Reply - That could be a point. But try looking on Google for the jaded and webcomic. It has not received any outside press, it hasn't even won any community awards I think, which almost every webcomic wins some. It's true, there are notable films, books etc, which may have been notable but not well read/seen. I do not think however, that this case holds true for this webcomic. - Hahnchen 00:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 00:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Alexa is in general a horrible way of determining popularity or notability, since it is not based on visitors, but on visitors who chose to install a specific piece of spyware. Also note that "The Jaded" is mostly read through Graphic Smash, so Alexa would treat such visits as results for graphicsmash.com, not for thejaded.co.uk, further biasing the Alexa results. Even aside from all that, this article is verifiable, encyclopedic, and useful. There are absolutely no disadvantages to keeping it in Wikipedia, so it should not be deleted. Factitious 01:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I understand that Alexa rankings can sometimes be a red herring. However, doing a Google search found nothing to distinguish this from any other website. Apart from the Google search mentioned above, I was also drawn to nominate this due to the sparcity of the forums. I know not everyone joins the forums, but surely a proportion of the readership will join up. I did not know about GraphicSmash, that is true, and whereas you have mentioned the nature of Alexa, I do have to point out that Alexa ranks GraphicSmash at over 700k. - Hahnchen 01:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Alexa's ranking of Graphic Smash is also unreliable, of course. But even if we had good reasons for thinking the comic had a low readership, I still don't see any claims being made as to disadvantages of keeping this article. Are there any disadvantages? Factitious 01:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    - The disadvantage is, that instead of wikipedia being used as an encyclopedia, it is used as a web directory, free advertising, personal space and yellow pages. Would an article on myself be a disadvantage to wikipedia? It's verifiable, and useful for potential employers or friends, I'm sure a lot more people know of me in real life then read this comic. - Hahnchen 01:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      - It also has a low Netcraft ranking [1] -- ReyBrujo 03:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Graphic Smash comics (which I personally think are notable) require subscribership to GS to read the archives of, hence the relatively low readership. Nifboy 01:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I understand that, looking at the site, but what is the difference between one unnotable website within a gated community and one unnotable website outside it? - Hahnchen 01:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete no claims to notability, and alexa ranks and google search suggest otherwise. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Graphic Smash. It's not notable on its own, even in the context of the webcomics community. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 06:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete non-notable as defined by Alexa ranking. Furthermore, if this AfD deletion suceeds, remove all redlinks from the Graphics Smash page until such time as good articles (or even decent stubs) are written about the more notable comics. --Icelight 06:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- The Alexa rating is irrelevant in this case. The lion's share of the readers are going to be looking at it at graphicsmash.com, not its own site. It is unlike Keenspot and like Keenspace, in this way. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  - In which case we can't really verify if it has a major following, except possibly through the forums, which do seem pretty sparse, and are an even less reliable method. --Icelight 16:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Which would be why I suggested merging it into GraphicSmash, myself. I don't think it's notable, but Alexa numbers are irrelevant. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      - Okay, so, failing a succesful Delete motion, I'd go for Merge and Redirect, but still remove the redlinks.
Merge with Graphic Smash and Redirect. Atomization of comic-related subjects is rampaging and clogging WP with minor nn articles. Shauri 19:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Relevant. --Ezeu 20:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Relevant. Wiki is not paper. ≈ jossi ≈ 20:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Looks notable Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - I am not an avid webcomic reader. I nominated this purely because I thought it was none notable. May I ask why a comic on GraphicSmash is inherently notable? GraphicSmash itself doesn't seem to be that popular from its Alexa rank, so why would a specific comic on that site be? - Hahnchen 21:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. as per nom. DirectorStratton 02:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Attention - Some users have said that comics on Graphic Smash, like this one seem to be notable. Even though Graphic Smash itself only has an Alexa rank of over 700,000. I see a parallel here with the afd for Metroblogging. Metroblogging is a blog portal, and from there you can find blogs. Metroblogging is a lot more popular than graphic smash, with an alexa rank of sub 30,000, it was rightly kept. However, the links pointing to specific blogs were not. Following a similar idea, I feel that this article ought to be deleted, with some summary information at the main Graphic Smash article. The separate Graphic Smash comics however, should not have their own article. - Hahnchen 00:08, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
keep please wiki is not paper this article is fine Yuckfoo 21:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. This is definitely not notable. I just checked the Alexa rankings of two of my favorite web cartoons (Homestar Runner and Bonus Stage), and Homestar Runner came back with a 2,572 ranking and Bonus Stage with a ranking around 644,000. This is a definite delete. --WikiFanatic^{Talk Contribs 6:42, 2 October 2005 (CDT)}

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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) 00:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adara (porn star)

If a porn star is "infrequently seen", does she count as a porn "star"? Delete as advertising and possible vanity. Vizjim 00:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge to some designated combination article, such as Pornographic actresses or some similar name. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete or expand lots - Porn stars deserve an article. Bit part tits for hire on Sodomy Master 5:Return of the Nymphomaniac Clowns does not. - Hahnchen 00:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- A redlink... quick... someone start the article! Dpbsmith (talk) 01:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  - I would do, but I need my copy back off Hahnchen...! ;) Vizjim 08:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Hey wait... how is SM5:RotNC not notable?--Isotope23 20:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 00:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Porn "star" or "Pornstar" seems to be the accepted courtesy term for all erotic actresses and actors, whether stellar or not. We do not need individual articles on "infrequently seen" actresses and actors, no matter how much of them can be seen when they are seen. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom looks like vanity --JAranda | yeah 02:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity --Rogerd 02:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, even though its nice to know that even porn actresses realize the awesomeness of Wikipedia Paul 03:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Not a star in my book. — C Maylett 03:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN. Article says she is "infrequently seen", claims no appearances after 2002, and links to a site which gives her "Current model status" as "Inactive". TheMadBaron 07:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. There's enough "pornstars" that are more "frequently" seen. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 13:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it's enough with having porn stars at WP, to also grant a space to nn ones. Shauri 19:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete totally nn-bio.--Isotope23 20:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per above. alf 00:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn ≈ jossi ≈ 03:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn within the genre. 23skidoo 17:19, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blog Horsefucker

It is a dubious phrase with only 15 unique hits in Google [2], supposedly coined by a site with Alexa ranking over 125 000 [3] -- ReyBrujo 00:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Nonnotable. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 01:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. *drew 01:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per the above. --Mysidia (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 02:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable and Wikipedia isn't a slang dictionary, anyway. — C Maylett 03:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete CalJW 04:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 06:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - as above - Bwfc 10:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non notable and unencyclopedic. Shauri 19:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, as above - alf 00:19, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neltark and Willie

Is wikipedia the first port of call for budding webcomic artists? Due to excessively lax inclusion guidelines at WP:COMIC, it seems to becoming so with so many unnotable webcomics on wikipedia. This one has been around 3 months and produced, what, 20 strips? Alexa shows it as a no rank. Sigh. - Hahnchen 00:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete NN. Too new Jwissick^(t)^(c) 01:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete NN --Rogerd 02:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -Nameneko 06:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 06:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn alf 00:20, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] War on idiocy

Nn web movement/forum. Vanity on part of D-prime. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 00:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 01:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Saberwyn 03:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stick-figure logos and blog-based organizations? Come on.. List the picture on IfD while you're at it. -Nameneko 06:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Can you do it for me? I don't know how. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 22:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  - I listed the image on IfD yesterday. -Nameneko 23:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
In the war on idiocy, we in the Wikipedia project are outgunned. From the article:

"It is likely not know[n] by the leaders themselves what the actual purpose of WOI is." Yeah. Which side of that war are they on, anyhow? Delete per nominator, and IfD the picture per Nameneko. Barno 06:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - nn. The "it is not known... it is not clear..." bits are rather telling CLW 06:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable web forum. — JIP | Talk 06:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
War on idiocy? This is idiocy! If stupidity is not a criterion for deletion, it ought to be. Delete. ♠ DanMS 20:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete silliness. shouldn't be on wikipedia.--Alhutch 23:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete utterly useless alf 00:20, 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 No Consensus-default to keep Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Audrey Hollander

Crystal ball, possible advertising, possible vanity, probable porncruft... Vizjim 00:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. NN. Does not even have a web page. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 01:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep We have a lot of porn star bio articles in Wikipedia. She has a lot of page results in Google: 422,000 for "Audrey Hollander" and Yahoo!: "199,000 for "Audrey Hollander". She also appeared a lot of movies. [4] --J. Nguyen 01:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- As I said at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jordan Capri, the Google Test is skewed and meaningless for porn actresses. There's a whole subsection of the Internet pornography industry that is devoted to so skewing it (and that indeed regularly adds lists of links to WikiMedia projects as part of skewing it). Relying upon the Google Test as a gauge of notability for porn acresses is exceedingly unwise. Moreover, the number of films is not a strict indicator when it comes to actresses. (One can produce any number of unknown films.) As Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies states, the films and thus the actresses have to be known by people, as demonstrated by the existence of newspaper or magazine coverage, commercial endorsements, fan clubs, and independent biographies. Please demonstrate that this is so in this case by pointing to such things. Uncle G 02:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - as per above. - Hahnchen 01:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete following Uncle G's comments. She does indeed seem to be a bit part tits for hire. I mean, look at the name, that's not a pornstar name is it. - Hahnchen 02:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
No newspaper or magazine coverage. No commercial endorsements. No fan clubs. No biographies at all, independent or otherwise. (The IAFD entry linked to above is little more than height, weight, age, hair colour, and distinguishing marks. If that were enough, every person with a passport would rate an encyclopaedia article. All other purported biographies are the same.) This actress does not satisfy the Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies, and there are simply no sources for making a biographical article. Delete. Uncle G 02:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I respect your opinions, Uncle G. I found you balance on voting in the AfD/VfD. I don't like *-crufts as much as the next guy but we already have gazillion porn star bio articles in Wikipedia. I'm not into pornography but there is an adult video trade publication that has covered her. It is the AVN which has a semi-article in Wikipedia. They had an interview about her that shows some biographical data but not that much. Not Safe For Work reference (see copyright "©2001 AVN Publications") Although, this doesn't fit your criteria but a popular weblog, Fleshbot has covered her as well. Again Not Safe For Work --J. Nguyen 21:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 06:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I, um, haven't seen this name that I've noticed. I agree with Uncle G on the general principles for articles in this category, and on the verifiable data in this case not showing notability. The article says she's a frontrunner for a 2006 award from a leading publication, Adult Video News, but WP is not a crystal ball. If it happens, we could discuss whether that award confers notability, but I think the consensus would be "no", not without some of the other criteria that Uncle G mentioned. Delete, but with lubricant. Barno 06:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete!!!!--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 10:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, someone's obviously taken the trouble of skewing google results for her benefit. Kappa 12:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Independent coverage: http://www.avninsider.com/stories/audreyotto.shtml Kappa 12:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Someone taking the trouble of skewing google to get more hits on their titty site hardly makes her encyclopaedic. Proto t c 13:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Which titty site would that be? Kappa 13:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  - I don't know. There are many. Proto t c 14:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Please don't vote based entirely on speculation. Kappa 14:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      - See Uncle G's excellent comments above, which sum up my reasons for voting "delete" better than I ever could. Proto t c 14:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. If it's notable enough for IMDb, it's notable enough for WP. Owen× ☎ 17:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN. How is "someone's obviously taken the trouble of skewing google results for her benefit" a keep argument? Marskell 18:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, partially because of the arguments noted so excellently above and partially because 'porncruft' is the greatest word to be coined so far in the 21st century. Lord Bob 18:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep unfortunately - has a massive amount of google hits and has been in an insane amount of pornos, even some self-titled ones like violation of Audrey Hollander. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that was self titled, as it was part of a series: List (Warning: Adult Content)-LtNOWIS 00:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn PornActress --JAranda | yeah 00:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - See her IMDb page. In 3 years, 102 porn films as an actress and 1 as director. -LtNOWIS 00:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. per Uncle G's comments. DirectorStratton 02:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, per AVN award nom. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:08, 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) 00:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Del Mar 8

Webcomic hosted on keenspace here. We can see it is not a popular keenspace comic, as it is not mentioned in the Alexa report. It must be sub top 50 I guess. Also, the comic is fairly new, having on made 40 or so strips, and has been running for a few months. I do not endorse WP:COMIC, the guidelines state that when this comic reaches the 100 strip barrier, it should have an article. This is wrong, however, it doesn't even meet their incredulously slack criteria. Would not be surprised if it is vanity/advertising. - Hahnchen 00:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete NN --Rogerd 02:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 06:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom Anetode 09:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - As nomination. Oswax 11:28, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ceciliantes

DicDef. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 00:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete neologism. Don't transwiki. --TM ^(talk) 01:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete, article serves no purpose but to disparage its subject Kappa 01:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Rubbish — C Maylett 03:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete "Ownage" was really all it took. Definately should not be transwiki'd. -Nameneko 23:10, 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 keep. H e rmione1980 00:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polynucleotide

DicDef. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 00:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep, already beyond a dicdef, and compare with oligonucleotide next door. Pilatus 01:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep more than a dictionary defintion now and has potential to expand. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep: Significant room for expansion into a good article — C Maylett 04:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep: Zargulon 16:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep: Dito to the above comments. --Ezeu 20:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Good stub now with potential for expansion. Capitalistroadster 23:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep the last sentence makes it slightly more informational than a dic def. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Korean War Educator

Not Nobable. Alexa rank of 1.8 million. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 01:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - nn CLW 06:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable. *drew 11:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Sadly non-notable, though I'm sure they do a worthwhile job (how many kids think M*A*S*H was set in Vietnam?) Oswax 11:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Although their self-appointed task seems well intentioned, non notability desrves nothing shorter than Delete. Shauri 19:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps it can be linked in Korean war? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete content, then Redirect to Vulcan (Star Trek). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Live Long and Prosper

Ad. Vanity. Link promotion. and other sins... Jwissick^(t)^(c) 01:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Vulcan (Star Trek) since Live long and prosper redirects there as well. --TM ^(talk) 01:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per TheMidnighters; I wonder if the Star Trek reference is really the origin/most popular use of the phrase though. --Mysidia (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per above. Current content is... nonencyclopedic. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect terrible article--Rogerd 02:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per TheMignighters. Saberwyn 03:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect per TheMignighters. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as per TheMignighters. I'll add it to my watchlist to make sure the contents aren't restored after the redirect is created. Shauri 19:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione1980 00:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Svetambar

Dic Def. Translation. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 01:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep, notable. Kappa 01:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, it's a religious sect, not just a definition of any word. --TM ^(talk) 01:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Not a dicdef, as context has been added since nomination was made. HollyAm 01:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it may be a sect, but it appears to be non-notable. -- Kjkolb 02:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- On what grounds? Kappa 03:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- On the contrary: Reading the references given in the article, it appears that plenty of people have considered this sect notable enough to have published works dealing with it. We are not short of material from multiple independent secondary sources. Uncle G 13:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, a major sect of a small but significant world religion. --Metropolitan90 03:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep: It's an unfortunately short stub, but plenty of potential for expansion. — C Maylett 04:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Not dic def. utcursch | talk 13:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The article about a relgious sect that is over two millennia old was a speedy deletion candidate at the time of nomination (and had indeed been speedily deleted with that content before) for being a short article with no context (and no main verbs). It has context, references, and whole sentences now. Keep. Uncle G 13:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. I don't see a dicdeft in any place here, and I'd like to read more about the subject. Shauri 19:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Our Jainism article states that it is one of the two major sects of that religion and has existed for more than 2000 years and probably at least a million devotees given that Jainism has 4 million devotees. This article is now a good stub with potential for expansion. Capitalistroadster 23:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep : notable, remember learning about them in school. User:Nichalp/sg 13:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Detective Fork

Totally none notable webcomic, found here, with a massive 5 registered forum members. The article was written by a User:DetectiveFork, who has also mentioned wikipedia on the news section of his site, have a read! I do have to let the inclusionists know that it is verifiable however. - Hahnchen 01:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete NN --Rogerd 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete This really sums up the attitude of the author:

I'm never one to turn down a good hit. Wait, lemme rephrase that. I'm never one to to turn down a good way of getting hits for this Web site. When I found Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia edited by its users, I proceded immediately to create a page for Detective Fork...

I hope that the author understands, wikipedia's purpose is not to provide a forum for creating hits. Once the webcomic is notable, someone else will create the article. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, in the pantry, with the lead piping. TheMadBaron 05:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn, and for trying to use Wikipedia to drive traffic to site CLW 06:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Response - Well, let me address the issues that you've brought up in regards to deleting the entry about my comic. Please understand that I'm often flip in the blog on my site. A lot of what I say there is tongue-in-cheek or exxagerated. I put Detective Fork on Wikipedia because I feel I do a good comic that has depth and will continue for some time. I thought an article on it might be of interest to people who like Web comics. I won't lie and say I mind people following the link to see the comic itself. Another thing you bring up is that there are only five forum members. The forum was put up about a week ago. I do get readers on my site but Detective Fork has a regular group of readers on DrunkDrunk.com and on JellyCreations.com. I don't know what qualifies as "notable" but just have a look at my fan art section to see that a number of people follow the comic and are inspired to do their own artwork based on it. Finally, is it against Wikipedia policy to write an article on something you created? I'm not promoting the hell out of the comic, just providing info on the characters and stories. I sense your decision to delete the article is based more on a dislike of me from what I wrote in my blog and on a perception that Detective Fork is not important enough, not from hard criteria. Would you consider keeping the entry if perhaps I change something about the article you don't like? Please work with me here.

-Kevin

DetectiveFork 21:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

- Comment - I put Detective Fork up for deletion because it hardly has any readers, gaining no Alexa rank at all. What makes your website more notable than every other website out there? It may have a core few fans, but so does every other website in the world. My decision to nominate articles on deletion have nothing to do with feelings towards the author at all, although I must say, placing a link from Cutlery was a bit cheeky. - Hahnchen 21:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

- Comment - That's the point I was making earlier. Detective Fork has a good number of readers from being posted and seen on other sites. You can't judge the readership just by the hits on detectivefork.com. My site is the best resource for the comic, however, and that's why I posted that link. And the Wikipedia entry is for the comic itself, not just the Web page. The reviews I'm given by readers compliment the comic's originality. It was also a nominee for "Best Anthropomorphic Comic" in this year's Web Cartoonists Choice awards. Does Detective Fork get Penny Arcade numbers? No way. But neither do other Web comics you have listed. Looking back, yes, the cutlery thing was a combination of cheek and bad judgement. - DetectiveFork 22:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Does not even fufill the alternate proposal for webcomic inclusion. -Nameneko 23:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment. In regards to the alternate proposal for posting Web comics, I have met the 33 week minimum. I am about a month shy of having 100 comics up. The entry was posted by me but I do not in it wax on about how great my comic is. It is factual. Let me refer you to the part of the guidelines that says, "Remember, however, that these are merely guidelines. Sites that are close to, but still under, these thresholds may also be included on the basis that webcomics customarily grow in size and have a higher likelihood of increasing in readership and, thus, becoming encyclopedic." It all depends on how strict you feel like being, seeing as they are guidelines and not strict rules, after all.

DetectiveFork 00:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

- Reply - I have nothing against your webcomic, I know you want to see it succeed, but Wikipedia should not be used as a promotional tool. You seen to have a pretty good sense of humour about you, and you've not spammed this nomination with constant numerous keep votes. But the problem with the guidelines at WP:COMIC is that they are way too lax, there are some webcomic articles on wikipedia which are even more unnotable than your one, that's true. But we will get round to reviewing them, it is because of the overly lax guidelines that so many have been let in unchallenged. But the reason for my nomination still stands, I don't see anything which lifts your website apart from any other out there. Also, did you know that there is a Wiki for comics? Yours is already there, and it's a great place for it. - Hahnchen 02:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. author has largely admitted that it isnt' widely read. Potential to grow does not equal notability. DirectorStratton 02:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I had seen the listing on Comixpedia, which seemed to show up there automatically after placing the article here. Are you saying that the listing on Comixpedia would remain even if this one is deleted? Also, I acknowledge that the job you've undertaken is to keep Wikipedia credible and that, although the guidelines aren't concrete, most of you have a belief about what the qualifications of a webcomic should be. I don't seem to have won anybody over with my arguments so far and, while I hope they do, the outlook on the Magic 8 Ball is grim. If the entry is deleted, I can only hope my comic gets the kind of hits someday that earns itself back an entry and inspires someone else to pen it. I understand even Penny Arcade started small...DetectiveFork 07:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Reply - It will stay on Comixpedia, where you can add and edit it. When it does gain a popularity and widespread recognition, you can migrate it back over. - 83.151.204.235 14:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fhashality

Not Notable. No google listings. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 01:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete; nonsense created by a serial vandal. Antandrus (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete; because Im sure Ly Tong doesn't want to delete the memory of a painful groin kick in a Vietnamese internment camp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnCage (talk • contribs) 02:05, September 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete junk--Rogerd 02:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Antandrus. HollyAm 02:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Hoax. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 04:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn if even real CLW 06:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Do Not Delete - I seem to remember hearing about this when I saw an interview with Ly Tong when I visited Vietnam several years ago. I doubt this is the name for it, but the story rings a bell FatherSkeel 15:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC) Note: this comment is the first and only contribution to WP by this user. Shauri 19:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete non notable nonsense. Shauri 19:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. -Splash^talk 13:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikichallenge

Tagged for speedy, but doesn't really seem to be one. I don't really think this lives in Wikipedia: space either. -Splash^talk 02:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a speedy deletion candidate, per criterion G4. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikisurfing for details. We have this idea four times over in the project namespace, and this is now the fourth time that a main namespace article with this content has come up at VFD/AFD. Speedy delete. Uncle G 02:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Uncle G. -Nameneko 23:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per Uncle G and the link he provided to precedent. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rose garrett

Likely Hoax checked google Could it be A7 --JAranda | yeah 02:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Fails the google test--Rogerd 03:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: No claim or indication of notability Vanity page? — C Maylett 04:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Fails Google, fails Amazon. Vanity. TheMadBaron 06:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn (Bless - she's only about 12 years old. Or so.) CLW 06:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete per A7. That, and to say it failed the Google test would be an understatement. -Nameneko 23:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete A7 vanity. A novelist that hasn't produced verifiable books is not notable and someone what that many occupations ought to show up on Google regardless of the book not showing. By the way, she appears to be 21/22. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 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 Move to Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt - done. Ral 315 W_S 02:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JARCE

nn journal for nn group Delete --JAranda | yeah 03:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep seems to be a legitimate organization. They have published a book sold on amazon. --Rogerd 03:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Move and redirect to Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt. This appears to be a legitimate scholarly journal, published for over 40 years; I looked up three university library catalogs, and two of them subscribe to this journal. --Metropolitan90 04:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a legitimate scientific journal with an ISSN. We should have an article for the simple reason that our articles might very well cite the journal with {{journal reference}} and the like. As per Wikipedia:naming conventions (acronyms), Metropolitan90 is right on the money. (See AJAR.) Keep and Rename. Uncle G 14:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename per Metropolitan90. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename and redirect per Metropolitan90 Amren ^(talk) 23:42, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Richards

Appears to be vanity; article does not establish notability. This person doesn't even appear to be the most notable "Dave Richards" in the software industry; another guy by that name is VP of RealNetworks (unless they're the same guy, but their info doesn't seem to match.) Paul 03:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Neither Netmanage or Librados have a current article.--Rogerd 03:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 06:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn. Google search results for Dave Richards+Enterprise Software+Librados gives two hits [5], and he is only mentioned at one, which is a year and a half old. Shauri 20:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep See [6] librados site also try David Richards+Enterprise Software+Librados gives 700 hits. [User:Sergai|Sergai]] 15:31, 2 October 2005 (Moscow)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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) 00:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Healing trauma for activists

This is a how-to article and an ad for a website and book. Any useful content is already covered by other articles. -- Kjkolb 03:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not an instruction manual chowells 03:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Chowells. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 03:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
"What Does It Have To Do With Activists?" Excellent question. Inadequate answer. As such, delete. TheMadBaron 06:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - advertising CLW 06:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ad and an insult to medical science. Shauri 20:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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) 00:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aryeh Malkiel Kotler

Seems to be a dean of a very small private college. Not notable. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 03:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete poor quality article and subject is not notable. chowells 03:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 06:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn, poorly written. Shauri 20:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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) 00:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BenLadner.com

Not notable. rank of 2.6 million. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 03:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom chowells 03:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NatusRoma 04:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 06:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN. *drew 12:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn ad. Shauri 20:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn ≈ jossi ≈ 03:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. *drew 09:45, 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) 00:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Kearns

Seems to be a hoax. No "Neil Kearns" in Imdb. Ben Nevis 04:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Without some references backing up the 1995 Emmy Award claim, I've got to assume it's not legitimate information. — C Maylett 04:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - as per C Maylett CLW 06:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - dates and ages don't match, and he still "lives" with his wife depite having died three years ago. Monicasdude 16:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. If he doesn't appear in the IMDB, it's very unlikely he received an Emmy. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:28, 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. Ral 315 W_S 02:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced Placement European Civilization

As this google search shows, the term is primarily used as the name of a course at a few high schools. It corresponds to the European History Advanced Placement Examination, which itself does not merit an article. NatusRoma 03:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Might qualify for speedy since there's barely any content. --TM ^(talk) 05:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - We have a page for Advanced Placement. Do we need an article for every coarse (sic)? Oswax 11:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Provides no information. Garfunkel4life 23:30, 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 - 9 delete (including nom)/3 keep(including 1 categorize, 1 keep, and 1 merge} Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity carpenter

This phrase is (virtually?) never used. Obvious neologism. --zenohockey 04:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete: A list of celebrity carpenters — Geech! — C Maylett 04:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
And no mention of Jesus. Sheesh. Delete. TheMadBaron 06:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - list-cruft-tastico! CLW 06:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I've added Jesus Christ (and Harrison Ford). Now delete this still pretty pointless list. Vizjim 19:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, borders nonsense. Shauri 20:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Weak Delete--Make a category! Someone should just make a category for "carpenters" (and possibly for woodworkers, more generally) and then put all of these folks in it. I'd have less objection to this article if it were simply called "list of famous carpenters" (I have added my hero, Roy Underhill to the list.) Crypticfirefly 05:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as preposterous listcruft. And no category, please. MCB 06:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Perfectly manageable as there's few famous carpenters. This list also contains info what program the television carpenters are famous for - something category can't do. Just because there's not pop idols doesn't mean it's cruft. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- While a category can't tell you what shows these folks are famous for, if someone were to create an article for each one, those articles could identify the shows. If they aren't notable enough to deserve an article, are they notable enough to be on the list? Crypticfirefly 02:40, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge to Carpenter.--Pharos 03:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
keep please agree with mgm Yuckfoo 21:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
delete - Hahnchen 03:36, 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 04:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martin J. Watson

No claims to notabilty. No google referances. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 04:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete: No real claims to much of anything — C Maylett 04:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Allmusic states he was a member of The Yachts but as you can see we don't even have a page for them, so this article is pretty useless. Even if someone makes a page for the band, he doesn't seem notable enough outside of it to warrant his own article. --TM ^(talk) 05:31, 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.

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 23:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Super Wrestlers

Seems to be a hoax. If there really was a show of this name, it didn't feature the cast list given, which is a mixture of real wrestlers and other celebrities less known for their wrestling. Ben Nevis 04:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete hoax. --TM ^(talk) 05:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, hoax. IMDB doesn't have an entry with this title [7]. Shauri 20:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Apparent hoax, though there was a line of WWF action figures by this name. 23skidoo 17:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Guff

dicdef. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 04:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki to wiktionary. --TM ^(talk) 05:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete poor quality dicdef. --TM ^(talk) 01:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Don't transwiki, it's not a good definition. TheMadBaron 06:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, poorly written dicdef. Shauri 20:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Poorly written, not fit for transwiki'ing. -Nameneko 23:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Previously nominated, see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Guff --AllyUnion (talk) 05:15, 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) 00:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blue-gray

No content, no possible content, nowhere to redirect to. dbenbenn | talk 04:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, as this is an obvious portmanteau of existing colors (well, I know it's not really a portmanteau, but you know what I mean). -- BD2412 ^talk 05:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete We've just been through this on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles concensus seemed to be that independent references were necessary. Dlyons493 Talk 07:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Actually blue-gray is a commonly used name - 2 million hits from google, plus another 1.5 million if you spell it blue-grey [8]. [9] Astrokey44 11:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Try adding quotation marks to that search. And that colour isn't blue-grey, or even blue-gray, it's teal. Grargh. Delete. Proto t c 13:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. per nom. Google hits are almost certainly an incidental conjunction of two common words. Marskell 18:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom, unless someone wants all possible color combinations listed as articles on Wikipedia. Such entries make Wikipedia useless. Groeck 22:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unsourced and unverifiable. Also make sure to remove the link in List of colors if Delete wins the vote. ESkog 23:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to U.S. Civil War. (uh, only kidding). Delete. MCB 06:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete (same as what Marskell said) --Hottentot

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 23:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pale blue-purple

No content, no possible content, redirecting to Blue is not appropriate. dbenbenn | talk 04:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete: There should be a speedy delete option for patently pointless and insignificant — C Maylett 04:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, we don't need articles on every possible shade or combination. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete We've just been through this on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles concensus seemed to be that independent references were necessary. Dlyons493 Talk 07:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Yeah, I noticed that too. Even so, it seems silly to me. There are millions of conceivable names for colors. Let's see: pale blue-purple, pale purple-blue, extra pale purple-blue, extra pale blue-purple, medium pale blue-purple, extra pale purple-blue, pale purplish blue, extra-light bluish lavendar, bluish-purple extra dark, medium dark, purple-blue, etc., etc. — C Maylett 16:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  - ... Pale robin egg blue, Pale olive-yellow Dark coral, Pale orange, Antique violet, pale ochre, pale raw umber, dark tangerine, pale carmine ... Uncle G 20:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Strange name for a colour, 1470 googles, but many of them have a comma between like pale blue, purple and arent really about that name. Astrokey44 12:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
And this one is violet. Delete. Proto t c 13:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, Wikipedia is not a compilation of nn paint samples. Shauri 20:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as Blue-gray above. ESkog 23:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete content-free color articles. MCB 06:18, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brown-red

No content, no possible content, nowhere to redirect to. dbenbenn | talk 04:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, we don't need articles on every possible shade or combination. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete We've just been through this on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles concensus seemed to be that independent references were necessary. Dlyons493 Talk 07:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete This colour is ochre. Or burnt umber. Proto t c 13:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as Blue-gray above. ESkog 23:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete content-free color articles. MCB 06:18, 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 15:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adobe (color)

No content, no possible content, redirecting to Yellow is not appropriate. dbenbenn | talk 04:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge verifiable content into adobe (which really should say at least something about the typical color of the material). If nothing to merge, then redirect. -- BD2412 ^talk 05:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I cannot find anything, apart from mirrors of our own List of colors article, that states that "adobe" is the name of this particular colour, and adobe (the material) is not a single uniform colour anyway (see the images at the foot of the article). What would be a better approach would be for adobe to have colour pictures, which indeed it has. Uncle G 18:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge as per BD2412 ^talk Dlyons493 07:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as Blue-gray above. I don't see any value in redirecting Adobe (color) --> Adobe. ESkog 23:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete content-free color articles. MCB 06:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete content-free colour articles. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:27 PM EST

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Walrus Man and Mighty Tighty Rhymefish

Not notable. Not found on music sites. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 04:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

should also include the redirect Walrus man and mighty tighty rhymefish. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 04:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete both nn band vanity. --TM ^(talk) 05:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Googling produces lots of results, but the band fails to satisfy any notability guidelines. TheMadBaron 08:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn CLW 12:10, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One Off Engraved Signs

Not notable. Just spam Jwissick^(t)^(c) 04:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete: Commerical business promotion — C Maylett 04:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete ad. --TM ^(talk) 05:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advert. TheMadBaron 06:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - advertisement CLW 12:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Obviously "Please don't try to promote your product or business" is too inconspicuously placed in WP:YFA, because I can't believe it's hard to understand... Dpbsmith (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Look on the bright side - when I saw this on AFD I assumed it was more listcruft! Grutness...wha? 07:33, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Boivin

Fixing unsuccessful AfD nomination only. No vote on my part. Metropolitan90 06:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete – No Google hits other than Wikipedia and a Journalism major at Johnson State College. In other words, a hoax. — Kjammer ⌂ 06:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - I have been told by the vandal *in person* that the article was misinformation... and I'm the noob who unsuccessfully tried to list it for deletion :P Nihiltres 16:27, 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. Content is already on Wiktionary. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ripped off

Although "ripped off" is a common phrase, this article is no more than a dictionary definition. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki to wiktionary. --TM ^(talk) 05:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete --TM ^(talk) 03:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete This already exists in Wiktionary as "rip off." — Kjammer ⌂ 06:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Dicdef. TheMadBaron 08:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki to wiktionary, but because it's already there, delete chowells 16:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per TM ≈ jossi ≈ 03:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 04:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Levulan

Not notable. Please examine previous version as well. Delete. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Why marked for deletion? I wrote the article from scratch.

This is not advertising. I recently underwent Levulan Therapy and there is almost no information about it available on the web. The treatment is brand new and very effective at treating both acne and scars. As a longstanding acne sufferer, I can promise you that people will be happy to learn about this procedure. I wrote a long article about my experience at [[10]] and posted the beginning of the article on wikipedia. I am willing to post entire article and remove link, if that is causing the deletion.

Delete advertising. --TM ^(talk) 05:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but cleanup. It seems to be a notable treatment. -- Kjkolb 05:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Spam. Karl Stas 08:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. Not notable.--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 10:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertising. *drew 12:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment: it gets 122,000 Google results, which appear relevant, so I assumed it must be notable. Maybe not. We do have an article for Retin-A. -- Kjkolb 20:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - [11] seems pretty real to me. Perhaps it should be moved to Levulan Photodynamic Therapy and a redirect placed here. ESkog 23:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep This needs serious rewriting but is real enough. (At least the prescription information for the physician is decidedly non-crackpot. Pilatus 12:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment This article was created by an agressive spammer. He's reverted the page back to an addvertisement, complete with price. He's created another article for the same product, as well as linking them to Acne several times. Interestingly, the current Levulan article mentions that it's illegal to market it as an acne treatment which is probably why it's being advertised here. Kill this with fire. Make a page for the parent company and make this one line inside it if we have to, but I still say kill it with fire.
brenneman^(t)^(c) 01:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ban the asshole. Is this Astroturfing or enthusiasm that the anon is rid of his acne? Pilatus 01:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry. Ban him if necessary. The article is now hopefully a decent stub. If this gets reverted again a ban is in order. As far as the "illegal marketing" goes, I presume the anonymous author refers to off-label use, which must not be advertised. Pilatus 01:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- I wrote the article, and it is not an advertisment. I'm not even selling the service! As for reverting the article, all I did is add more information. You have a 3 sentence stub that provides no useful information. I underwent Levulan Therapy, it made a huge difference for me, and I wrote a long article about it. All of the information may not be as cleanly written and edited as you like, but it is accurate and useful information. I suffered from Acne for 10 years and this helped with the problem, so I wanted to share the information. Here is the original article I wrote :www.wasauna.com/levulan.html - does this look like an advertisment to you? Maybe the link to the doctor who treated me seems like an advertisment, but it was on my personal story website, not on the wikipedia page. -Dave

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 19:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

I have nominated this page for deletion for the following reasons:

1. Jimbo Wales gave his word to me that this page would be protected from vandalism and that he would take actions to prevent wikipedia from being used as a platform for libel and posting of sealed court documents.

WALES POST 1: I did agree with Mr. Merkey to take down some vandalism which has been posted here about him, and temporarily protect the articles while we sort out what's going on.Some really vile stuff was posted about him in some of these articles by anonymous ip numbers -- he seemed to think that it was one of our admins, but I explained otherwise. What I can safely say is that Wikipedia should not libel anyone, and that our normal standards of good conduct are expected of everyone.--Jimbo Wales 22:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: the above has now been clarified to be a correct quotation of a post made by Jimbo Wales in this edit, in response to this edit by 67.137.28.189 (talk · contribs).

Nomination Withdrawn Based upon the assurances of the Wiki Editors, and their prompt, diligent and COURTEOUS commentary on this page, and their acknowledgement of the Mr. Wales Views and directives. My nomination of this page for deletion is hereby withdrawn.

Keep Jimbo Wales promises are most certainly going to be honored by these folks. Gadugi 01:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Merkey --fvw * 04:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete not because of what Gadugi wrote above, but simply because there is no assertion of Merkey's notability. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep for reasons given by fvw. Merkey appears to be a public figure. His feeling that he might have to withdraw from wikipedia due to perceived conflict of interest is irrelevent.Brandon39 08:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep for all the same old reasons. Vizjim 09:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep per fvw. Also reading that Talk page made me feel stupider by several IQ points and I see no reason why others shouldn't share my pain. Possibly even speedy, there's enough bad faith flying around that article to fill several intelligent design committees. --Last Malthusian 10:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep because Jeff is certainly notable, and because empty threats are not a reason to delete anything. As for fear of vandalism, Wikipedia can deal with that as it can with all vandalism. Last but not least, the page can use some objective editing and citing of sources; I believe that the only source of the military awards so far is Mr. Merkey himself. --MJ 10:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I will scan and post my DD214 and Orders granting the awards from the Secretary of the Army. 67.137.28.187 23:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to see Jimbo Wales' assurances in his own words. Could someone post the actual text of his promises, or a pointer to them? Jimbo sometimes makes very carefully qualified statements, and people sometimes engage in wishful thinking when relating what he said in their own words. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: As requested by me, the relevant text has been quoted above, in the paragraph, "WALES POST 1". The original posting appears in Talk:Jeffrey_Vernon_Merkey which I ought to have checked myself. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment I just reviewed the changes since the page was unprotected and I don't see anything that looks to me like "vandalism" by the "SCOX lynch mob" or anything else. All I see is some wikification by User:Jonathunder, who is not a vandal, and the addition and then the removal of a {{vprotect}} tag by an anon, 67.177.35.211, followed by the insertion of an {{afd}} tag. Gadugi, what exactly is your complaint?

I can easily believe that Jimbo promised in a general that way the page would be protected from vandalism, but I find it unlikely that he promised that the content of any page would remain indefinitely under the control of any single individual. It is appropriate to ask the Wikipedian community to exercise special vigilance on a page, but not to ask that nobody ever be allowed to change it, or that all changes be preapproved by a single person. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep whilst vandalism is unfortunate it can usually be controlled, and is not a reason to delete stuff chowells
Keep. Jeff Merkey has made himself a very notable individual in the SCO-Linux controversies by making an offer to buy a snapshot of the Linux kernel to be licensed under the BSD license. Such people often want to either have exclusive control over their article, so that it excludes anything they would rather people didn't know about them, or to delete it because they won't possess exclusive control over it. However, this is not a privilege we have ever extended to anyone; as for Mr. Merkey's claims that he received a personal promise from Jimbo Wales that he would be given such control, I quote from the Findings of Fact in Novell v. Timpanogos Research Group, Inc.: "... this statement is another example of Merkey's penchant for self-serving, separate reality, dishonesty ... While it is human nature for each of us to put our own spin on events which we observe ... Merkey nonetheless regularly exaggerates or lies in his comments to others about events happening around him. It is as though he is creating his own separate reality." Clearly the article should be kept, and yes, a careful eye should be kept on it to protect it from vandalism. However, the history shows that the vandalism it is most likely to experience is Mr. Merkey himself removing documented facts he finds unfavorable, either under his username Gadugi or under a number of anon IPs. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment If vandalism can be controlled, I have no objection to this page. As for quoting from a 9 year old ruling, anyone who believes that mouldy piece of fiction written by Novell's stooge judge speaks for itself. It reads like an astrology report. If you are going to quote from it, please also quote from the orders removing the judge from the case by the Utah State Legislature and the Judicial Conduct Commission. You are free to quote facts, just remember there are two sides to every story, and you should present NPOV which is to present both sides. Also be advised that some portions of these court documents are sealed. Gadugi 17:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Protect yourself from falsehood This is a pearl indeed from the talk page of Antaeus Feldspar. It certainly applies here: I used to believe (and tell others that I believed) that "When your goal is to act in an ethical and moral manner, your first and foremost enemy is always yourself." I now know I was wrong. If you have the basic desire to act ethically in the first place, then you have to take second place in line to a whole lot of other people out there who can do a lot better of a job twisting your good intentions into bad deeds than you can. To be hoist by one's own petard is not necessarily the easiest or most common way to go, only the one with the most irony. Beware of approaching a problem by trying to find its identifying characteristics. What is truly needed, and what should be the goal of your search, is distinguishing characteristics. gadugi 17:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Anaeus and Gadugi/Jeff, let's keep this constructive and OT. What happens outside of WikiPedia should be kept out until it has bearing on an article itself. Jeff, you are also not helping your own case by making unsupported allegations about anyone criticising you, and besides, it has no bearing on this discussion. Just not stepping into such discussions would be even better. --MJ 18:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC).

If someone has been described by a federal judge in a Findings of Fact as having a tendency to create his own separate reality, I think it is perfectly on-topic to bring this up in the context of certain promises supposedly made to that person by Jimbo Wales -- for which we have only that person's word that said promises were ever made, and what their content was. Of course, I think Mr. Merkey's attempt to impersonate Jimbo Wales rather supersedes any documentation I could provide to indicate that his word is not exactly to be taken on faith. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you are being a uncharitable in your assertion that this was an attempted impersonation, the comment is part of a comment by Jimbo Wales from the articles talk page [12], he did also leave the date of 13 September in place from the original comment. What he failed to make clear was that he was partially quoting and who was doing the quoting. (The item is missing is the text is the opening sentence "Obviously that isn't what I said." in response to Gadugi's original characterisation of his discussion with Jimbo.) I do agree that it would be helpful if Gadugi logged in consistently rather than having multiple "accounts", and if he'd simply provided a link to the original discussion. As it stands though I'm not sure what help the comment is, it doesn't seem to promise any special treatment, just business as usual.

I have dismissed the Federal Lawsuit as of today (2:05CV521) [[13]] to help remove any impediments to my contributions to Wiki and other areas of the industry. At this point, I will be posting ALL of the documents to merkeylaw.com. This will paint the whole situation with the broadest brush strokes and allow folks the freedom to tell the WHOLE story, not just the distorted side of the facts protrayed by Novell. Gadugi 19:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It is clear that Jimbo Wales did not promise that the page would be protected indefinitely. What he did was give his assurance to Gadugi that Wikipedia policy did not tolerate the sort of treatment he had received. I am putting Jeffrey Vernon Merkey on my watchlist, to help revert vandalism promptly, and I hope everyone else reading this will do likewise. Gadugi should not expect that the page will never be edited or that he will like every edit that is made, but is entitled to insist that everything said be factual and neutral. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Lynch Mob has descended from the maw of hell itself. Gadugi 01:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Merkey is certainly notable. In fact, his frequent attempts to block WP from mentioning him in a way he fanatasizes as libelous is probably notable in itself, since it makes him a public figure (albeit of mockery). Just check out Groklaw to see how public Merkey is. It's funny for someone to try to AfD an article about themselves too, IMO. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, extraordinarily non-notable to be getting so many keep votes. Everyking 07:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

There are not very many AfD (or formerly VfD) topics that I am already pretty well familiar with prior to following the AfD to the page. Sometimes once I find out what the thing is, I vote keep, but in this case I was already aware of Merkey's noteriety before clicking on the link (actually, more so before than after... the page wasn't very good before; but I think I cleaned it up quite a bit, despite Merkey's own vandalism of the page about him). YMMV, and obviously, you'll know different thing in advance. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

keep please why are we trying to erase this that does not even make sense Yuckfoo 05:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep, Information is true and a accurate description of Merkey person and behviour. His actions and behaviour caused much commotion and problems, so it is inportant enough to have an article about him. 217.122.95.222 21:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC) (this IP address has made a small number of edits, all either here, on the Merkey article, or on Talk:Cherokee where Merkey has edited)
keep But we need to add an article on the fact that Jeffrey Vernon Merkey was single handedly responsible for the abomination known as Disco in the 70's. He also may have played a role in the invention of the Leisure suit, however this cannot be proven because he succesfully got the 'Disco vs Good Taste' court records sealed. User:66.15.214.167 (this IP address has made exactly two edits: one to Merkey page, and this non-serious comment)

Keep, but scrub heavily. This article has a lot of folks point of view and the talk page shows some intellectual snobbery from some of the contributors. Just stick to the facts, they are interesting enough all on their own. This merkey turkey is quite a character, and very entertaining. CowboyLawyer 05:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC) (sockpuppet account)

Hey folks: While I also think this article should be kept, posting joking votes from semi-sockpuppet addresses is not in very good faith. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

Even better: This is a Merkey sockpuppet evading his block. --MJ^(☎|@|C) 17:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC).

Keep. Jeff is very important in the SCO Group related matters. --Jannex 23:25, 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 Keep. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Synesthesia (Buck 65)

Sounds like a review and even says so on the discussion page. It says it's supposed to be edited soon, but the last (and only) edit was about a week and a half into August. Nameneko 06:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep and rewrite Albums have their own page. --TM ^(talk) 06:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. True, albums have their place in Wikipedia, but there's no need to retain this review. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to conform to Wikistandards for album pages. --TM ^(talk) 18:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep, contains usable facts. Kappa 12:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep following TM's rewrite. Cnwb 04:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
keep please this is rewritten now so we cannot erase this Yuckfoo 21:56, 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 23:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Forserious

Delete neologism. TM ^(talk) 06:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, " First used in the Chatterbox Game Show forums in 2005.". Very recent neologism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Sjakkalle. Shauri 20:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Screw you guys
Delete neologism Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:04, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doom grotto

Delete nn band vanity. No allmusic page, their homepage is a myspace. TM ^(talk) 06:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - nn CLW 08:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per above. Could be a borderline speedy, since content is minimal and seems intended to push traffic to the web site listed. Friday (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN band vanity. Cnwb 04:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ginormous. --AllyUnion (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ginormous

Delete neologism. As article states "it is a made up word". TM ^(talk) 06:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete neologism. — Kjammer ⌂ 07:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Not a neologism. Put a {{wi}} there. Kappa 12:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a dicdef, but it's not a neologism by any means. As this article from ABC (Australia) says, despite winning the Miriam-Webster "new word" competition, in fact the word has been in the OED for years, and has been around since at least the mid-20th century. It was used to me here in Britain when I was little (late 1970s), and my parents certainly didn't invent it. 325,000 Google hits, too. Thus, move to Wiktionary. Loganberry (Talk) 12:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Wiktionary already had a definition, and this has no hope of being anything but a dictdef. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, dictdef already in Wiktionary. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or 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 23:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vitiation

Delete dicdef. Already at wiktionary. TM ^(talk) 06:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:02, 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 with Gogeta. I will place a merge tag on the article; anyone should feel free to be bold and perform the merge as they see fit. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Super Saiyan 4 Gogeta

A much as I like Dragon Ball, there is no way a character gets a new article when it reaches a new level. otherwise we would have:

Goku
Super Saiyan Goku
Super Saiyan 2 Goku
Super Saiyan 3 Goku
Super Saiyan 4 Goku
Vegeta
Super Saiyan Vegeta
etc you get the point

Super Saiyan Plough 06:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Gogeta, per nom. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Gogeta if there's anything worthwhile. Dlyons493 07:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment: This article is mainly a description of why he is the most powerful character. This isn't even proven, and personally i think it's incorrect. Everything notable is already covered in Gogeta. Super Saiyan Plough 07:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: IT IS PROVEN AND IS CORRECT, I think we Japanese know our animations. If in any doubts, consult the Japanese production or Mr. Toriyama (he did take part in the writing/advisor). Please also check Japanese web pages, etc. If he is not the most powerful, who is?? Broly?? Super Saiyan 2 Gojita?? In the Japanese version, SSJ4 Gogita has been mentioned to be the most powerful as well as One star Shenron being the most powerful villain. SSJ4 Gojita deserves a separate page. The author only wrote it for the benefit of the western world which is bombarded with their own interpretation of what or what not Japanese animation should be and with their own dubbing of the Japanese originals. There are way too many kids out there who think watching a few of our productions would make them the expert of our products!

As mentioned, the article was written for the benefit of the western world, if they do not desire authentic information, then let Wikipedia clouded with false (westernised) information and let's called it CRAPedia!

Also, much of the information on article Gogeta were inserted by me to the original article, that's why one would think there is duplicated information. I am interested in providing authentic information. Readers who have no desire for such information may choose to ignore this article "Super Saiyan 4 Gogeta".

"Super Saiyan 4 Gogeta" is now a stand-alone article. Articles "Super Saiyan 4 Gogeta" and "Gogeta" are no longer cross-linked, they are separate entities.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 as rewritten by User:S33k3r. — JIP | Talk 04:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Standard (warez)

Wikipedia is not a text repository, not even when the text is in image format. --fvw * 06:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete I don't know what this is, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Sapient 11:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep New version by S33k3r worthy of inclusion. Sapient 22:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete if not rewritten - an article could be made about this (I think) but this isn't it. Secret london 21:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - appears to be one hack/crack group's "standards" for releasing files. Not encyclopedic. ESkog 23:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep (original: Do not delete): What's everyone's obsession with perfection? Yes, I agree with Secretlondon, to an extent, that to be in here, a piece of information needs to be presented contextually, but why not label it as being in severe need of revision, as opposed to removing information which is a) rare and b) very interesting and releveant to exploration of "warez" culture? Again, just because some information is "not encyclopedic" doesn't mean that it shouldn't belong in an encyclopedia, especially one with as many limitless capabilities as Wikipedia. We don't remove a picture of a green apple because it's notr epresentative of apples in general, do we? Finally, let's take Sapient's cue and describe "what it is," instead of killing off valuable information. NeoThe1 01:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep This article is appendix for Warez and Topsite. Instead of including this load of text into the articles, it's made as separate page, for sake of clarity. Reason for text to image is, that standards are ratified as they are, the text itself cannot be changed, even if it sounds silly or contains errors. New revisions to standards should replace the old images. S33k3r 15:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I see where you are going with this, but Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not states: Wikipedia articles are not.... 3. Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Does this not fall foul here, in its current state? Are these standards accessible on an external web-site and as such be referenced as an external link? If this article were an explanation of the standards, how they are arrived at, how they have developed and their significance, then I would consider that encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion. As it stands, I'm afraid I'll have to stick with my original opinion. Sapient 22:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article to more wiki-like style, and tagged it as stub.

S33k3r 11:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Your new version is much improved and a worthy start. I've tagged it with the wikify tag to assist, and changed my vote accordingly. Thanks for your work on this. Sapient 22:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep rewrite is muuuuuuuuuuuuuch (think I added enough "u"'s to that :) better ALKIVAR™ 01:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think you're a few short, but yes, much better, thanks. Keep. --fvw * 01:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: thank god for these standards, lest warez get a bad name. -- Kjkolb 03:22, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FUTUREPIG

A webcomic of no importance or significance. Alexa doesn't even rank it, and Google gets about 51 unique hits. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, non-notable. --fvw * 06:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonnotable web comic. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn. The author bio looks like vanity to me... CLW 08:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - as above - Hahnchen 18:27, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ObjAsm32

This article lacks encyclopedic infromation and reads like an advertisement. — Kjammer ⌂ 07:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - advert, even signed off by the ObjAsm32 team CLW 08:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Advertisement. *drew 11:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Stay. New content _{Unsigned by Biterider, the only contributer to the article. — Kjammer ⌂ 07:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)}
_{Stay. Very good article! I'm professional programmer and by this article I discover for self the new approach of OOP (Object Oriented Programming) implementation. Undoubtedly, this is the new way in programming world! Thanks for sharing this article. --UKV 14:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)}

_{UKV's only two edits are to this AFD discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)}

_{Delete OOP is hardly new. No indication that this product is particualrly notable. DES ^(talk) 19:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)}
_{Stay. I don't think so. OOP per se is not new but it seems to be new for assembler programmers. I'm user of ObjAsm32 and in my opinion it is the best programming low level programming approach. --MarkPP 08:07, 01 October 2005 (UTC)}

_{Note - The preceding text was written by MarkPP (talk • contribs), whose only edit was this discussion. The signature links to a different user. — Kjammer ⌂ 07:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)}

_{Stay. ObjAsm32 is much more than an OOP model. It combines the newest COM/DCOM, OCX servers, OleDB, etc. technology with the well known OOP model at assembler level. ObjAsm32 beats all known code in speed and size. I think that this is important enough to keep an eye on it. -- Biterider 09:30, 01 October 2005 (UTC) _{the preceding text was written by 194.230.218.109 (talk • contribs). — Kjammer ⌂ 07:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)}}
Stay. I agree with Biterider and have to say about exception handling (TRY/CATCH) that supported by ObjAsm32 too. It's very well facility, like modern High Level Language (C++, Java, etc.) it presents for assembler now. It's great! Thanks ObjAsm32 again! --UKV 10:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC) _{The second vote by UKV (talk • contribs) in this discussion — Kjammer ⌂ 16:54, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ruzbeh

not encyclopaedic content, see talk page.Behdad 08:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I can't believe they even have definitions of persian words in wikipedia.--Exir Kamalabadi^Esperanza 10:12, 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. 05:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Information Technology Channel

The article is started by the owner of the website/channel. Is not neutral. Self-promotion. Google test fails. See talk page. Behdad 08:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to draw everybody's attention to User:Sina's vote, he's saying the channel does not exist anymore. So it started sometime in 2004, and doesn't exist in mid 2005. Instead of saying "notable for me", please think about it, is wikipedia your reference for checking the truth behind content on wikipedia? So far Sina is the only one that has commented based on the existence of this channel in real world. —behdad (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that was my vote and I don't see any necessity for analysing my voting record or how I am voting.--Sina 23:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not analysing your vote, but highlighting the fact that you mentioned in your vote record. —behdad (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Needs NPOVing, but TV stations are automatically notable, surely. --Last Malthusian 10:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Even a private TV station started last year in a non-English language? Behdad 10:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

What's so private about it? And what on earth does the language have to do with it? It's not even that bad a page when you consider other self-promotion pages - its main neutrality problems are the apparently inflated viewing figures and that photo, both of which I've now removed. --Last Malthusian 11:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I should translate the website and put it on the talk page. The private thing is that this channel has the photo of one man on the front page, team and "Live" pages are "under construction", instead the list of DVDs for sale works. And on the front page you will notice the "Virtual University, coming soon." In fact I will be happy enough if someone confirm that he/she can actually watch this 24-hour program on satellite. The information for that is also available at the front page. I don't have the facilities. Thanks. Behdad 14:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Information Technology Channel (ITC) is the first 24-hour TV channel in the Persian language with the aim of teaching computer science. I'm not surprised a Google search doesn't yield much since it's Persian, but Malthusian is right. This is pretty clearly notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have a Persian name. Behdad 11:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep and feel appalled at Behdad's WP:BIAS against non-English topics. Kappa 12:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with non-English, I'm native/expert Persian and hang around Persian and Iranian content. Behdad 14:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith, eh? I don't see any indication that Behdad is biased against Persian topics. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep - proponent of deletion has the same opportunity to improve this article as anyone else has. Andy Mabbett 13:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Right. But quite like that wp is not a website-directory, I'm not convinced that this ITC is worth an article. In this case in fact it's factuality is under question for me. The web site (quite like the original version of the article at the time I filed deletion) claims "ITC is the first IT network in the world that has helped millions of people in the world towards better eduacation." [[14]] (translated from Persian.) I'm not really sure it airs 24. Behdad 14:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep notable enough for me, but needs a bit of a cleanup chowells 16:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable on a number of levels. Needs a bit of clean-up. 23skidoo 17:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No longer exist.--Sina 14:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Can you clarify please, so the broadcast does not exist anymore on the air?
  - I just voted, Not only broadcast the whole channel does not exist anymore.--Sina 11:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
keep please it seems notable to me and we need to avoid our biases Yuckfoo 23:54, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy of Life

Completely POV and non-encyclopedic. Mrcurly 08:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete ramblings CLW 08:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Being badly written is not grounds for deletion. Banno 07:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete & redirect to Michel Henry Anetode 09:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That would be POV. Banno 07:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep - this is an outstanding example of bad philosophy and could easily become the Wiki's own Timecube [15] Banno 12:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per above. Piecraft 15:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't need its own timecube. What Wikipedia needs are articles that are verifiable and not original research. This article fails those tests, so delete -Satori ^(talk) 15:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It could only count as POV or OR if it made sense, or indeed meant something. You give it far too much credit. Banno 07:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This is an essay, not an article. A redirect of this title to Michel Henry would be surprising, and a bad thing. Content could be merged there if useful, though. Friday (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, it could only be an essay if it was coherent. It isn't, so it ain't. Banno 07:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge into Michel Henry. Owen× ☎ 18:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Satori. -- Kjkolb 20:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Groeck 22:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Satori. -Nameneko 01:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. This article is only a stub that needs to be expanded. It is clearly easier to destroy than to create something of constructive. I have added some titles to clarify the content and a rough outline of the philosophical history of the concept of life. The personal points of view should probably be removed ? Philippe Audinos 21:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Then we would have an article very similar to Meaning of life. Upon reflection, perhaps move the relevant content to Meaning of Life, and the salvageable Henry bit to Michel Henry. Then redirect to Meaning of life - Mr Curly 17:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the redirection idea. The philosophy section in Meaning of Life should cover it. Still 22:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete not useful.--Guitarist6987876 04:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Strong agree with Banno per above. Mashford 22:28, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MC Radiation

no notability...vanity page? Stezton 09:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Not notable. Only Google hit is his own web site. Sapient 11:30, 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) 05:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chownifull

Fictional cookies on forums are not encyclopedic. delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Delete patent nonsense. Anetode 11:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Speddy delete, nonsense. feydey 11:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nn nonsense CLW 12:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete right away. Shauri 20:53, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michigan Decency Action Council

There is nothing notable about it; it is just a local organisation of no great importance, about which there is nothing more to be said. Phronima 11:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep "Michigan Decency Action Council" got 200,000 hits on yahoo and 166,000 on google. It appears to be a significant lobbying organization in the state of Michigan; I noticed some of the hits were places where the organization was listed in bills before the state legislature.Brandon39 11:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I get 103 Google hits when searching for the phrase, 58 of which are unique. The organization looks like a very local lobbying outfit. Delete Pilatus 12:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Pilatus, unless someone can show membership is significant. Owen× ☎ 18:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete 61 hits on Google for me. Groeck 22:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete 104 hits on Google for me (what larks!). I suspect that my village's (pop. c.700) parish council would get almost that many... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:24, 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 no consensus. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wilikaiłą

The author states that it was mentioned only once in one peace treaty. I would say that makes it non-notable, therefore; subject to delete --SoothingR 11:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say a Duke of Lithuania is entitled to an article here. Altogether the entry looks more like a candidate for cleanup; sources are missing, for a start. Keep Pilatus 12:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I too think that dukes are of such high nobility that they become notable, but I'm not at all sure that this subject is verifiable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- The Latinized form Viligaila is more frequently used. Here he is mentioned on a website by the Lithuanian government that looks trustworthy. Off to Cleanup, as I said! Pilatus 13:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Alright then, keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rename. feydey 18:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It looks like he is only mentioned in one historical chronicle, so article can never grow beyond stub. DirectorStratton 03:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- So what? The Realencyclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft has an entry on every single person that was mentioned anywhere in the literature until 500 AD. Naturally, a fair bit of those are short, short stubs. It's not the Duke's fault that in his time his country was on the margins of civilization. Pilatus 11:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. It's not my fault that I didn't become famous because I was abducted (take Claudia Melchers and Arjan Erkel for examples). A lack of resources is not an excuse to let someone into the encyclopedia. Nobody would ever be interested in a duke who was only once vaguely mentioned. And giving the notification in that German encyclopedia as an excuse to have an article on this guy is also not applicable; this is Wikipedia. We have our own standards. --SoothingR 14:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- As far as I understand it, the general policy on Wikipedia is that articles which can never expand beyond a stub should not be articles but be included somewhere else. It doesn't matter if he was King of the Universe, if only two sentences can be said about him he shouldn't have an article. DirectorStratton 02:13, 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. — JIP | Talk 05:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Subliminal Harassment

Too much too coherent nonsense to delete it speedily, so I guess it must hang around at AfD for a week. Pilatus 11:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Agreed Sapient 11:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
A whole week seems too much for this crap. Speedy delete, please. --DrTorstenHenning 11:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - nonsense, presumably created in order to drive traffic to the linked site. CLW 12:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, though "Properly executed subliminal harassment give all the benefits of traditional overt harassment but none of the legal liabilities" is my sentence of the week. Vizjim 12:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment looks like Kappa spotted a copyvio. MCB 06:27, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Murali Kulachandran

No IMDB entries for this aspiring actress and the movies she starred in. Garage-band vanity. Pilatus 11:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - nn, vanity CLW 12:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. *drew 12:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete via A7, and so tagged. Nothing in the article is an assertion of notability. Friday (talk) 16:50, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Falldown

A game for the TI-92 calculator that can be downloaded from ticalc. Pilatus 11:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - nn CLW 12:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. *drew 12:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. While they can be fun, free games for calculators are in general not encyclopedically notable. (And I usually find it more fun to program them myself.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge ~~or keep~~, no reason given for deletion, why shouldn't users know what kind of games can be played on calculators? Kappa 14:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- If you'd care to add context in the form of this game's impact on the TI-92 game development community, or this game's fanbase, or some other reason that this isn't one of tens of thousands of more-or-less interchangable freeware games developed for heavily-constrained computer platforms, I'd cheerfully change my vote. Alternately, if you'd like to write an article in general terms about the sorts of freeware games that are developed for graphing calculators, that would be great, too. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Great, so the users are left in ignorance. Kappa 14:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Ignorance of what? I'm curious what sort of value information about this game has, other than to a prospective downloader (who is going to be at ticalc.org anyway). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 15:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      - The value is, users will understand this caculator better if they know what kind of function it can perform, including games. Kappa 15:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
        
        Why not add a section to TI-92 or graphing calculator describing the sort of games that are developed for them, then? This specific example serves little purpose, whereas that would give readers the kind of information you describe. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 15:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
        
        I don't know what kind of games are exist for TI-92s, that's why this article should be merged or kept. Specific examples are the best kind. Kappa 19:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
        
        P.S. I've abandoned the "or keep" part of my vote. Kappa 19:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No context, no source, nearly no content. Most free games for graphing calculators involve less work and are less notable than high school class projects, and individual interchangable examples of a bloc or set of nearly-identical objects are not encyclopedic. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 14:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ in agreement with Sjakkalle and AMIB. No indication this is nearly important enough in the fact-based world to merit an article. If Kappa has documentation that it has such importance, the onus for relieving "ignorant" WP users is on the supposedly non-ignorant contributor. Barno 15:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC) (changed vote to merge below, based on claims of notability _within_ its category)
- "Doesn't merit an article" is not a reason for deletion. Kappa 15:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  - The reasons Sjakkalle and I posted, however, are reasons for deletion, and he cited them. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 15:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    - There are only four reasons for deletion: "Doesn't merit an article", "Is false", "Cannot be verified", and "Is a copyright infringement". I'm flabbergasted that someone could claim that "Doesn't merit an article" is anything other than a reason for deletion. Different people might disagree about what constitutes "merit", but the general principle, that some topics do not merit an article, is acknowledged by almost all Wikipedians. Kelly Martin 16:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      - You forgot "No content." ¬_¬ - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
        
        WP:I is core Wikipedia policy, not just a guideline or suggestion. Barno 18:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
        
        I'm stumped. What does WP:I have to do with anything? - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
        
        Sorry, "WP:I" was intended to reference the Wikipedia:Importance policy. I thought it used to redirect there, but I see now it redirects to Wikipedia:Introduction. Thus the confusion, sorry. Some of my reasons are listed there, not actually as importance but as "Note that an article should still be deemed inappropriate, and subsequently deleted, regardless of importance, if:" six things including can't be expanded beyond a stub, or "does not otherwise belong in Wikipedia" (citing WP:NOT). Consensus in WP has been that freeware games of any type are generally not important-called-"notable" enough for an article (unless one gets more media coverage, public discussion, etc. than any calculator game ever has). Barno 04:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete will never go beyond a substub, a free game for a graphical calculator is not notable chowells 16:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge into TI-92, as per Kappa. Owen× ☎ 18:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete freeware game for an obsolete calculator (made so by the TI-89). However, I would note that this game is probably one of the more notable calculator games, for whatever that's worth. ESkog 23:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- I see there's no "Calculator games" article, and no "Games" section in the Calculator article except one on "hELLO = 07734" and its ilk. Can you guys start a good Wikified section of "Calculator#Games" with the most notable calculator games? They're not noteworthy enough for articles individually, probably any of them, but articles like Falldown could reasonably be merged into one moderate section. If it grew enough to be broken out, I'd rather see one good calc-games article than a dozen stubs. Barno 04:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Falldown can be found for most TI graphing calculators anyways, but it still doesn't deserve its own article. -Nameneko 01:12, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stargraves

Article is about an author of sex novels (I guess "Stargraves" is a pen name), none of which appear to be notable. I have checked Amazon, which lists three of the books, all of them with sales ranks way below the one million mark. None of the books have a significant amount of review on the web. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - nn CLW 14:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nn, possible vanity. Shauri 20:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:58, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black market art

Appears to be band vanity. Chief claim to notability seems to have been being defeated in some sort of non notable competition. Allmusic.com provided plenty of hits when searching for the words

Black Market Art,

but none of them refer to this band. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - nn, vanity, NPOV inter alia... CLW 14:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no indication of any significance. Friday (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. NN band vanity. Cnwb 04:56, 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 no consensus. NOte that this does not preclude anyone from merging content. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doomer

User:Eclipsenow.org has put considerable work into this page in only a span of hours since its creation, and parts of it deserve to be merged into Hubbert peak theory; however the term "doomer" itself is a neologism, and Wikipedia has a tradition of resisting the creation of pages documenting neologisms unless they have already spread to the mainstream media. Hence, I believe the page itself should be deleted along with peaknik (seperate AFD). Dragons flight 12:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Update: I support some form of merge/rename proposal as suggested below. Dragons flight 19:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep, this is a notable term which I have heard and seen in use in accordance to the article's definition. I can see this as being a relevant encyclopedic article. Piecraft 13:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, POV fork of Hubbert peak theory. Pilatus 14:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - as per Pilatus. At best, they deserve a few lines in Hubbert peak theory. - Hahnchen 17:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment. The author of this, very much new to the wiki experience, mistakenly posted his arguments to the talk page of this page. Dragons flight 17:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge relevant parts with Hubbert peak theory. Owen× ☎ 18:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete/Merge as suggested. Groeck 22:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, as the terms peaknik and doomer are in common use and are just beginning to break through into the mainstream media, and they define different issues to the terms "peak oil optimists and peak oil pessimists" which raises matters of WHEN oil peaks, not what it MEANS. Don't merge as the complicated doomer scenarios and worldviews attached to the Doomer paradigm could grow in this article, and would terribly inflate the Hubbert's peak scientific theory of oil depletion, with no end of debate. Having a seperate entry for Doomer allows the Doomer crowd to focus their attention on the definition of their paradigm in that entry, rather than endlessly swelling and debating the various collapse scenarios under Hubbert's peak, which actually deals in the scientific facts of oil depletion. The Doomer article has only just started. I can see it swelling to 4 or 5 times the current size, as various collapse scenarios are expanded on, and expert Doomer authors such as Heinberg, Kunstler, Duncan, and others are quoted or write for themselves in the Wiki Doomer entry. The peak oil question is one of the most important questions society faces this decade, and it may be even more immediate than global warming. The potential for severe economic pain, or even chaotic doomer collapse, is real. Surely the importance of the subject demands that this entry remains, even if the term does not strictly meet the Wikipedia guidelines this month? Because it WILL be in the mainstream press sometime in the next 12 months, I guarantee it. Adopting this term early will help countless new peakniks decide where they fall on the peaknik / doomer spectrum, and actually facilitate this discussion in the media, allowing Wikipedia to be an influential "mover and shaker" in the cultural debate, as well as maintaining intellectual credibility of describing something that is already established. Adopting this term is not "making stuff up" but just being slightly ahead of the curve. (Interesting pun in the context of Hubbert's peak.) Surely this is in Wikipedia's best interests? Eclipsenow.org 9:39 Sydney Australia, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Eclipsenow, since most of our concern stems from the use of what are very new words, I'm wondering if you could write about the material you want to discuss without using them? The Hubbert peak article is already a substantial 48k and I would think there is plenty of room for it to semi-organically grow into other articles like post peak oil scenarios or social responses to peak oil, or whatever. As long as you can write verifiable content in accordance with our neutral point of view policy, I think the encyclopedia as a whole would welcome more content on this issue. I do think however think that most of us would prefer you not consistently use the terms "doomer" and "peaknik". It might be more cumbersome for you to write "those expecting social collapse", or similar phrases all the time, but it is better from an encyclopedic point of view. Also, if you wanted to mention in passing that they are "sometimes called 'doomers'", or something similar, at the start of a discussion on apocalyptic views of peak oil, I wouldn't particularly mind. It is just that Wikipedia doesn't want to be leading the charge to adopt new terminology that isn't already well established. If you do feel up to writing on apocalyptic views of peak oil or something similar, I suggest you talk to the people at Talk:Hubbert peak theory. Most topics, when they expand into multiple articles, do so by removing chunks of an existing large article and growing from that, so it is good to talk to the people that have already been working on this topic in order to coordinate. Dragons flight 23:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- See WP:NOT - Wikipedia is meant to document existing trends in a neutral fashion, not to promote any particular idea. ~~ N (t/c) 20:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. (Actually, at Wikipedia we like being slightly behind the curve, intentionally.) MCB 06:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename, as suggested above, to post peak oil scenarios where a lot of the weight of the Hubbert's Peak article could be shed. A very brief summary of the various positions might remain on the Hubbert's peak page, with the full details being spelt out in the post peak oil scenarios page. Sorry for any trouble — I'm new here. :-) Also, I wouldn't dream of renaming it myself... I'll break something. But if someone else were to rename the "Doomer" article, I'd be very grateful and encourage concise but lively definition writing in the post peak oil scenarios page rather than bloating the Hubbert's Peak page overly. Hubbert's peak is about when oil peaks, the Scenarios page is about what it might mean. Eclipsenow.org What time zone am I meant to include here? 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete The word "Doomer" is a highly emotive and judgemental term that obfuscates the measured realism behind the thinking of some of the people who might be shoe-horned into this category.81.136.10.171 09:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Implications of peak oil, which has been created to help thin out the bloated Hubbert peak theory article. Johntex\^talk 20:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge. Very notable neologism, but not deserving of own article. ~~ N (t/c) 20:35, 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. NOte that this does not preclude anyone from being bold and merging as they feel appropriate. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peaknik

The term "peaknik" is a neologism, and Wikipedia has a tradition of resisting the creation of pages documenting neologisms unless they have already spread to the mainstream media. Hence, I believe the page should be deleted along with the related, but considerably more elaorate, "doomer" (seperate AFD). Dragons flight 12:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Expand, relevant term associated to the Hubbert peak theory, and notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. Piecraft 13:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator Pilatus 14:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
comment Only 585 googles. RJFJR 16:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge relevant parts with Hubbert peak theory, alongside Doomer above. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom, analogous to Doomer. MCB 06:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as this is the most important debate this century, and Wikipedia has a clear mandate to encourage knowledge of this importance Eclipsenow.org 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- The use of Wikipedia to promote any idea violates the neutrality policy. ~~ N (t/c) 20:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
"Delete" this term has no common use in the mainstream, though clever, it is just a wordplay rather than a definition.

unsigned by user:129.78.64.100

Merge with Implications of peak oil, which has been created to help thin out the bloated Hubbert peak theory article. Johntex\^talk 20:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge somewhere, not in common enough use to merit own article. ~~ N (t/c) 20:33, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Killian

Subject not sufficiently important / vanity page Sapient 12:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Was listed for speedy deletion but a counter-argument (of sorts) was advanced on the talk page. Sapient 12:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination CLW 14:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete not encyclopedaic. Dlyons493 Talk 20:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete vanity, reads like a CV. Shauri 20:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as nn/vanity. I didn't see an assertion of notability, myself; the guy's a boat salesman. Benefit of the doubt not to speedy it, though, which is cool. MCB 06:34, 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. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exameter Road

Seems to be distinctly non-notable. All google hits seem to lead back to either wikipedia, or a blog by wannabe sf writer (and sometime WP:vandal) User:Shultz. Alai 13:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - as per nom CLW 14:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - seems someone wants to promote his blog. Pilatus 14:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Media Man Australia media company

Delete - advert for celebrity site - Tεx τ urε 15:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. nonnotable website. mikka (t) 16:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete advertising cruft for a non notable site chowells 16:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator.--nixie 01:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ambi 08:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy del: recteation of previously deleted (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Capitolo Otto) without added verifiabiliy. mikka (t) 16:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitolo Otto

Secret societies are by definition not verifiable (unless they're no longer secret), and some of the claims here (connections with the Illuminati in particular) are fairly ridiculous. This is hoax, rumor, or campus legend, none of which are encyclopedic. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 15:15, 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 Speedily redirected by Friday Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Justice League Avengers

The Justice League Avengers are "real"; that is, they have a fictional existence in a major fictional context (even if that is just a cameo appearance in a series of one-shot books published by the two largest publishers in their medium.) However, this article isn't about the "real" appearances of that group; it's a fan's opinion on what should be done with them. As such, it's original research. (The title may not even be correct; the title may have actually been "Judgement League Avengers".) Since even the "real" appearance was just a cameo, Redirect to Amalgam Comics. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. If you want to redirect it, be bold and do so (and don't interpret my vote as a vote against doing so). No need to bring it to AFD. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 15:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

- Redirect to Amalgam Comics, which I would do myself if I could be sure that wouldn't be disruptive to the AFD process. DS 16:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedily redirected to Amalgam Comics, by (so far) unanimous consent. However if anyone disagrees, feel free to undo the redirect and continue the Afd. Friday (talk) 16:54, 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 BJAODN and DELETE. — JIP | Talk 05:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alphonse W. Turkeyman

Article is a hoax Kewp 15:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

BJAODN. Roodog2k (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as hoax. There ought to be a common-sense speedy criterion for these. Friday (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete/BJAODN. Keep in archives to delight future readers. Love the bald eagle tacos and the '79 Pontiac. paul klenk ^talk 17:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN. Definitely funny. Sahasrahla 01:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment. what's not so funny is that contributers to the article, including the original contributer, keep removing the Afd tag from the page. I wish we could speedy delete this. Kewp 04:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You need a sense of humour, pal. Dig? 192.207.58.114 15:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

KEEP!!!!! You have NO PROOF that his excellency, The Great Rt. Rev. Alphonse Wilphonse Turkeyman, MD, Esq. did not exist! YOU DO NOT EXIST! Governor Schwarzenegger, that's not in the Bible! YOU'RE NOT IN THE BIBLE!192.207.58.74 15:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep My father was actually the mechanic that pried the bald eagle from Mr. Turkeyman's 1979 Pontiac. At first, we was appalled that Turkeyman just took a bite out of the eagle, but later became Turkeyman's business partner. Mr. Turkeyman's recent death is a national tragedy; let his Wikipedia article live on in his memory.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Homicide. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homocide

Del. Nonnotable neologism. The overwhelming majority of google hits are typos of homicide. Occasional smartass usage doenst not make it encyclopedic. See Talk:-cide for more discussion. mikka (t)
Delete and replace with a redirect to homicide. This could have been redirected to homicide without resorting to AFD, I believe. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Proponents persist. Revert war was expected. mikka (t) 16:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm given to understand that the proper place to debate a merge or redirect like this is on the talk page(s) in question, with a WP:RFC if you need to get some new eyes on the debate. I hate to be a stickler for procedure, but WP:AFD is already overloaded as it is. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    - Stickler or not, my vote is to delete altogether. But I admit I forgot the "misspelling" clause. mikka (t) 17:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, and redirect as per MiB --Doc (?) 16:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete/redirect per above. paul klenk ^talk 17:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect. Common misspelling (I had to think twice before realising the mistake). --Cel e stianpower ^hablamé 17:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect and protect if needed. i/o are adjacent keys. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
speedy redirect and protect. — brighterorange (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
speedy redirect and protect per above voters. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep Could use some sources to back it up. Dudtz Image:Kardos.jpg 9/29/05 7:11 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 10:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate Knowledge

Postmodern jibberjabber that makes many 'learned' references to other scholars without actually giving any details of their work in support of the premise being advanced. Delete as pseudo-hoax - I'm sure there's something in it, but not here, alas. Eddie.willers 22:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Incomprehensible, unencyclopedic topic. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Don´t delete, please. It can be improved. References to Tuomi and Vygotsky in this discussion are valuable in a critical perspective of current approaches to knowledge management. Sergio Storch

(insufficient votes for clear result - relisting --Doc (?) 16:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC))
Delete. Incomprehensible article was tagged for cleanup 10 minutes after creation, and no attempts have been made to clean it up in the ensuing 11 months. --Metropolitan90 18:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio from [16] Dlyons493 18:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrong! The page at society-fresh.net is clearly copied from here, as stated at the bottom of it. Owen× ☎ 18:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Who is this "Tuomi"? What is the book this article is talking about? This reads like an introduction to a book by this Tuomi, but without any other context, it is useless. Owen× ☎ 18:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Although I could imagine an interesting article about this topic, but this isn't it. JoanneB 19:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as unrescueable. Vizjim 19:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as incomprehensible, unencyclopedic, and unsalvageable. MCB 06:37, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] War on emotion

Looks like author is starting a POV article NeilN 16:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. This is a strange article. paul klenk ^talk 16:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

What's strange about it? Hackwrench 17:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Mostly copied from another page, with original research added, not clear what encyclopedic content is being communicated. No citations except a science-fiction reference. No indication that this is a real or significant concept in psychology or cultural debate. Unless shown otherwise, weak delete. Barno 18:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, rant, likely original research. Owen× ☎ 18:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The author removed content from the emotion page and put it on a new war on emotion page, most likely because he disagreed with its POV. The funny thing is that I agree with the author that this content does indeed represent a limited POV, nonetheless, we can arrive at the final result better through intelligent discussion than through rash provocative deletions and postings. I'd appreciate if in the future, the author would take a deep breath himself and cool down his own emotions before making changes to articles. Hackwrench's action was inappropriate, and I concur with the others that this article should be deleted. I look forward to working with Hackwrench and the other emotion authors to come to a compromise that works for everyone. Perhaps a section titled "Approaches to Emotion in Psychotherapy" would be acceptable to all parties. sallison 20:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the material from the emotion page once, and sombody regressed the page, so I moved it to a new article, where I thought it seemed fit, and addressed why it fit the topic. I am confused at the categorization of my action as rash and provocative, though and would appreciate it if Sallison were to elaborate further.

Delete I agree with Paul - strange (and weird) article. Groeck 22:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The strongest example in modern culture is Equilibrium_(2002_film), although Vulcan (Star Trek) shows this too. The theme can be found in many fictional distopian societies.

Delete. What I'm seeing is unsourced OR/POV essay. MCB 06:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

To elaborate at Hackwrench's request, the so called "War on Emotion" is not an actual war, but rather your personal conflict with another author. That is, unless you have some references to back up the assertion that this particular conflict stems from a conflict within the larger academic community that has been termed "The War on Emotion." If you came up with that term on your own because you were mad at the other author, and not from research, then you were acting provocatively. In short, it's what the other reviewers here are calling an unsourced OR/POV essay. I haven't seen you discuss this issue on the emotion talk page. From what I can infer from your actions, I think your point is very valid. I agree that the emotion page needs to have a much more neutral point of view, but perhaps an attempt at diplomacy is in order before resorting to a one-man-war. sallison 08:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Hackwrench now appears to be making a concerted effort to turn this page from what originally appeared to be a personal attack on another author into an article on a theme that may (or may not) be considered valid by others. I would be more convinced if the author could cite some sources in hard print in addition to his web sources. In general, the move away from inflamatory discourse is commendable. I don't know if this revised article will meet the standards of the other reviewers taking part in this discussion, but at least my biggest concern regarding this particular article has been directly addressed. I would like to express my thanks to the author for his efforts in this regard. sallison 09:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Fix. The phrase (and related idea) the article is based on has substancial usage. The article doesn't explore it very well though. Even if the majority view is that the concept is silly, the article should remain - and contain POV details of why the idea's not very useful. 203.208.80.13 00:21, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The P G P

Sorority-girl neologism. — Mateo SA | talk 17:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --TM ^(talk) 18:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, ~~WP:ISNOT a chat log~~ Still an unsupported neologism. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryphen (talk • contribs) original author, 20:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I don't find this article mad cool, and I feel I'll never really bang with it. Oswax 22:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - This article is illustrating an example of a well known term used by many in post-secondary school circles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.245.143 (talk • contribs) IP also edited above vote from delete to keep, restored — Lomn
Delete per TM -- SCZenz 13:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, utterly non-notable neologism in only local use. I don't want to bang with any of these superficial girls. Barno 18:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep I've made a few adjustments, not least of which was removing the chat log. Once restated, it does ellucidate on a phenomenon that does happen.Impaciente 05:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete To me looks more like an internal slang. Unless I see references that it's widely used. —behdad (talk) 07:08, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PopeAlien

Totally non notable webcomic, which can be found here. It is up to its 130th strip which means it passes the 100 strip proposal on WP:COMIC, but with an alexa rank of 700k+, it does not seem to be popular or notable in the slightest. A google search also shows up nothing which would lift it out from any other website on the net. - Hahnchen 17:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete for lack of significance. WP:COMIC standards are much too lax IMO anyway. Friday (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom -Nameneko 01:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as attack page. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kuji wuji

sigh... bandity. Delete. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete as attack article, so tagged. Slowly delete if that doesn't work. Friday (talk) 17:35, 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 Redirect -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Maguire cup

There is already a page at Sam Maguire Cup with more information.--Play Brian Moore 17:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Sam Maguire Cup. --Metropolitan90 17:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect as above. --TM ^(talk) 18:27, 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 23:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Team Liddell et al

Possibly non-notable. We have standards against the submission of geneolgical material itself but I don't think we have on genealogy groups. What would constitute "notability"? There are thousands of family name groups and websites alone. Rmhermen 18:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete before other groups get any ideas. Very large groups might be notable, but this one isn't. -- Kjkolb 20:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Reserved The article needs some pruning language-wise, and some of the insubstantial trive removed. I've tidied the introduction a bit, to give it the benefit. Alf ^melmac 19:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Abstain for now. Just adding that the user who created the page has been writing notes to the Wikipedia populace in general over on the Wikipedia:Help desk. I don't think that the user has any idea about how to use talk pages. I think it would be beneficial to have an admin try to contact the user since they seem lost and the discussion may lead to a better article. Dismas|^(talk) 04:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Notable because of their ties to The Genographic Project. Dismas|^(talk) 06:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep As per Dismas. I would like to see more outside references cited in the article. DES ^(talk) 16:17, 5 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♫|☎) 06:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] STA (Success Through Advertising)

Ad, non-notable. --fvw * 18:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

delete obvious promotion. — brighterorange (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Assassin (Story)

This is an article about three sheets of paper someone found at school, and is meant as humour. Though it is funny, I don't belive it has any place on Wikipedia. --TCM (Talk) 18:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Nuke it from orbit

Delete. Pilatus 19:00, 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♫|☎) 06:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Wave

Wikipedia:No original research Dhartung | Talk 18:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Not one citation of real-world usage, google turns up the term but used in many different ways, some merely jocular. --Dhartung | Talk 18:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, it's a neologism and the article is original research. Rhobite 19:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - the term is not generally used or understood (probably a once-off coinage), and the article leaves it essentially undefined (Neo-Wave seems to mean "Any band which became popular after 2001"). RMoloney 22:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Neologism and a google test returns nothing relevant. Static3d 22:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Dhartung and the other voters. Barno 18:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --DanielNuyu 18:07, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wow strong arms

Forum neologism that's too coherent to be speedily deleted. Pilatus 18:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom (note: I have preemptively removed the linkspam) — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
delete wow 46 googles. — brighterorange (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
delete Nothing to do with having "engineer" arms either... Dominick 21:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't Delete! It's a commonly used internet fad, why delete it?

DO NOT DELETE This belongs here on wikipedia. The internet is a very real and ever-expanding community, and the job of wikipedia is to provide the information of what is happening among the communities of our world. The article is written legitimately and sincerely and needs to remain right where it is.
Delete an "internet phenomenon" would certainly manage more than 15 unique google hits (and of those it looks like at least 3 are Wikipedia). Not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete as above -- Malo 04:20, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rooms (webcomic)

Totally unnotable webcomic in every way, which can be found here, and its post apocalytic forums can be found here. Alexa shows it up as 4 million +. It has been running for over a year and has probably over 100 strips, and so illustrates the dire straits of WP:COMIC. - Hahnchen 18:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

As the creator, artist and writer of said webcomic, I object to the comments made above. Firstly, with regards to the forums. The forums have never been very active but then this has never been a sign of the popularity (or supposed lack of it) of the comic. I recieve e-mails and talk to fans of the comic over MSN regularly and I have recieved nothing but positive feedback from them, apart from one or two comments relating to artwork that I have since rectified. The writer of the above comments shows their obvious lack of attention to detail when they state that the comic has "probably" over 100 strips. If they had read the comic at all, or the newsposts, they would find that the comic has indeed had over 100 strips (as illustrated in a anniversary comic) and that it is in fact, almost upto the sum of 150. I myself doubted the popularity of my comic at one point, but I have recently installed a statcounter on my site and am happy to report that Rooms now recieves more visitors (and more returning visitors) than it has done in the history of the comic and this is currently on the rise. I also would like to call into question the amount of traffic cited as being reasonable for a web-comic. A friend of mine, who has been a long time supporter of the site, described it as "ludicrous", and I myself have to concur. There are many webcomics on the internet, with articles on this very site, which have lower levels of traffic than the proposed number. I therefore propose that the subject in question is not whether Rooms should be deleted but whether any of the many small webcomic entries of wikipedia should be allowed to remain. I personally believe that they should not be removed as there are always people who will be interested in procuring information about less well known comics and to deny them this opportunity would be a grave shame. The description of my comic as "totally unnotable...in every way" in the above comment is also very subjective. It seems to me as if the comment was written by someone who just decided that they didn't like the comic (or possibly myself) and therefore it was worthy to be removed from wikipedia. I know for a fact that my readers wouldn't describe my comic as "unnotable" and I believe this subjective viewpoint to weaken the rest of the writer's arguments. Obviously, the final verdict is upto you but please consider the matter carefully before you reach your verdict. For it is not just the fate of this entry that you will be deciding but of all small-time comic entries. Thank you. - Euan Mumford 17:05, 1st October 2005

Reply - Do you know that your webcomic is already at comixPedia. Comixpedia is the place for small time webcomics, as you yourself have said. And regarding the mention of webcomics at wikipedia which are even more non notable. We will be deleting them too, AFD takes time. My concern has been that guidelines at WP:COMIC have been overly lax, compare say with WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Had your the article in question not been in the webcomic category, and listed as a website instead, it would have definitely be deleted. My opinion of your webcomic did not come into play during this nomination, or any nomination that I may make. - Hahnchen 23:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Dragonfiend 05:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is another example of Hahnchen's poorly worded, baseless, and aggressive AfD nominations. This exact same thing happened last week, with that comic described as having 'hardly any' readers and as being 'minor minor' - despite having page views into the thousands and almost 550 strips in the archive. It seems that no statistics decide which articles get deleted except the whims of Hahnchen himself, who has admitted on his talk page to having no real knowledge of webcomics. --Hijamiefans
- Reply - I object, my nominations are usually very well worded and arguments explained. Webcomics are not inherently more notable than websites, no matter what you may claim on my talk page. There are many more popular blogs/pornsites/forums than the webcomic in question, we should not judge webcomics with a totally different criteria. As for real people going to wikipedia to look up small time comic entries, they should be going to comixpedia. If that isn't good enough for those budding webartists, then obviously it's a problem with their ego. - Hahnchen 12:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete per Alexa rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:04, 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 no consensus. Encourage everybody to help clean it up, though. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi moon base

It's back as of 26 September 2005 Wyss 19:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Previous AFD. No vote. Dragons flight 19:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment, Yeah well I added this article myself to try to expand on the topic which had been red-linked on several Nazi-related articles on Wikipedia. Anyway if you feel this should be deleted then I would suggest to perhaps have a more expanded description on Nazi mysticism surrounding the theories purported for this particular subject. Piecraft 19:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- Is it possible to simply delete this article without having to go through this process? I have already saved it to be edited into a more concise version in the Nazi mysticism article. Thanks. Piecraft 19:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
According to the rules we are perfectly justfied in deleting this without further discussion. However I think provided the propertly netural tone is maintained (i.e. that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim) the article is an interesting one. DJ Clayworth 19:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- It can't be deleted as a recreation because the current content is not derived from the previous content. Maybe we can call it a user mistake, but I'm not really sure I'd want to use that since Piecraft seems to believe the information deserves to exist, he just isn't sure where to put it. Dragons flight 19:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment is "it's a hoax" a good enough reason to delete it, particularly when the suggestion exists outside of wikipedia and its mirrors? Whilst I agree it is a hoax, considering the Nazis didn't get the V2 rockets working till 1943 and later, I don't completely agree that this should be the sole reason for deleting it. chowells 19:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment My only worry, a docking big one, is that a naive reader (and they do exist) might carelessly think this has something to do with physical reality. As a documentation of myth or whatever, it's helpful. Wyss 20:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- How about prefixing it with a brief summary? "The existence of a Nazi moon base is an infamous conspiracy theory which holds that..." makes it clear it's fictional. It is one of the more famously nonsensical theories floating around, it's not original research, and as such it's probably deserving of an article if it makes those clear in context... Shimgray | talk | 11:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Query I basically decided to opt for what Wyss suggested to me earlier and add the necessary text relating to the Moon base and the SS technology in the Nazi mysticism article, however this has now been deleted by Pjacobi because it has been regarded as not being verifiable or relevant? Someone please help me out here because now I'm confused. I think the Nazi Moon base should have a mention for encyclopedic purposes seeing as it is a recognised and explored subject by many people who study Nazi mysticism and Nazi conspiracies. As for the SS technology, this is already accounted for being factual based on another article that can be found on WIkipedia. Piecraft 20:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete as per previous vote. Do we have to re-vote everything ??? Groeck 22:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with nazi mysticism. It might be worthwhile to have another article on nazi conspiracy theories in general instead of crowding up the mysticism article. --Sean Jelly Baby? 22:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, obviously. I'm not sure if it belongs in nazi mysticism, which is about "a quasi-religious undercurrent of Nazism". Maybe a nazi conspiracy theories article will help corral this stuff into some sort of shape, eg some info on how widespread this is would be nice. Rd232 22:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Speedy would be nice... and a ban on the poster if he has done this one before. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 23:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Nazi Japan. Oh wait, that article was deleted. Keep, then. This kind of weird stuff is just great. I agree with Wyss's concerns to a certain extent, but really naive people will believe all kinds of nonsense without the excuse of a Wikipedia article. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 03:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well put, Tony. I think if it's under nazi conspiracy theories then the're won't be any problems. And I completely agree, wierd stuff like this one of the best things about Wikipedia. How many exploding animals does Encarta have? :) --Sean Jelly Baby? 03:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- notable crackpottery, though nowhere near as much so as the Face on Mars I admit. Haikupoet 17:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep nice article. Grue 07:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep If it is clearly about the crackpot theory, and indeed not original research, it may have a home here. Crackpot theories have a home here. Dominick 18:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep for same reason as Tony Sidaway and Dominick. PROVIDED, that it is actual crackpottery that someone, somewhere actually believes. SchmuckyTheCat 20:13, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Completely f***ing hilarious. Delete and send to WP:BJAODN. No doubt when they landed on the moon they all laid out their beach towels. (Apologies to all Germans for inappropriate racial stereotyping). --Meiers Twins 10:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - not notable outside of Wikipedia. A Google search on "nazi moon base" yields less than 200 hits. It is not our mission to spread mirth across the internet. Johntex\^talk 20:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Comment It is our mission to spread neutral, verifiable knowledge. The subject is verifiable and adequate references are given within the article. Spreading this neutral, informative article around the internet is part of helping the internet to not suck. Let's do it. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete-They only sent a V2 rocket that had no human into space during WW2. Dudtz 9/29/05 5:30 PM EST
Keep It has a verifiable (the concept/theory, not the base itself ;) existance and the article is referenced nicely. This is depth and color Wikipedia offers that others can't. Rx StrangeLove 06:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep. All your Nazi moon base are belong to us. --Optichan 18:31, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yorkshire crud

Article about a very rare (non-existant, even) disease: every single Google hit is related to Wikipedia. Unless I'm very much mistaken, it's another hoax. JoanneB 18:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete apparently a wikipedia originated hoax chowells 20:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - extremely funny! Vizjim 22:24, 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 Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Teim Schwang

Non notable rally team: every Google hit is this article or one of the Wikipedia mirrors. JoanneB 18:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn Dlyons493 Talk 01:05, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Epicureans

Band vanity JoanneB 19:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, no evidence of having passed WP:MUSIC. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Actress (band)

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Nothing in allmusic.com. --Durin 19:24, 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 Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Nawrot

Unsubstantiated. No Google hits DJ Clayworth 19:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete agree with nom. Groeck 22:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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♫|☎) 06:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Journalism 102

A page about a Journalism course at Ball State University... Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information... JoanneB 19:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom, in addition many universities change ~~court~~course details frequently so it's just going to be even more useless and unmaintained. chowells 20:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom and chowells Dlyons493 Talk 20:34, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler's Pope

I've thought quite a bit about listing this article since it has some interesting points. However it is, IMO, largely lengthy non-NPOV critiscism of a book, which probably violates copyright/fair use by containing an extremely long quote. As such, I don't think it's worth of an encyclopedia article and the useful bits could very well be merged elsewhere. chowells 19:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, Chowells. It is true that the article is badly in need of cleaning up and cutting it down to size in order to make it conform to the book. I have asked another user to have a look and you might reconsider after he has done some editing. But your criticism towards the current state is valid. This page (and other's like Pope's Hitler) was orignally created by someone to use it as a soapbox for his views on Pius XII and related (and not so related) issues. Hence many things are included that are not in the book, hence it largely is parallel to the original Pius XII page. Str1977 20:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC) But in the end, I vote for keeping a cleaned up and de-POV'ed version. Str1977 08:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

(Invective deleted) The book Hitler's Pope is more than notable enough to warrant an article, and while I strongly disagree with that book's sentiments, this AFD vote should end quickly with a Speedy keep. Paul 22:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I hereby apologize for the above comment as it was unduly harsh and not in conformance with WP protocol. I might have mistakenly believed that the article was nominated by an anonymous IP address, which led me to term that person as a "clown," something I'd have not done to a registered user. Regardless, my wording was inappropriate and I will hereafter refer to neither anon or registered users as clowns. Paul 00:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Not even Bozo? There were so many local Bozos that one or two of those actors might be WP editors. Barno 18:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  - ROFL, for some reason when I read that the first time I didn't get it...but Bozo will indeed always be a clown, even if his contributions consistently make it to WP:FA. Paul 05:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup for NPOV. Notable book about important topic. Capitalistroadster 00:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
keep please thise subject is important too Yuckfoo 05:29, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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 --Doc (?) 22:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paley Li

This article is about "Paley Li... a well-known player of the MMO RPG World of Warcraft." Players of role-playing games are not non-notable. -- Kjkolb 20:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Original research, unverifiable from here. Might be notable if actually highest level player in a country. Might be worth a section in an obsessive behaviour article. A Korean recently dropped dead after a 50-hr session. Dlyons493 Talk 20:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Yup, might be worth discussing if he even asserted any of that, but he doesn't, he says he plays RPG's a lot. That's not even an assertion of notability so I'm speeding this under A7 (can't imaging anyone will object). --Doc (?) 22:55, 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♫|☎) 06:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dhammakaya

Was listed for speedy on the grounds of being advertising, but that's not a speedy criterion. I'm not convinced it is advertising; maybe this is a notable religious movement. No vote from me. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete I think Dhammakaya itself is notable but this seems to be advertising for a specific subset of the movement. Dlyons493 Talk 20:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete For one thing, the article has copyright problems; it seems to be a copy of this page. I do think that this organization might ultimately be worthy of an article, but the information provided on the current article is way too far from NPOV to be salvagable- we'd be left with nothing but a few names. I createed a new stub from information on the Foundation's website at Dhammakaya Foundation that should serve until more specific, non-POV info can be located. 'Dhammakaya' is the Pali equivalent of the Sanskrit 'dharmakaya'- something quite specific in Buddhist philosophy, and not really related to this particular organization. --Clay Collier 20:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Actually, it was listed as an A1 because of a lack of context, and if I had been thinking, it would have been A3, as well. (I was the one who listed it for speedy deletion.) Since I tagged it, though, context has been added, so it's no longer speediable.
In any case, this article isn't a useful start for an article about the organization, as it's hopelessly POV and possibly copyvio. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 00:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] YMMSS - Your Money Machine Success System

Listing for deletion because it seems to have been conceived as an attack on the company that runs the scheme. It was later turned into ad ad for the company. A few iterations later it was alternating with a sketchy reference to the scheme. This was then replaced with a letter asking the article's deletion.

I have no opinion on this but I think we should probably at least consider that the scheme may not be encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete either in its ad or attack incarnation. Dlyons493 Talk 20:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete for non-notability Jdavidb 22:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete I wikified/cleaned up this article from its state as an advertisement, but the company doesn't seem to want it on here. Wackymacs 06:45, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mard

Obviously someone's essay. Delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, delete. --Sum0 20:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - I wonder what mark he was given for it? Oswax 22:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as personal POV essay/OR. (Donald Rumsfeld wrote a poem?) MCB 06:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, OR, school assignment. Of course Secretary Rumsfeld didn't write a poem. He gave a speech with the noted content, and people joked that it was poetry and philosophy. Apparently a student didn't quite get the joke and tried to base an essay on expanding the idea without real citations. Barno 19:02, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pluebird

Neologism, and apparently one only used between two people. Borderline speedy. Delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nominator. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as one of the most obscure neologisms to the be subject of a WP article. MCB 06:53, 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 Keep -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rowten Pot

Non-notable, dictdef, probable hoax. Was speedied as "non-encyclopedic", but that's not a CSD. Is there a CSD for this? JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

No, there is not. An editor apparently decided to recolour a redlink by writing an article full of silly made-up rubbish. It's a proper stub now. Keep. Uncle G 23:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep rewrite. Dlyons493 Talk 01:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep rewrite. Real place, real community of interest, real holes in ground. Grutness...wha? 08:11, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Ortiz

I don't know if this is nonsense or what. Smells hoaxy. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Google ("steve ortiz" margie) turns up only 55 hits, none of them confirming the article. [17] --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete reads like a hoax. Groeck 23:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Santaism

likely hoax. Was speedied incorrectly as {{nonsense}}. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete the content is a hoax. This site uses the word to satirize the commercialization of Christmas [18]. But there is a Usenet group, alt.religion.santaism and apparently some recognition on the web [19]. This, I think, is non-notable. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-established and not widely recognized satire. I get 540 Google hits (153 real), so it can't be that widely recognized. Groeck 23:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete The current article is nonsense, and while a vaild article is possible (tho still likely to fail on grounds of notability) this has no relation to that. Caerwine 18:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I have never had so much fun packed into a Wikipedia article since I read America (theory). Elapsed 16:41, 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 RESULT — this was not an AfD. -Splash^talk 23:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GWR 6000 Class 6024 King Edward I

Although I originally created this entry myself, it was merged to GWR 6000 Class by Duncharris, with the reason given being "write a decent stub or none at all please". I feel that instead of being removed unilaterally, the process should be via AfD - I have therefore reverted the merge and brought it here. My own personal vote would be Keep, as I believe that this stub could be added to by locomotive enthusiasts (not a speciality of mine) but, as mentioned, my vote should be viewed in consideration of the fact that it was me who created the initial stub ("decent" or otherwise). CLW 21:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Close the Afd, and talk about the merge on the talk page. I don't see how Afd is a good way to discuss this issue. As for the merits of the article, I'd say redirect it for now, with the possibility of it being a seperate article when and if there's enough information to warrant it. Context is good. But I see no reason for the Afd when apparently nobody wants this article to go away. Friday (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment One problem is that the ~~GWR Class 6000~~ GWR 6000 Class page used to link to GWR 6000 Class 6024 King Edward I. If we put the link back it won't be a redlink, it will just link to a page which is a circular redirect (there is the same problem on another of other pages) chowells 21:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment Duncharris also turned into redirects a number of similar articles on preserved locomotives (some of which were created by me). I disagree with this unilateral approach when there was no attempt whatsoever to discuss or reach consensus and IMO AfD is the correct way to resolve it. Please see my talk page. chowells 21:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment a redirect can be undone as easily as it was done. I'm still not sure why the Afd, but maybe that's just me. Friday (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Purely because User:Duncharris considered this, and several other similar articles, to be inappropriate, and decided to turn them into redirects chowells 22:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That's as maybe, but why AFD? There are no articles here to be commented on for deletion. There are considrably better ways to handle this. This could be, for example, debated through a centralised discussion. Grutness...wha? 07:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC) (I'm a LNER man myself...)

The article for comment for deletion is GWR 6000 Class 6024 King Edward I CLW 07:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge, but as I explained to Chowells, it's not that it isn't potentially notable that I merged it, it is that it was a substub and cruft. It has no content that would be useful to a reader who would be better directed to the article on the class as a whole. If we manage to get the page on the GWR King Class up to a decent standard, then we should be thinking about splitting some off. However GWR King Class is a stub which doesn't even list all of their names. It also happens that 6024 isn't even the most notable King, the first 6000 King George V is. The worst thing is that the information required to write a basic stub is online, as are several photographs that he could request permission to use if he could be bothered to send out a boilerplate request for permission. There is even more info if he is interested enough in the subject to buy the right books. I think there is a lack of knowledge and/or laziness and unwillingness to do research here. Dunc|☺ 15:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sub-stub expanded to stub as per Dunc's suggestions. Picture research underway. 86.134.73.79 10:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  - It's alright, I've just got a good photo and another sound recording. Dunc|☺ 11:01, 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 Keep -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Dee

No assertion of notability. Runs a record/distribution company called Sharing Machine, which I've also put up for AFD. - Hahnchen 21:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn Dlyons493 Talk 01:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, eponymous webcomic meets WP:COMIC (3-month Alexa rank of 35,631, and 4 years of publication satisfies alternate proposal). — mendel ☎ 16:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- It just looked like a bio stub to me, I thought it was incorrectly linked from List of webcomics. I thought it was spam for the Sharing Machine company. Looking at it again, their alexa rank is reasonable, but looking at the site, I wouldn't class it as a webcomic, more say an art site. I'll change my vote to keep, but the nomination below still stands. - Hahnchen 23:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

keep keep keep- anonymous
Keep - I also vote to keep. - Anonymous

Keep Sufficiently notable. Hopefully the article will improve. -Abe Dashiell 13:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep! Natalie Dee, though admitedly weird, draws a rather loyal community and therefore is as valid as any other webcomic referenced in Wikipedia.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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♫|☎) 06:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trophy scars

Seems vanity 68.35.206.78 21:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Band vanity. 864 Google hits. [20] Sonic Mew | talk to me 17:06, 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 Deleted -- (☺drini♫|☎) 02:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EPangea Corporation

Non notable web development company. Significance not established in article. Google search [21] does not reveal significance. Hurricane111 21:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Non-notable. -Willmcw 00:51, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tinyghosts

Unnotable webcomic, so unnotable that the article itself says so... Shauri 21:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Update: user 69.143.184.234 has removed the following phrase from the article: "Tinyghosts is one of the least popular webcomics and is read by almost no one. That doesn't seem to bother the author", which along with its web popularity (see Google results below) serves to establish the non notability of this webcomic. Shauri

del nonnotable. mikka (t) 22:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
How is this webcomic less noticible than most of the hundreds of other webcomics that have entries on wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.184.234 (talk • contribs)
- Because of this: 19 Google hits [22], most of which deal with a German band, not with the webcomic. Shauri 00:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Because it doesn't come close to meeting WP:COMIC: no alexa ranking, three comics in archive. Delete. — mendel ☎ 16:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete post haste, non notability been around for a week - Hahnchen 00:55, 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. Ral 315 W_S 02:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laurelton Circle

I don't normally get into the road wars on AfD, but this is a former traffic circle, now converted to a traffic light. Its notability derives from the notability of the history of the traffic light. Delete. Chick Bowen 21:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete no further comment. Groeck 23:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete almost a keep - so unnotable its its almost notable for that alone. Dlyons493 Talk 01:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep traffic circles. They are a part of life in New Jersey and local landmarks. --SPUI (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete I was about to place that on VFD --JAranda | yeah 02:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Burn it with fire! Pilatus 18:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article does not establish or even assert notability. --Stormie 02:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Fer cryin' out loud. Not just an ordinary traffic circle, but a non-existent 20-years-dead ordinary traffic circle. Delete. --Calton | Talk 02:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with the nominator. Zach (Sound Off) 05:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - our mission is to compile knowledge, not just any facts. --Pjacobi 09:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. Local landmarks can be encyclopedic, but no case has been made for this particular intersection being even a local landmark. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge into Brick Township, New Jersey. Alphax ^τεχ 11:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --Carnildo 18:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn --redstucco 09:02, 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 -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LKH&S

Advertisement for a non notable company. Significance on Google is marginal: [23] - Shauri 21:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

delete as per nom. Olorin28 00:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete ad. Their copy makes them sound like an upmarket spam company - which I'm sure they're not. Dlyons493 Talk 01:17, 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 Keep -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Series of 1928 (U.S. Currency)

Is this article meaningful in any way?? It started on September 1, said it will have more info by September 8, but now it is well past then and nothing has been added. 66.32.159.208 22:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. This should not have been nominated for deletion (I've been noticing a few nominations with very weak reasoning lately. A brush up on WP:DP wouldn't hurt.) Anyway, the transition from large to small size paper money in the U.S. is notable on its own merits, and far more notable than much of the junk that is seen as acceptable. A request for expansion would have been the proper course of action here (which I did add). Paul 22:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
keep No more obscure than many other articles about bacnknotes, coins and stamps, though the fascination with such things completely passes me by. CalJW 22:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep Although the article is on the shorter side of things, I've seen worse, and the fact that the author didn't keep a deadline he/she self-imposed is no reason for deletion. bjelleklang 22:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Nothing wrong with this that some expansion wouldn't cure. Grutness...wha? 07:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep - This article has relevant encyclopedic content, especially with expansion - LiniShu 21:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Move The Series of 1928 is notable only because it is the first of the small sized notes. Move to Small size note (U.S. Currency) and redirect other small size series to that article as well which could be expanded to a reasonable history of the small size notes. The current name encourages adding articles for each of the non-notable series of U.S. paper monety that would be better described by this article and a companion Large size note (U.S. Currency) article for the pre-1928 paper money. Caerwine 18:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge/Move I think it is noteable, but not something we couldn't note in $1 article, $5 article, $10 article etc. I don't beleive it should have it's own article. Joe I 19:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Ral 315 W_S 02:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sergio Horton

This is an article about a 17-year-old artist who claims to be a famous prodigy. However, I have been unable to verify this outside of wikipedia and its mirrors. I can't find anything relevant on Juan Carlos La Vega, who invented the technique he uses, either. Here's a quote from the article, "While many do indeed consider the young Horton of prodigious capabilities, others consider that it is his ego that is of prodigious proportions." -- Kjkolb 22:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Didn't find anything either. Groeck 23:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as non-verifiable probable hoax. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 06:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sexuality and pregnancy

This article appears to be original research. There's also a book plug at the bottom. -- Kjkolb 22:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete possible speedy for patent nonsense. At least I don't get it. Groeck 22:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as OR and personal POV essay. MCB 06:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete - had my eye on this one to go as original research as it is. Rob Church ^Talk 18:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hopkin Green Frog

NN web page advertising. Two hits on Google. Groeck 22:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn, ad (not a good one) Dlyons493 Talk 01:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. That a lost child's toy can become a medium-scale Internet meme is notable. I don't understand how this is advertising. The original Hopkin Green Frog ad was a real paper ad stapled to a pole, written by an autistic teen, and it took off from there. See Boing Boing report, for instance. Since this has an origin and conclusion researched by third parties it's got great article potential, although what's there needs a lot of work. This is the sort of thing that Wikipedia does particularly well. I'll see if I can clean the article up a bit later on. — mendel ☎ 16:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I read the so-called "researched by third parties" link, found the reference non-authoritative, and found the article topic utterly non-notable. No indication that this has any significance other than a few people wasting electrons for a few months. No indication of lasting effect on the field of autism, or on any other field. Delete and staple it to a pole. Barno 19:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Hrm, you're not the first person to comment about that: it's not notable because he was autistic, it's notable because it's an Internet meme with an unusual backstory. It seems I've hit a nerve and that wasn't my intent (see the edit history, too); apologies if that was the case. — mendel ☎ 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  - Didn't offend me at all. I just hadn't seen evidence that it was notable as an Internet meme, and looked for evidence that it was notable in any other way. "Internet meme" to me very nearly means "childish fad of the week", and even thousands of hits (if just blog entries and Usenet chat and so forth) don't prove WP-worthy notability unless some of the hits are feature articles from major media. Barno 20:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. bogdan | ^Talk 20:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, there are 21,300 hits on Google for "hopkin frog". Where'd "2" come from? — mendel ☎ 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. 20,000 Google hits, and I've experienced its widespread presence on the Internet firsthand. Toothpaste 20:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with mendel. It is a work of art and is notable enough, and can be described in the context of other pieces of art on the internet. Perhaps it should be merged with other articles, but I think it deserves an article here. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 20:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Ha, it was on Something Awful, too. Didn't watch the flash based on it, though. Toothpaste 20:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. if All your base is in Wikipedia, then this should be in Wikipedia too. It's a similar, if less pervasive, 'net meme. Jessamyn 00:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
keep please but how does one person get 2 googles and another person get 20-thousands Yuckfoo 05:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Obvious keep. --Badlydrawnjeff 14:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- It's not hurting anyone, and the backstory is kinda interesting. I just added a link to a very in-depth blog post about it, if someone wants to expand the wikipedia article. Womble 16:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- In its current incarnation, I don't see any reason for deletion. --tgeller 21:31, 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 unanimously Delete -- (☺drini♫|☎) 05:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elland island

Non-existent territory; Elland Islands and Elland Island combined give two Google hits, neither relevant; and Harold J Melville (listed as the place's First Minister) gets none. Article also consists entirely of a half-filled-in Infobox. Loganberry (Talk) 22:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as hoax. Groeck 22:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Non-existent island - looks like a sandbox test. Grutness...wha? 07:49, 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 keep · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eugenics measures in Japanese Empire

This might be the most horribly garbled article I've ever seen. The topic is certainly notable, and an appropriate article about eugenics in the Japanese empire (or in Japan in general) should be created, but this article offers little that would be of use Paul 22:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Machine translation? Easier to start over. Dlyons493 Talk 00:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. If totally rewritten, it should be moved to eugenics in imperial Japan. Neutrality^talk 00:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom.Jwissick^(t)^(c) 00:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Cleanup. Maybe I'm being too anti-deletionist, but the topic seems worthwhile (probably renamed per Neutrality's suggestion) in principle. It's horribly written now, I agree, but a good article could exist. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per Dlyons493. DirectorStratton 02:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's not machine translation. That's a lazy comment. Charles Matthews
  - Comment The original version of the article, to which I was referring, looks like machine translation to me.Dlyons493 Talk 13:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Why would a machine ever write reffer? This is posted by a native speaker of Spanish, with idiosyncratic English. Charles Matthews
Keep and of course, send to Cleanup. I've seen worse. Un focused 03:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The subject is noteworthy but this particular article is not. The whole thing needs to be deleted and started again from scratch. Don’t just say keep and clean up. Either clean it up right now or delete it. I often wonder how many people who always vote to keep and clean up have actually made a concerted effort to clean up a mess like this. It makes the Wikipedia look terrible. ♠ DanMS 03:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I am changing my vote above after some great editing and cleanup by 209.90.145.149 and Charles Matthews. Thank you. ♠ DanMS 00:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. I cleaned it up, but I think there may still be questions as to the factual accuracy of the article. 209.90.145.149 04:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. it looks a little better now, still needs more cleanup. Article addresses a worthwhile topic about Japan's history which I'm sure will get more attention in the future by other editors. Kewp 05:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, but agreed that it still needs cleanup, verification, etc. Crypticfirefly 06:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, I've removed the self-reference to the article in the first line and created a definition lead. Not the best of articles, but keepable in its current state. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. One person's opinion on how garbled an article is ... well, this is quite possible to clean up. I often wonder how many people who always vote to keep and clean up have actually made a concerted effort to clean up a mess like this. Well, I have made User:Charles Matthews/Imperial Japan to address just this. Don't use AfD for clean-up. Charles Matthews 09:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment Well done on cleaning it up. You should appreciate that many of us have no expertise in this area. So an Afd seems appropriate to me for the original state of the article - either somebody knows and cares, or they don't and if nobody does then delete is a good course of action. Dlyons493 Talk 13:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment on comment: The policy page tells me things like 'use extreme caution merging any material', which I really don't like (merging is key to some clean-ups); and anyone can see this article should be moved to a grammatical title. So I don't accept that gun-to-the-head is a good way to expedite clean-up. Charles Matthews

Charles Matthews is definitely right about not using AfD for cleanup. We already have {cleanup} available as a tag, and that's much more appropriate (per nom who states in the AfD itself that the "topic is notable"). Voting "keep", BTW, doesn't obligate a voter to do the cleanup her/himself—doing so is great, but not everyone has expertise in everything. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Looks better after the clean-up and there is a lot of scope for a good article here. Keresaspa 16:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Was cleaned up significantly since Paul's nomination. All who voted "Delete" prior to Charles' work, please review the new version. Owen× ☎ 17:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Move What salvageable content is here should be moved to the 'Eugenics and the state, 1890s-1945' section of Eugenics, which is a very fine article and is where readers can find additional information as well as context. With respect, I find the cleanup commendations confounding. The Eugenics article illustrates a number of highly dubious assertions in this. Most notably, the author has conflated a science (genetics) with a social philosophy (eugenics), unless I have somehow missed the Japanese eugenics degree available as a pre-war discipline. Also, the last line, Eugenic thinking probably had wider effects. Japanese soldiers received instruction on how 'inferior' Asian and European races were to be treated. Military personnel who violated these instructions were severely punished is nonsense. Since when did Japanese society, especially the military, need eugenics to promote a world-view based on racial superiority? Instead, the theory of eugenics and social Darwinism worked well within a social system that already fostered such a view. Bottom line: moving this to Eugenics will get this content the cleanup it desperately needs. (My comment is based on the Revision of 10:15, 27 September 2005.) Dottore So 17:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment I still stand by my nomination, and while the article is much less of a mess than it was, my reasons for the nomination included the lack of references, the vague information, and the poorly phrased article title. As I did indeed say, the topic is notable and article-worthy, but it would be better to have a one sentence stub than a badly titled, vague, sloppy article. Sure, I could have added the cleanup tag and forgotten about it, but in my opinion it's better to start from scratch. Hey, look, there is potential for an excellent article about the topic, but let's do it right, eh? (Note: I was going to follow Neutrality's suggestion and create the article Eugenics in imperial Japan, but I was unsure as to what the article itself should consist of.) Paul 19:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Had my browser not been glitchy and Dottore So's comment been visible to me, I'd have just saved a couple minutes and said I agreed with him. Paul 19:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Move to Eugenics in Imperial Japan.--Apostrophe 00:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Move as per Apostrophe. --Apyule 06:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Question: Will you realy keep an article like this (so short, such statements: "Japanese soldiers received instruction on how 'inferior' Asian and European races were to be treated.") with no references? -- Andy.we 12:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
- Will you vote to delete an article, not nominated here for lack of references, before requesting that references be supplied? (NB it is easier to get sound references for Nazi Germany, say, on a given point, by a factor of about 100.) Charles Matthews
- Hi Charles. I did not want to vote, because I have no detailed knowledge about japanese war crimes. In this case I learned that some Wiki-Links lead to well documented articles Sadao Araki or International Military Tribunal for the Far East for instance, so my critical question me be without substance. I hope you will except this as excusion. Greetings -- Andy.we 16:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Move as per Apostrophe.Gator1 18:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep looks better. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep any probs this article has are not solved by deletion. Alf ^melmac 06:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Agree with above comments. Amren ^(talk) 23:39, 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 keep. H e rmione1980 00:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cuisine of Kentucky

This article is offensive, not factual, contains no useful information poorly written. Not suitable for Wikipedia. (preceding unsigned comment by 71.28.250.92 (talk · contribs) )

Comment. Completed badly formed AfD by adding section header to this page and adding AfD template to article in question. No opinion. --GraemeL ^(talk)

This page contains non factual and insulting text regarding the diet of a specific state. The tone is in itself derogatory. The article states that Kentucky consumption of White Castles is the highest in the nation. There are only White Castles in 3 cities in the state and the states population is over 4 million. Burgoo ( which I had never heard of) is served in Owensburg and I had to get that off the internet. It may contain some truth but it still has a derogatory tone to it. Also is this article suitable to Wikipedia? If there is an article concerning this states presumed diet then wouldn't there have to an aricle concerning every states cuisine?Dakota 22:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment. More tidy up. Two AfD sub-pages were created one for the article, and one for a redirect to the article. Above comment transposed from the redirect one here. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, assuming that the material is verifiable. The innacurately-named "Sources" section is just a link to an annoying recipe site. The article is, however, linked to from Cuisine of the United States and Kentucky, which is some evidence that some people think that Kentucky's food is interesting enough to read about. Of course, if Kentucky does not have its own cuisine, one could merge any verifiable information into Kentucky's History section, KFC, etc. Jkelly 23:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup and provide sources. I am sure that a good article could be written about this subject. Capitalistroadster 00:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
SpeedyKeep Just because a purported native has never heard of something means little. I went through and added some sources for the material about White Castle and Burgoo. Both of which are factual. I think a cuisine page for each state is an exemplary idea. --Rakista 02:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep; cuisine of any country or major region of a country is encyclopedic. If the article's biased or not factual, just fix it so that it is neutral and correct; lack of neutrality is not a reason for deletion. --Idont Havaname 05:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
keep please and add more sources too Yuckfoo 05:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Every region should has a 'Cuisine of' article.--Pharos 16:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment on purported native

The article as I first found has changed greatly. The original was different in title and tone. I am not a "purported native" of Kentucky. I am not from Kentucky but have lived here 5 years. I am the one who ask for that deletion. I just don't think it is worth time spent for pursuit. I give up and think I will write a Cinncinnati, Ohio cuisine article. -Dakota 03:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Good luck, if you start an Ohio one don't forget Wendy's --Rakista 10:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Managers of Rangers F.C.

I moved this, but now realise that there is already a section on Rangers Managers on the main Rangers F.C. page. Ben davison 23:18, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete for now, though a break out article with stats and commentary might legitimately be created one day. CalJW 22:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Rangers F.C.. --OorWullie 17:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, most managers of sports teams aren't individually notable, and should be handled with a section at the end of the team's article if they are mentioned at all. A coach/manager has to be nearly as noted as Vince Lombardi to get my "keep" vote. Barno 19:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was COPYVIO, so deal with it there (or rewrite on a subpage, or do whatever after the copyvio process is done). -Splash^talk 23:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Margret's Syndrome

Neologism. ~⌈Mar ka ci⌋ 2005-08-30 T 04:48:34 Z

Not to mention verging upon patent nonsense. Delete. D. G. 07:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
This is copyright violation of a humorous article by Mil Millington [24] (it might also have been published in one of his columns for The Guardian). I haven't tagged it as such because I'm not sure if this is frowned on. Sliggy 10:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect or delete as copyvio; whatever, I agree that it should be removed. Sliggy 17:24, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps redirect to Things My Girlfriend and I Have Argued About, then. Or delete entirely; either way, get rid of it. DS 12:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Relisting. R e dwolf24 (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Relisting for real this time; this afd subpage was orphaned. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 22:05, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 20:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Martin callinan

Delete Non-notable as per [25] PhilipO 20:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn vanity and resume cruft ---CH (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn Dlyons493 Talk 00:56, 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.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. Bearcat 08:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Melissa O'Neill

Delete - started as a {wikify}, turns out that the real page already exists at Melissa O'Neil - the surname has been spelt incorrectly. I don't believe any additional information exists on this page. Budgiekiller 15:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Redirect duplicate articles, don't delete them. —Cryptic (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect Natural enough misspelling. Dlyons493 Talk 00:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Redirect then, I apologise for being too bold...! Budgiekiller 06:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy redirected since it's reasonable enough and I don't particularly foresee any objections to the redirect. Bearcat 08:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. H e rmione1980 00:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Messianism

The information here is unnecessary, unreferenced, and in some cases inaccurate. I'm suggesting this be deleted, and anything valuable merged to Messiah. Cuñado - Talk 09:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I think this topic is essentially different from "Messiah", and should remain as such. The difference between Messiah and Messianism is huge, and they should not be in the same page. I agree though that this page should be reedited, as the information presented is incomplete. I suggest also to distinguish between religous messianism, and other forms of messianism (political). [unsigned by 83.130.65.217 ]
Keep - It may need to be cleaned up, and NPOV'ed, but it is an important topic to Jews and Christians (at least some of both groups) --Rogerd 23:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and Expand, I believe this article could grow with further research and information added, I agree more sources should be cited and perhaps further references to other articles relating to it on Wikipedia. Piecraft 14:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Enough difference from "Messiah" to warrant seperate article. Capitalistroadster 00:27, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 20:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Christianson

Non-notable high-school (?) baseball player. —Cleared as filed. 21:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Comment well that's what I see, have sourced and done some addition to the article to give context, but frankly I don't think it's a winner. Alf 22:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn resume cruft ---CH (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete nn. Verifiable? Dlyons493 Talk 00:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 23:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MIT/Wellesley Toons

Strong Keep. For starters, the Chorallaries have a page. So do rock bands with fewer CDs and smaller fan bases. Just because a group is a cappella doesn't mean it isn't notable. Cmouse 19:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Cmouse. Joke137 00:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
If they're notable enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC, it's not shown in the article. No vote pending research. Barno 19:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Most of the criteria in WP:MUSIC don't apply to the genre of Collegiate a cappella (only criteria 6 could possibly apply) - they seem aimed for pop/rock music. Cmouse 00:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

- - Criterion 4 (featured in a major music media) could certainly apply, although it's a shame most of them don't give at least a little space to the best in this genre. Also I occasionally see mention of a college a capella group in mainstream media; several examples of that would demonstrate noteworthiness by our general standards. Barno 04:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This is not the Whiffenpoofs or anything. Should the MIT editors ultimately decide that it is not worthy of inclusion on that page, then the redirect should be deleted, too. Full disclosure: I am a proud Son of MIT (Course XVIII), and I bleed in cardinal and gray. All together now, in four-part harmony: Arise and raise your steins on high/Tonight shall ever be/A mem'ry that shall never die/All ye of MIT! Dpbsmith (talk) 18:24, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multimachine

Delete, appears to be an ad. Citizen Premier 01:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete, spam. —Cryptic (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Ad Dlyons493 Talk 00:49, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 15:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mutulu

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Apparently it's about Mutulu Shakur, but I'm not sure whether a redirect would be useful; while we usually don't redirect from given names, this one's fairly uncommon. —Cryptic (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete Almost content-free - see no need of a redirect. Dlyons493 Talk 00:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Even BJAODN. Sort of funny. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 02:30, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 15:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Myomer

I feel this is too trivial for an article. also it's about a fictional thing. so Delete Idleguy 10:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment. If this is kept, it obviously needs to get edited to conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, in the use of complete sentences and highlighting of the title phrase at its first appearance. Michael Hardy 00:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Should be merged or at least redirected to an appropriate Battletech article. —Cryptic (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Not really worth an article unless great care in writing it is taken. Thorpe ^talk 22:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, gamecruft of minimal importance within the game and none in broader society. The content is already in BattleTech:Technology#BattleMechs so no merge is needed. Barno 19:27, 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 all --Allen3 ^talk 15:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Posse of One albums

This nomination applies to Mario Days - 2005, Rural Legends - 2005, and Stone Age: Dec 04 - July 05 - 2005, all of which are albums by Posse of One, whose article was deleted recently in VFD. The other albums are already up for deletion individually so this should be the last of them. --TheMidnighters 17:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete, get rid of it all. Punkmorten 18:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete --Quasipalm 20:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm re-opening and relisting this, as the afd nomination was for the albums, not the redlink that used to be in the article header. Delete all. —Cryptic (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
At least one of these albums (EPs, really) is claimed to be "a minor underground hit." Delete unless evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC is found, which apparently won't be the case in light of the artist's VfD. Barno 19:31, 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 KEEP. With the research done after the initial participators, and the discounting of the redlinked user, this is a keep rather than a no consensus. -Splash^talk 23:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iturf

Article created clearly to advertise the MSN Group and to be honest I don't believe all the history about the web site being changed over to an MSN Group. Not enough effort put into article either, so in my opinion it should be deleted. Thorpe ^talk 22:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Relisted on October 4, no votes other than the nominator. No vote. Ral 315 W_S 02:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete Is this really notable enough to be listed? If it was a failed company then it obviously was not notable enough in the eyes of the public to remain in business. will381796 03:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep Not only is this real - see[26] - but it played an incredibly major role in the creation of SparkNotes - see [27] - one of the most notable internet creations. It in and of itself is also notable due to it's status as a remnant of one of the more notable internet ventures, from which remnants never come - it's alwyas hit or miss. CastAStone 03:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete, it failed because not many people used it. Flops typically have to be spectacular and very expensive to be notable, like Battlefield Earth. -- Kjkolb 04:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- That's not accurate. It failed because it didn't make it's parent company, dElias clothing, any money. It continued to exist, however, because of its popularity. --] CastAStone17:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm not sure that some of the users moving to MSN groups would count as surviving. Anyway, they were only getting 65,000 visitors a month when they were at their original site. What do they get now? Also, how many members do they have? -- Kjkolb 07:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ad. utcursch | talk 11:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep, media coverage indicates adequate notability. Kappa 14:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Weak keep though I'd like to see the article cleaned up to focus more on it's actual subject instead of the memorial group that followed it. As it is currently it's just as silly as having an article on Jim Morrison with two pages about his tombstone but only a paragraph about his life. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep as per Kappa PMLF 20:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Keep per Kappa and CastAStone, but certainly clean up. --Jacquelyn Marie 15:42, 5 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. No sources provided to verify information at time of AfD closing. --Allen3 ^talk 22:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Africa (porn star)

Notability not established, no details given, pointless bio Vizjim 22:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 01:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Now if there was verifiable infomation... Vegaswikian 06:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
...notable for her large natural deletion. No sources to verify importance within her field. No distinction was claimed except her occupation, and the biography policy says an occupation isn't enough to be notable. Barno 19:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
keep but only if someone can add some sources otherwise not so sure Yuckfoo 05:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. No indication in the article that the subject meets WP:BIO. Quale 02:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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 --Allen3 ^talk 22:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew.Cheese

nn Web site. Delete. Owen× ☎ 23:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, almost nonsense, could be speedied--nixie 23:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Can hardly make sense of the article, doesn't appear notable at least. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy delete. I think this qualifies as nonsense. Quale 02:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Not according to the new, stricter CSD:G1. Since this article can be parsed by an English reader to have a meaning, obscure and useless as it may be, we can't speedy it away. Owen× ☎ 19:56, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 22:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Animorency

A 40-member anime club. Their web site has no Alexa ranking at all. —Cryptic (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

delete as per nom. Olorin28 00:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --Metropolitan90 01:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dudtz Image:Kardos.jpg 9/29/05 6:35 PM EST

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_Dano-Norwegian_exonyms

list does not make any sense at all, most if not all of the names are Chinese cities spelled in pinyin. I don't understand what is the point of the list, feel free to defend it. Abstrakt

Delete deletion for above reasons. Abstrakt 23:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete with all other useless lists. Groeck 23:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 00:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Über Sexual

Not an established term. Fancruft, hoax, or original research. ~~143.127.3.10~~ Groeck 23:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

delete as per nom. Olorin28 00:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as neologism and OR. MCB 07:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete per nom --rob 00:09, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 22:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_Danish_exonyms

non notable list that is taking up space and should be in Wiktionary Abstrakt 23:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Groeck 23:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete I don't see the point of it. Dlyons493 Talk 00:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, no sources, incomplete list if valid, no indication of importance. So no, it shouldn't be in Wiktionary as far as I can tell, and at any rate shouldn't be in Wikipedia. Barno 19:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 22:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_non-German_designations_of_High_German_dialects

unimportant list that is just taking up space Abstrakt 23:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Groeck 23:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 00:42, 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 --Allen3 ^talk 22:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List_of_non-German_designations_of_Low_German_dialects

unimportant list that is just taking up space. Abstrakt 23:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Groeck 23:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 00:41, 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oundrupleit

Bad joke page Atomiktoaster 23:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete isn't there a speedy reason for such nonsense ? Groeck 23:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as nonsense or a test? Vegaswikian 06:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism. No speedy criterion for this, so let this AFD run its course. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, lame joke, close to speedy but not quite. Barno 19:41, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] September 26

[edit] The Jaded

[edit] Adara (porn star)

[edit] Blog Horsefucker

[edit] Neltark and Willie

[edit] War on idiocy

[edit] Audrey Hollander

[edit] Del Mar 8

[edit] Ceciliantes

[edit] Polynucleotide

[edit] Korean War Educator

[edit] Live Long and Prosper

[edit] Svetambar

[edit] Detective Fork

[edit] Fhashality

[edit] Wikichallenge

[edit] Rose garrett

[edit] JARCE

[edit] Dave Richards

[edit] Healing trauma for activists

[edit] Aryeh Malkiel Kotler

[edit] BenLadner.com

[edit] Neil Kearns

[edit] Advanced Placement European Civilization

[edit] Celebrity carpenter

[edit] Martin J. Watson

[edit] Super Wrestlers

[edit] Guff

[edit] Blue-gray

[edit] Pale blue-purple

[edit] Brown-red

[edit] Adobe (color)

[edit] Walrus Man and Mighty Tighty Rhymefish

[edit] One Off Engraved Signs

[edit] Jason Boivin

[edit] Ripped off

[edit] Levulan

[edit] Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

[edit] Synesthesia (Buck 65)

[edit] Forserious

[edit] Doom grotto

[edit] Ginormous

[edit] Vitiation

[edit] Super Saiyan 4 Gogeta

[edit] Standard (warez)

[edit] FUTUREPIG

[edit] ObjAsm32

[edit] Ruzbeh

[edit] Information Technology Channel

[edit] Philosophy of Life

[edit] MC Radiation

[edit] Chownifull

[edit] Michigan Decency Action Council

[edit] Wilikaiłą

[edit] Subliminal Harassment

[edit] Murali Kulachandran

[edit] Falldown

[edit] Stargraves

[edit] Black market art

[edit] Doomer

[edit] Peaknik

[edit] Joe Killian

[edit] Exameter Road

[edit] Media Man Australia media company

[edit] Capitolo Otto

[edit] Justice League Avengers

[edit] Alphonse W. Turkeyman

[edit] Homocide

[edit] Corporate Knowledge

[edit] War on emotion

[edit] The P G P

[edit] PopeAlien

[edit] Kuji wuji

[edit] Sam Maguire cup

[edit] Team Liddell et al

[edit] STA (Success Through Advertising)

[edit] The Assassin (Story)