Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 29

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's 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. DES ^(talk) 04:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caschera

Likely hoax. The village of Broccostella is real, and Google comes up with geneaology websites listing Caschera as a surname attested in the village, but there is no evidence of lions or Julius Caesar. Pilatus 00:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless validation is found. - Andre Engels 10:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I am doing a report on the Providence of Frozinone. There are several references to the Cascheras, but they are all in Italian. Please see "Broccostella: I Fondatori". Please also note that they are only legandary. Italians are famous for having such creation/founding myths, ie Romulus and Remus and the she-wolf. 141.161.98.205 17:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Don Tote141.161.98.205 17:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• At the moment the sounds rather incongruous. Julius Caesar and his mythical ancestor Aeneas lived 1000 years apart. Someone's ancestry can be traced back to one or the other but not to either. And the idea that anyone (even a legendary figure) could be nursed by a lion in the densely populated Latium of 100 AD isn't believable. As I said, verifiable sources are needed. Pilatus 22:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• • 141.161.92.132 23:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)In fact, Caesar did claim that Aeneas was his ancestor, please see Plutarch's "Life of Caesar" and Suetonius's "Life of Caesar". Also, Latium was and is not "densely" populated even to this day. Most of it is rural mountainside with peasant villages scattered along the Appene mountain range. During this time period, the region was popluated with Lions until the Romans killed most of them off. Furthermore, the fact that they are legendary figures seems to escape some people. They were most likely not real, that is, these are figments of ones imagination not to be taken seriously. To say that it "isn't believable" would mean that one was ignoring the fact that they are legandary. I have managed to find a reference of The Caschera's in "Mythical and legendary narrative in Ovid's Fasti" by Paul Murgatroyd. A further study would have to be required in order to justly remove this entry. Also, the Fibreno River can be located to be an actual river found near the village. Thank you, Don Tote141.161.92.132 23:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • Legends must be self-consistent, too, people like them to make sense. I know that Caesar traced his own ancestry back to Aeneas. Someone would trace back his own ancestry only to Caesar or to Aeneas, who lived 1000 years previously, but not to both. As far as the lions go, from what I know Latium was the heartland of the Roman empire and at that time extensively used for agriculture. There is no place for lions on cultivated land. Pilatus 18:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep on the basis of the Murgatroyd reference (which does exist, although I know nothing of its contents). Dlyons493 Talk 02:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment No mention of "caschera" in the Gutenberg text of the Fasti. Pilatus 18:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is just another bad faith nomination by User:Pilatus. Earthian 23:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC) User registered on September 27 and contributed to four articles and their AfDs Pilatus 17:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • For the sake of everything that is holy, stop complaining! Follow me around the Wiki if you wish, but stop whingeing! If you want to be constructive in this debate, do provide evidence (i.e. sources) that the Caschera were attested anywhere and that the assertions made in this article are true. Pilatus 00:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep For some reason or another Pilatus does not want this article on the wiki. It is a nice piece of history backed by real facts by real scholars, (Murgatroyd) yet Mr. Pilatus has set his heart on deleting it. This is unfortunate. 141.161.59.64 16:15, 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 CDC (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Acid Breaks

non-notable music. Not written in encyclopedic form or tone, and nearly impossible to fix because there isn't enough context. (e.g. is acid breaks the name of one track or all the tracks?) Written as personal recollection (could be original research also other entries under WP:NOT). RJFJR 00:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete for want of verification. Acid breaks is a style of electronic music. This article claims to identify the first instance of it, which would be notable if accurate. Gazpacho 01:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  Keep at Acid breaks. Gazpacho 16:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I have rewritten the article for proper tone and removed the unverified claim that Ralf Baney wrote the first acid breaks track "Acid Break". It is a notable subgenre of electronic music which deserves mention. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, that looks better. RJFJR 03:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid music genre. Cnwb 06:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. 67.169.133.108 06:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete i am zak baneys agent his real name is ralph baney and he is the very first person to produce the genre called acid breaks back in 1987 .in miami florida he didnt intend on pioneering a style of music he just used chicagos acid sound with breakbeat there for creating the very first acid break track so he should be credeit for the work he has done .kenji matsumi
• I dont understand what to do here but i do know Ralph Baney but he goes by Zak Baney and he is known for being the one guy that made acid breaks and i think he needs to be noted for that ...dj king js
  • Great! But in order for it to be in a wikipedia article it needs to be verified. Is there a website, book, or magazine article which is somewhat comprehensive that attributes the beginning of Acid Breaks to him? If so, you or I can add this back to the article with a reference to the publication/webpage. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Nevermind, I found one myself under the name Zak Baney. Thanks for clearing up the name confusion! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 16:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, new version is certainly ok. - Andre Engels 10:51, 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.

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 keep --Doc (?) 08:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of self-referential songs

This is the second nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of self-referential songs for the previous ballot. Anyway, this list is now rendered unmaintainable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.176.99 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 29 September 2005

• Delete as a now-unsalvageable list. (unsigned comment from anon) ??all from 69.209.176.99 (talk · contribs)
• Speedy keep - unanimous keep in last afd - only one month ago. --Doc (?) 00:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per Doc. --Apyule 02:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per above. I believe there's a rule against nominating for AFD so soon after it being kept. Need some cleanup and perhaps a more firm criteria for listing, but I see no reason why it can't be here. 23skidoo 03:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 06:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Sounds like an invalid nomination. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 08:17, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 08:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soccer in Western Australia

Here's one page that im confused about. I was thinking about a merge but I dont know where or if because it is only one line and i dont normally deal with soccer so im placing it on VFD for a check. Looks like maybe a Speedy in this state for lack of content . --JAranda | yeah 00:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Soccer in Australia at this stage although that article needs more work as well. While there is potential for an article here, there is more information in the Soccer in Australia article (incomplete as it is) than here. Have expanded it to a stub. By the way, our Soccer in Australia article needs work. Changing vote to keep. Capitalistroadster 01:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Capitalistroadster 01:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no information - if you accept this than you could place any geographical name and have 'Soccer in perth' 'soccer in koolgardie' articles with zero info and just as useless. Cant see anyone typing in 'soccer in western australia' so no need to redirect. Astrokey44 01:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. You would add info to it one minute after I voted to delete for no info. lol. Astrokey44 01:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - Merge with Soccer in Australia, it does not warrant an article of its own, and its not like the main article is too long or anything is it? - Hahnchen 01:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Respectable stub on an interesting topic. Ambi 08:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it could make a decent article if it had a history section. Anyone able to oblige?--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the original article would have been a delete vote, but looks ok now. - Andre Engels 10:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Soccer in Australia Marskell 12:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge later on if the article can't be expanded to a decent size. -- Chuq 22:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/expand --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. It is an interesting article. Carioca 23:42, 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 Keep Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St. John's Military School

Obvious self promotion by the school. Hoovernj 00:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advertising. Johntex\^talk 00:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but revert edits.The original entry isnt so bad, which had been edited by different users. Then someone apparantly came along and added all the spam stuff to it. Compare these edits: [1] Astrokey44 01:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. CalJW 02:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and recycle some info from the deleted edits Anetode 03:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please if it is promotional we can fix that we do not have to erase it this is not a clean up page Yuckfoo 04:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Problem with promotional problem seems to be taken care of. The closing admin may want to consider purging history, since I suspect the *old* promo text, put in by "68.110.218.122", looks like a copyvio copy/paste, but I can't prove it. --rob 05:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete anyway, as it's a school. Proto t c 15:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no particualr indication of notability. DES ^(talk) 16:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep anyway, as it's a school.--Nicodemus75 17:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- DS1953 18:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable and NPOV information of a school. Reasoning at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Unfocused 21:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. And I wonder what kind of military training is conducted there. --Vsion 23:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to develop this article further. Arguments for inclusion are documented at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 23:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep founded 1887, seems a bit unusual for a school. Still can't find any alumni though. (This is what is called objective consideration of the merits of schools). Dunc|☺ 16:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Institution is established for more than 120 years. AFD is not cleanup. --Centauri 02:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn school--redstucco 08:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if Dunc voted keep for than this is clearly very notable --JAranda | yeah 01:53, 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.

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as patent nonsense. FCYTravis 02:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taco Bell Assassins (T.B.A)

• Delete, original research/self aggrandizement. Citizen Premier 00:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Dont delete this page its my contribution to wikipedia and i shouldnt BE silenced by the man (preceding unsigned comment by Immortal technique (talk · contribs) --Sherool 00:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC))

• Delete should be speedied. --NeilN 00:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity page --Interiot 00:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete This has been speedied once today already. See it's the deleted history entries. Can't tell what exactly those reivsions contained, but I'm willing to bet the current version is not any less nonsense than the past ones. --Sherool 00:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Oh boy, how fast can we Speedy Delete this crap? Johntex\^talk 00:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. "urban ninja gang" was all it took, really. -Nameneko 01:55, 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. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glencoe Hedge Fund

Advertising of a non-notable hedge fund. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - advert. --NeilN 00:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advert CalJW 02:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Andre Engels 10:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. — JIP | Talk 15:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advert and nn business. --MCB 17:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with prejudice, nn and advertising Paul 23:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant advertising. Cnwb 00:39, 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 Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prookum, the Echidna

None notable webcomic made by Morrowism, who's articles on Shame McSheista and Geronimus Nil I've tagged for speedy deletion due to nonsense/hoax/non notable. I also had to revert a single line vandalism on Andy Warhol. I don't think however this comes under CSD, a defunct webcomic hosted on angelfire with 1 google hit. If this can be speedied then that would be great. - Hahnchen 00:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Normally, I support webcomics on Wikipedia, but this thing needs a Delete vote. I sometimes wonder if the "100 comic" rule should be CSD criteria. Nifboy 05:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails the Google test with exactly one Google hit outside its own site. - Andre Engels 10:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another insignificant website. Friday (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Who keeps writing up these utterly nn webcomics? Dottore So 15:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Complete and utter B.S.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 01:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sccrewed

Non-notable, no mention on Google NeilN 00:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. Johntex\^talk 01:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't have an IMDB-entry, no Google hits on the combination "Sccrewed" and "Taro". - Andre Engels 11:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is nothing verifiable here. Friday (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN and unverifiable. Cnwb 00:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wasted designs

Non-notable politically-motivated art group. Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator --NeilN 01:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn Astrokey44 01:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is nothing verifiable here. Friday (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN / unverifiable. Cnwb 00:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator.--nixie 00:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 05:01, 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 4/15 +/- (due to how interpretation of certain uncertain votes) Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution poll

Article has escaped under the radar screen. It is basically a creationist POV-pushing endeavor. Any worthwhile content can be merged to the creationism article or the creation-evolution controversy article. This article, however, is misleadingly named (it is not a poll on evolution but rather a poll about the creation-evolution controversy) and the article has very little worth salvaging in terms of content since this basically is original research or, where it isn't, can be appropriately addressed on other pages. Joshuaschroeder 01:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• This doesn't push a POV but is an essay advising caution with opinion polls. Sources are missing, and the title is awkward. The content could go into creation-evolution controversy. Pilatus 01:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  Here is the source: [2]. How could you miss it? It was right there, in the middle of the article. Should we add it to the end, also? Uncle Ed 23:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources make this an easy delete vote. I agree with the nominator, there's nothing in the article worth salvaging. Quale 01:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• AHhhhhhhhhhhh! - I know my vote won't count and all, but seriously, my biochem text book is spinning in its grave, or at least it will be once they finally bring back the book burnings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.70 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 29 September 2005

....delete, delete, delete, or at least teach a few rednecks to read a damn genome

• Delete CalJW 02:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per 205.188.117.70. If not, then redirect to creation-evolution controversy. --Apyule 02:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there's nothing in this essay that Wikipedia is better for having. Also, polls are evil. Lord Bob 03:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What is the point of this? If it's about the statisical problems of polls, then it should be at Poll or whatever. If it's simply to show the percentages of people who ascribe to either creationism or evolution, then it should ne incorporated into creation-evolution controversy. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup. This article purports to be about ... what? Some particular opinion polls? The general idea of polling the public about evolution? There doesn't actually seem to be a topic here. Opinion polls are not how science is conducted; they might be useful as an indicator of the penetration of scientific ideas in the populace, but that would seem to need support from ... somewhere? There's an idea here, but it's so muddled that I'm having real difficulty disagreeing with the consensus to delete .... --FOo 04:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This would be a cleanup of the kind "throw away everything and write a new article". My opinion is that in those cases nothing is lost by deletion. - Andre Engels 11:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm going to call it a Delete but the title would make a good redirect to one of the other better pre-existing articles. DreamGuy 06:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What is this supposed to be? Some sort of scientific FUD generator? --Calton | Talk 07:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without redirect or merge. Who would search for this? And when they got there, why would they want to find personal opinion and original research based on a 2001 poll? Vizjim 09:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Personal essay by someone who does not realise that science is not a popularity contest. Average Earthman 09:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic in topic, essay, original research... - Andre Engels 11:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a personal essay. — JIP | Talk 15:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vsmith 15:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is one of the oldest articles at Wikipedia (3 years, 10 months). It was originally created to settle a dispute over how many people "believe in evolution" - which turns out to depend of various definitions of biological evolution.

  When "evolution" is defined in naturalistic terms about 1 American in 8 supports it. When the definition of "evolution" is expanded to include gradual emergence of species guided by an intelligent force (like God) then additonal 3/8 of Americans may be said to "support evolution".

  Sources have been in this article (I know: I put them in there at least twice over the years). If sources were deleted for some reason, then simply put them back.

  There is no reason to delete this article, other than to suppress information about the controversy, dispute and/or debate between advocates about their positions on evolution.

  It's especially disturbing that when I linked to this article, another contributer immediately said that he would try to get it deleted. This smacks of censorship - which is sneaky and low down way to win a debate! Uncle Ed 17:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Um, you created this article, according to the edit history, and by article, I mean one paragraph copy/paste, you then proved it 'valid' by linking to a washington times article, which apparently is where you copy/pasted it from.. using a tabloid as an encylopedic source is a rediculous standard, not to mention straight out copy/pasting?..--64.12.117.11 11:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator, who summed it up best. MCB 17:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Uninformative, not encyclopaedic Ex0pos 21:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'm no evolutionist but get rid of this lest Wikipedia becomes a repository on poll results for every concievable controversy Paul 00:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I am a thorough-going evolutionist, but if this is the only Wp article treating the well-known phenomenon of the apparent popularity of creationism in the US, then it should definitely stay and be improved upon. Unless I'm missing something — like that this article repeats information elsewhere in Wp, then I agree with Ed — this smacks of censorship. --goethean ॐ 14:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete/merge whatever content is useful. I don't see that a redirect is useful under this title. The proper places for this info were mentioned in the nomination: we already have creationism and creation-evolution controversy. There is no reason to mention a couple specific polls in their own article, outside the larger context. Friday (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Evolution is a dirty conspiracy, it's ten times worse then that whole 'round earth' bit, 5 times as insideous as that 'global warming' crap, and just as absurd as that whole 'gravity' thing, can you believe the leftist commie pinkos are actually allowed to teach this stuff to our children?? next thing you know they'll be handing out abortions like they're soada pop--172.208.123.70 14:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Information is sourced, clearly not original research. It is presented in a NPOV fashion. Johntex\^talk 17:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow Moon

Totally non notable webcomic which can be found here, alongside it's desolation city forums here. A google search for yellow moon brings up quite a few entities and websites named Yellow Moon, this non notable webcomic, does not feature. If we take a look at the Alexa rankings at keenspace, we see that this comic is not mentioned in the report suggesting that it is one of the very little read webcomics on the site. With stupendously lax inclusion criteria at WP:COMIC, random fans are adding webcomic articles to Wikipedia unchallenged, we have to stop this from happening, longevity does not mean notability. - Hahnchen 01:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as one of many unimportant, largely interchangable webcomics. Most Keenspace webcomics aren't notable at all. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an insignifcant website. Friday (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dottore So 15:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Man in Black. -- SCZenz 21:33, 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 as follows:

• の had 19 keep, 5 delete, and 4 merge to wiktionary. The result was KEEP.
• い had 8 keep and 3 delete. The result was KEEP.
• あ had 6 keep and 4 delete. The result was no consensus.
• Votes for all three overall were 12 keep, 0 delete, and 1 merge to wiktionary. The result was KEEP.

The final result was KEEP. Robert 20:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kana alphabet articles

This is a merger of three VfDs: あ, い, and の. The outcome on these articles should all be the same, so let's get a consistent consensus rather than having some of them deleted and others not, ok? Kelly Martin 16:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you make it clear how votes count here? Do I have to put delete after each kana, or will you only count votes one for each person for the whole article? Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I'm not sure of the rules. --DannyWilde 00:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not likely to close this AfD myself (I rarely close AfDs) but I would recommend that whoever does close this use common sense in counting votes. It is important, in my opinion, that all three articles close with the same result, and I imagine that the closing admin will examine all offered opinions without too much regard to which articles they are offered in connection with to reach a decision about consensus. Frankly, at this point, I can't see how a consensus will arise out of this swamp, but stranger things have happened.... Kelly Martin 01:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/い and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/あ. I have only created three kana articles and stopped when "no" was VFD'd. Toothpaste 03:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Note that all the other kana are being added, so the outcome of this vote should also apply to those also. This was the first letter to be added, so the main discussion for all of them should probably be here. --Interiot 01:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] の

Dictionary definition. DannyWilde 00:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, dictionary entry exists in Wiktionary anyway. --DannyWilde
• Weak Delete, as DannyWilde said, they're already in wiktionary. The roman alphabet (A, B, C, ...) has individual pages, but the wiktionary pages seem to already have more information than is being created in the en/wikipedia pages. If there's enough information to go in these, that doesn't belong in Wiktionary, then Keep. Are all 50/100 kana going to be added? Are any kanji going to be added?? --Interiot 01:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Wiktionary, per Uncle G. How a word is written and pronounced belongs in a dictionary. The same goes for letters that make up words. --Interiot 12:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No, kanji will not be added, only the kana, and the katakana will redirect to the hiragana articles. Like with the articles on the English alphabet letters, these articles could show the history of the writing of individual kana. In fact, I have a 2000 page dictionary in storage that shows the history of each English letter, with each article on them at least two pages. Aside from the history, the article could go slightly deeper into phonology, too, and possibly instructions on how to write the kana. Toothpaste 01:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, I've temporarily stopped until this AFD is closed. Toothpaste 01:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary is the place for this (The fact that you are referring to a dictionary should tip you off.), and a lot of such work has already been done, long since. You are encouraged to go to Wiktionary and contribute your dictionary work there. Uncle G 01:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems to be the place for an Encylcopedia entry, too. Toothpaste 03:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. No reason why these aren't any less encyclopedic than the letters of the Roman alphabet. Kelly Martin 01:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• As per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), if there is an encyclopaedia article to be had, it should be under an English title. But, as per the far better dictionary article の in Wiktionary, there is clearly no subject for an encyclopaedia article to be had. This article is a mis-placed dictionary article, pure and simple. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As a stub encyclopaedia article it would have no hope of expansion. Delete. Uncle G 01:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If you are unsatisfied with the name of the article, it can be moved to No (kana) and the actual hiragana and katakana can be made into redirects.
    • I reiterate: There is no encyclopaedia article to be had here. Everything that you have proposed adding, pronunciations, stroke indexes, and so forth is dictionary article content about the word. Wiktionary has had vast numbers of such articles with pronunciations, stroke indexes, and so forth, since 2003. If you want to improve them with pictures, Wiktionary is the place to do so. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 01:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • We have articles on A and B and so on. I don't know, but I should expect you would be able to say as much about the kana as about Roman letters. ~~ N (t/c) 02:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
        • One can, and the dictionary does. Go look at some of the thousands of such entries in Wiktionary. Some of them are huge. They have Unicode values, stroke indicies, input method indices, meanings in several languages, transliterations in several systems, translations, and more. Pictures would improve them yet further. A random medium-length example (selected, ironically, by hitting "random page" exactly once at Wiktionary) of what a dictionary can contain: 冝. Uncle G 02:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Agree that this would be better in Wiktionary. Disagree that the article in Wikitionary is "better." This one has some nice information not duplicated there. Crypticfirefly 02:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • New content was added since the "better" comment. Agree that the new content is good, and should be merged to Wiktionary. --Interiot 14:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Toothpaste - there is a rich history at A and B ... and it would be nice to have the same sort of history for the kana. Johntex\^talk 01:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, articles about letters are well-founded (we used to have them even back in UseModWiki days, indeed). James F. (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What of the overlap between wikipedia and wiktionary? Is there a substantial reason to have them in both places? If not, which one should be kept? --Interiot 01:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Wiktionary. Uncle G 01:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Both can be kept, just as how the elements of the periodic table belong in both dictionaries and encyclopedias. In addition, the Roman alphabet also exists in a dictionary. Toothpaste 01:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • A false analogy. Whereas a dictionary article on plutonium tells one about the word, how it is pronounced and so forth, an encyclopaedia about plutonium tells one about plutonium — about the element that the word represents. This is not the case here. You are not creating encyclopaedia articles about the things that the words represents. (It's clear from the Wiktionary entry telling us the meaning of the word that there isn't an encyclopaedia article to be had about the thing that this word represents.) You are creating dictionary articles about the words themselves. Uncle G 02:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
        • See for instance the precedent with the wikipedia Z vs the wiktionary:z. Okay, Ungle G's description doesn't fit with precedent, but I agree that his description is the right way to go. --Interiot 02:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Toothpaste. Acetic'^Acid 01:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to e.g. No (kana) because we have articles on the Roman alphabet, and surely the Japanese alphabet is just as interesting. ~~ N (t/c) 01:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Wiktionary, and leave redirect. Uncle G has me convinced. Maybe we should do this to the Roman-alphabet articles as well. ~~ N (t/c) 02:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Very, very strong keep. I didn't even know that there were actual entries about the kana characters on English Wikipedia. It would be a total and complete shame to delete these entries. Cjmarsicano 01:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There are vast numbers of entries for these in the dictionary. They were added in 2003. Uncle G 01:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• If kept, rename. I don't have any particular strong opinion on whether we should only have a wiktionary entry, or an encyclopedic entry (although I lean slightly toward the latter; alphabets are encyclopaedic). However, I have a very strong opinion about the title: it should be in English (or, at least, the English alphabet). Noel (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to move it to No (kana) if kept, along with all other kana articles, as that seems to be the consensus here. Toothpaste 02:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge these contributions into Wiktionary, but make sure that it's easy to get to from the hiragana, katakana, and other relevant articles. I would love to see full histories, stroke orders, and such for each of the kana (and kanji!), but I don't see any compelling reason that they should be here instead of at Wiktionary. —HorsePunchKid→龜 02:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, a good reason might be that that's /way/ outside the scope of Wiktionary. The article you describe doesn't belong in a dictionary. It belongs in an encyclopædia. James F. (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Complete rubbish. It's not outside of the scope of Wiktionary at all. Go look in Wiktionary at some of the existing articles. See the one that I picked at random above, for example. Many of them have stroke indexes, Unicode encodings, and other technical information. (And even they aren't complete. One could add audio pronunciation files, for one example.) That's what Wiktionary would like for all such articles. Uncle G 03:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This could start a trend. Do we want to keep the wikipedia server administrators employed (or unhappy with heavy storage issues )with 70,000 or more Chinese characters stored in their databases? While we're all here, could we also start articles for each character of Thai, Arabic, Tamil, Hebrew, Both Simple and Traditional Chinese, each 70, 000 characters x2 =140, 000, also Vietnamese,Cyrillic, Greek,Sinhalese, Sanskrit, etc. BTW, this is the character for cow:牛, horse:馬、--Jondel 02:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• To my understanding, kanji are used as the bases of words. Hiragana and katakana are uses as noun endings, adjective endings, for other suffixes, to show the pronunciation of kanji, for stylistic purposes, for otomotopoeias, for emphasis, for technical terms, and for the transcription of words borrowed from other languages. I do not think we should have an article for every character representing a word, or part of a compound word, or a rootword, but for characters that represent individual sounds that can form a word, as in the English alphabet and with the kana. If this and similar articles were to be kept, only approximately 50 or so kana articles would be created total. Toothpaste 03:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Articles about English affixes go in Wiktionary. (See all of the Wiktionary articles linked to from in numerical prefix, or the Wiktionary articles on -ing, -ism, or -icle, for examples.) Articles about other language's affixes should be too. Uncle G 03:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The kana themselves are not affixes. When combined, they form affixes, though there are probably a few that could form afixed by themselves, like A can be both a letter and an affix. There shouldn't be an article on -ing, certainly, but there certainly should for i, n, and g. Toothpaste 04:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral I guess as its gonna be moved to 'No' or whatever. I don't think every character will be necessary as this is just one of the most common and all... zOMG not bold Extremely strong machoman randy savage delete. C'mon, a solid majority of us (I'd estimate between 80 and 95%) just see a ?. Its a dicdef even for those who have the language pack. Useless for an English Encyclopedia. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This is English language Wikipedia, not English subjects Wikipedia. Pilatus 03:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • And as per our Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English) our article titles are not in other alphabets. Uncle G 03:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Why does that matter now that I have moved の to No (kana)? Toothpaste 04:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, see reasoning at い). Pilatus 03:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Just a note from the person who suggested deleting this in the first place: there is some information about some of the kana characters which could be worth having in Wikipedia. For example the origin of the kana ン is disputed. It might belong in Wikipedia if we were to discuss the origin of the character, or if there is to be something other than just "this is a Japanese character, it is pronounced "no" ". However, I'd expect such information to come from a split from katakana or hiragana pages if it came from anywhere. Also, "no" has very important grammatical functions in Japanese grammar. So I think there is a possibility of expansion or split from Japanese grammar of a "no" page. However, since there are already lists of Japanese symbols on the hiragana and katakana pages, I'm very dubious about making a full set of small, unexpandable stub articles about every single Japanese symbol. --DannyWilde 03:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please and all other hirigana katakana and kanji characters pilatus is right we are an english wikipedia but we should also too stop the systemic biases here enough is enough Yuckfoo 04:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the discussion? The point is that the characters all already exist on Wiktionary. --DannyWilde 07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. We already have articles on Latin alphabet letters and Cyrillic letters, why not Japanese kana syllabary? In any case, this is more than just a stub. -- Curps 05:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

There are two articles, hiragana and katakana, and complete entries on Wiktionary. If there is any additional extensive material to be added to the article, let it first be added to hiragana or katakana, then if those pages become too long, then consider breaking them. --DannyWilde 07:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 07:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: since I started the vote for deletion, this article has been artificially bulked with copy-paste edits from other pages, probably in order to avoid being deleted. For example, the comments about "no" coming from the sousho form of characters, etc., apply to ALL of the Japanese kana, not just this one - there is no point in having fifty identical pages, one for each kana, with the same copy-pasted statement. Using this kind of trickery in order to avoid the page being deleted should not be acceptable. --DannyWilde 07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. If you'd prefer the history section to be taken out temporarily, this would be fine. The transition of man'yōgana to hiragana is much more complex than what is written now. For example, it's a pretty big jump from the second character to the third in the picture at Image:Nohistory.jpg. I'd rather have a few copy and pasted statements, aided by pictures, than an article lacking completely in history content, which applies to this VFD, but overall, and I already it's already a beginning to be a bit comprehensive. Toothpaste 07:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If you are serious about writing in detail about the origins of kana on a per-kana basis, I would suggest an article on "Origin of kana" with section headings for each kana you want to discuss, if you have enough material that it will make hiragana or katakana too big, of course. If there is so much stuff on one kana that you actually need a whole article on it, I'd be surprised. Spreading origins all over the place in fifty different articles doesn't make any sense, since the hiragana and katakana are all very closely related to each other and the history is the same. --DannyWilde 13:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to bed now, as I've been working on these for the past four hours, so you'll know why my reply will be delayed. Toothpaste 08:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. It's too much to ask that an article be born an adult. The purpose of stub tags is to indicate potential growth. These articles have the same potential as the articles on the letters of the Latin alphabet. The number of symbols, and that the language is foreign, might result in slower growth, so let's give them time. Fg2 08:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. See A or B. JPD 10:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a dictionary definition, but it doesn't belong in an English-language, Roman script encyclopedia. I'm not even excited about article like å, and keep in mind that I'm saying this as native Swede. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • More precedent: various punctuation, some which are fairly obscure. Those article names are in roman characters, and there are corresponding wiktionary entries as well. I still don't think there's a good reason to have the same information in both places though (in fact, the punctuation templates are identical in wikipedia and wiktionary). --Interiot 15:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, unless we are going to delete other alphabetic and syllabic characters as well. Еdit 14:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The most notable kana. - Nat Krause 15:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. The over-reaction to any perceived (and non-existant)systemic bias is ridiculous. A lot of the keep votes have not even read the above discussion, or do not actually understand the difference between an encylopaedia and a dictionary. The articles on roman letters are encylopaedic. Everything on this article is wiktionary material, and as this is an English lanugae encyclopaedia, will never be more than that. Not encyclopaedic. Kana are the new schools? Discuss. Delete delete delete, and hit the PC police with big sticks. Proto t c 15:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

As I've stated before, just because this Wikipedia is written in the English language, is no reason for articles about Japanese kana to exist, and I feel it is just as justified here as on the Japanese Wikipedia. How are the Roman letter articles different from these? Also, I think saying, "You didn't read anything that was said," is a patronizing tactic way too common in Wikipedian discussion, which also applies to the other side, given a few people that, at first continued to site the article's location at の as a reason to delete even after I had moved it. Toothpaste 15:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I wouldn't naturally think to look for a letter of a foreign alphabet in an English language dictionary --TimPope 17:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per the precedent of the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. --Carnildo 21:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have articles on colors also, so why not kana? (ok I know there are differences, but kana have more history and symbolism behind them than our alphabet. AngryParsley 04:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] い

This is a mis-placed dictionary article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary, which is a dictionary, already has い (and many others). As an encyclopaedia article, this article would have no hope of expansion, and would be under an English title anyway, per our Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English). Uncle G 01:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete agree with nominator -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep I like the new No (kana) version -- (☺drini♫|☎) 21:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete . This could start a trend. Do we want to keep the wikipedia server administrators employed (or unhappy with heavy storage issues )with 70,000 or more Chinese characters stored in their databases? While we're all here, could we also start articles for each character of Thai, Arabic, Tamil, Hebrew, Both Simple and Traditional Chinese, each 70, 000 characters x2 =140, 000, also Vietnamese,Cyrillic, Greek,Sinhalese, Sanskrit, etc. BTW, this is the character for cow:牛, horse:馬、 ,yamemashou やめましょう,sayounaraさようなら:佐様奈良--Jondel 02:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do not believe that "heavy storage issues" are close to being a problem or are likely to be a problem in the future. It seems to me that this is not a good reason for wishing to delete or prohibit certain types of articles. Lupin|talk|popups 02:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. See my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/の. Toothpaste 02:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge... somewhere. I don't see the reasoning behind deleting letters of languages with lots of letters if we have quite respectable articles on languages with fewer letters. It does need more information if it is to stand as an article in its own right, though. Lupin|talk|popups 02:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That we have articles on the languages is no reason to have articles on the individual words in those languages. That is what a dictionary is for. As I have already pointed out both at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/の and above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That's Wiktionary's job. If you think that い needs pictures, or pronunciation guides, or Unicode information, or attached audio files (which will being it up to the level of the other dictionary articles that have these things), then please add them. But turning the encyclopaedia into a dictionary, counter to the official policy, is needless duplication. The dictionary is right there, and will take all of the dictionary content that editors have to offer. Uncle G 03:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are entries for the characters of the Latin alphabet and on some unicode characerts, so there is good reason to believe that a decent article can be written on each individual kana character. Note that I don't hold similar optimism for primary sch**ls. Pilatus 03:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • For good articles on these characters, see the dictionary, which has had lots of such articles since 2003. The dictionary is the place for writing articles about words, and many such articles have already been written. Uncle G 03:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not a word but a glyph from a syllabary alphabet, and as such should be kept here. The article in its present form isn't a dictionary entry at all but an entry on the character. Pilatus 13:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep this too please my explanation is already at no (kkana) Yuckfoo 04:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We already have articles on Latin alphabet letters and Cyrillic letters, why not Japanese kana syllabary? There are only a few dozen kana, by the way, so comparing this to adding thousands of Chinese character articles is off the mark. -- Curps 05:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a bad precedent to set. Proto t c 15:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. See A or B. JPD 10:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Pilatus. Please try to avoid bias against non-English languages. --Last Malthusian 13:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a dictionary definition, but it doesn't belong in an English-language, Roman script encyclopedia. I'm not even excited about article like å, and keep in mind that I'm saying this as native Swede. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia may suffer from systemic bias, but it's also en.wikipedia. Dict def articles about non-Roman symbols are not encyclopaedic. Proto t c 15:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] あ

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/い. Uncle G 01:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete agree with nominator -- (☺drini♫|☎) 01:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

keep I like the new No (kana) entry -- (☺drini♫|☎) 21:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Better stop this trend, else we might as well list 70 000 + Chinese Characters as well and other characters of other languages. --Jondel 02:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. See debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/の. Toothpaste 02:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep and please combine all these discussions it is not really the best to repeat this over and over for all the kana characters really Yuckfoo 04:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Please. I agree with the nominator. Matt Yeager 05:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We already have articles on Latin alphabet letters and Cyrillic letters, why not Japanese kana syllabary? There are only a few dozen kana, by the way, so comparing this to adding thousands of Chinese character articles is off the mark. -- Curps 05:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. See A or B. JPD 10:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep obviously. Dunc|☺ 14:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a dictionary definition, but it doesn't belong in an English-language, Roman script encyclopedia. I'm not even excited about article like å, and keep in mind that I'm saying this as native Swede. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, of course. Proto t c 15:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Continued, merged

• Comment. Dictionaries are for the physical written, spoken, and electronic symbols, how those symbols fit into larger physical expressions such as individual sentences, and the historical changes of the physical symbols. Encyclopedias explain the ideas those symbols refer to, and refer back to physical symbol history only when needed for disambiguation purposes. This goes doubly for individual letters. You wouldn't put an audio pronunciation on the wikipedia の page, any more than you would put 'his-t(&-)rE &v "ar-&-'zO-n& on the History of Arizona page. --Interiot 16:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Or, in the words of epistemology, dictionary=map, encyclopedia=territory. --Interiot 22:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I wouldn't naturally think to look for a letter of a foreign alphabet in an English language dictionary --TimPope 17:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • (moved above so comments aren't doubled) Why not? You find satsuma and seppuku and yakitori in an English dictionary. They're in an English dictionary because the definition is in English, not because the subject itself is english. --Interiot
    • Those are all words, these articles are about characters. I see a distinction. --TimPope 17:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • And, as stated above, letters are even more low-level representations than individual prefixes, words, or phrases. You find pronunciation of words and a long list of historical spellings in dictionaries, but not in encyclopedias. That's because dictionaries describe how you write a word down, how you pronounce the word, how you attach it to other words. Encyclopedias describe the concept, history, and larger context that pops into your head when someone says/writes/types that word to you. Individual letters having nothing to do with abstract ideas in your head. There's clear precedent that pronunciation belongs in a dictionary, so it follows that how a letter or word is expressed in Unicode or Braille also belongs in a dictionary, because these are just different mechanisms for communicating between two people, but they don't have any impact on the higher-level thoughts a person has once the idea is communicated to them. Note that kanji (and chinese characters generally) blur the line between letters and words, and chinese characters clearly belong in a dictionary. --Interiot 17:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have made the information expressing how to pronounce it more similar to that of a. The only difference now is that Usage does not have its own section. Should I give it one? Toothpaste 18:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If given its own section, the Grammar section will be merged into Usage. This is similar to how "a" as an article is mentioned under the Usage section of a. I'm just using Latin alphabet articles as models. Toothpaste 18:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. There are also articles on pentagram, and ampersand. Some opponents seem to confuse syllabary with ideograms. Kana is syllabry, so its characters are letters. -Hapsiainen 18:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ahh. Ideograms clearly are dictionaries (eg. see character dictionaries). As for the difference between pentagrams and syllabary... You can stick a pentagram next to an octagon next to a circle, and it doesn't mean anything syntactically. Whereas, with syllabries and letters, their purpose is to be part of the language hierarchy (eg. letters form words, words form phrases, phrases form sentences, sentences form paragraphs, paragraphs form encyclopedia entries (or something)). Letters are on the opposite end of the language hierarchy from where encyclopedias sit. --Interiot 18:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I used pentagram and ampersand as examples of signs that have their own articles. I didn't say that pentagram is a letter or an ideogram. -Hapsiainen 18:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • According to the standard I put forth in the couple of comments above, language-oriented graphemes should be placed only in a dictionary (contrary to current precedent), but non-language-oriented pictograms (such as a pentagram) should be placed only in an encyclopedia. So those were arguments for that position. Both Encarta and Merriam-Webster include entries for individual roman letters, so I suppose a safe way to rule on this would be to put the same/similar content on both wikipedia and wiktionary. But that's a bit of a weird solution, especially if we can find a standard that indicates which articles should go where. --Interiot 18:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • As does Britannica. If this gets deleted, do you agree that a should be VFD'd? Toothpaste 19:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm proposing that if an organization produces both an encyclopedia and a dictionary, and makes them equally available (especially for free), it should not have duplicate entries for every single grapheme. So, yes, I'm suggesting the two articles should be merged. --Interiot 19:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not a dictionary definition, and that pretty much says it all. -- grm_wnr Esc 19:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • ...so... The wiktionary entries should be VfDed? --Interiot 20:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • You can try, but I guess Wiktionary wouldn't take too kindly to proposing their article for deletion on Wikipedia :P. If by "VfD" you mean wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion, I guess a dictionary entry could be written under that topic as well, so no. I hope you're not implying that wikt:encyclopedia should be deleted just because we have Encyclopedia. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I think most people can understand the difference between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. However, I don't understand how there's a difference between existing content for the grapheme articles (Braille, Unicode, audio pronunciation, part of speech usage, stroke order, etc). It seems to be the same on both sides. --Interiot 21:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I am of the opinion that this is material that is perfectly appropriate for an encyclopedia, and maybe less appropriate for a dictionary entry. However, whether they think it is appropriate there is something they have to decide by themselves, and I'm saying that I think this is appropriate here in this discussion. There is no rule that content must not be duplicated on Wiktionary and Wikipedia, as long as both communities want it. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
          • So, the suggestion then is that users should click on the interwiki link, and read through both articles at the same time, to make sure they get the full/best information? Or that one of us personally ferry information back and forth to create two copies of the best information? --Interiot 21:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Note that the "best" information for Wiktionary is not the same as the "best" information for Wikipedia, but apart from that, that is what I'm suggesting above, yes. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
              • Well, can't say I'm bored enough to do it, but for anyone who wants to semi-troll, or pick up easy edit points or whatever, here's a start of all the various edits that were just proposed be made, using just the existing information (no new kanji or anything yet). Madness. --Interiot 23:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
              • As said before, kanji are not pertinent to this discussion. Quite a few of the glyphs on those lists exist as redirects to what they represent, similar to how $ redirects to dollar, where it has a section for the history of the symbol. This cannot be done with kana. Toothpaste 23:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
              • I must say, the directory path of your link intrigues me, Interiot. Maybe I should just let this discussion rest for now. -- grm_wnr Esc 00:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
                • The directory path wasn't commentary per-se. It was describing my actions if I would have decided to combine this with this. --Interiot 00:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as pre the precedent of the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. --Carnildo 21:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep some (not necessarily all) characters are notable --madewokherd 22:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, at least until we delete Z. Seems a reasonable start. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 00:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Keep keep keep. Not only per precedent, but there's some damned interesting stuff in here. Are we supposed to go to Wiktionary to find out how the stroke order evolved? --Golbez 04:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course. The history of these ideograph and ideograph components is certainly encyclopedic, as is the practice of writing them and any notes on usage and significance (in the same manner as we have "grade A" or the quote "I am the alpha and omega"). Demi ^T/_C 04:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A small correction: Japanese kana aren't ideographs. Anyway, I completely agree with your point. I hope something everyone will agree with is that the history of kana does belong in Wikipedia. But, before deciding whether to keep the article on that basis, please take a look at the two excellent existing articles, hiragana, and katakana. If there is a lot of information to include, it is possible that each individual character might need to have a history page, giving more details, but as I suggested above I think it would be better to integrate the information into one focused page if at all possible. --DannyWilde 05:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename in English, otherwise the articles are more or less useless. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, The issue is that, I strongly believe it's a problem if the standards say that information should be completely duplicated in both places. At this point, there's precedent on both Wikipedia and Wiktionary (1), (2) to keep all the information discussed so far on either side. When AfD/RfDs come up, the easy thing to do is vote Keep, and act like a problem doesn't exist. So eventually this information will get copied to both sides, while all along, people aren't required to give reasoned arguments for or against the idea that it should be copied verbatim in both places. I'm a programmer, and one of the first things that was pounded into my head over and over, was that you don't keep information in multiple places unless there's a really really good reason, because it always causes more problems than you think it will, keeping them synchronized or coordinated wastes a lot of human time, and usually there's a simple technical or procedural fix for it. This discussion is made more important because we really are talking about duplicating hundreds and thousands of characters.         Most dictionaries and encyclopedias have characters in them. So people will come to either place looking for information. We're an electronic wiki, we're one community, not two, and we can do better. The solution is to put a redirect or interwiki link on the other side, and only store information on one side. And there is precedent for doing that too. --Interiot 14:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge While there exists the potential to make a significant article for each of these, none of these has enough to justify a separate encyclopedia article at the moment. Caerwine 23:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Japanese alphabet? Keep, we have A, A (Cyrillic), Alpha (letter) and Æ, so why shouldn't we have articles on Kana, given that they are now at English titles? Alphax ^τεχ 13:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep at their japanese names, we use Unicode on this installation, no reason not to use it. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Ausir 13:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC) at the Japanese names
• Keep all kana, like all letters of the Roman alphabet. Kappa 21:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apollo 9 (webcomic)

Non notable webcomic which can be found here, along with previously deleted webcomic Gemini Bright. Its alexa rank is at 5 million, although a spike did send it up to 1 million at one point. A google search shows up nothing which makes this website more notable than any other out there. Just because a website is a webcomic, does not make it inherently notable, let's delete this. - Hahnchen 01:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Many websites exist, few of them are significant. Friday (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dottore So 15:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Johntex\^talk 17:09, 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 Keep Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Guantanamo Bay detainees

A list of nn people with a bunch of red links just begging to be created. POV anti-Americanism, WP:POINT created because individual people whose articles already created have been listed for AfD. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - I'm not sure, but isn't this stuff better in commons? Anyways, get rid of all redlinks and NPOV the thing. And when I say get rid, I don't mean make an article. - Hahnchen 01:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep sans broken links and NPOV. Gazpacho
• Keep they might not all merit articles, but a fair number do. Not pov in concept at all. Far more important than many articles about U.S. news events that have a similar level of detail. It only reflects badly on America because Guantanamo Bay reflects badly on America - as many of America's traditional supporters agree, not to mention plenty of Americans. CalJW 02:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Since when has it been anti-American to talk about those people that Americans have wrongfully incarcerated? Shall we delete Japanese internment in the United States too? FCYTravis 02:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Worthwhile list. Crypticfirefly 02:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep An important list. Even if the items in a list are not that notable the list can be. --Apyule 02:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep arg... why are we trying to fracture a fractured debate even more? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The list itself is important, the people in are not so they red links should be removed (if anybody wants to expand on individual detainees they can do that within the article as none warrant their own).
• Keep The existence of the prison at Gitmo is significant, and the list of names is also significant, although individually they do not merit their own articles. There are many such articles on wiki; see, e.g., Category:Lists of people who were executed. Brandon39 03:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep and please zoe do not try to delete something to make a point that is a waste of our limited resources so please do not do it again Yuckfoo 04:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is yet another case, where a list is a good place to re-direct/merge minor articles to, instead of going through AFD for each one. No AFDs were needed to deal with this problem. The appropriate thing, was to discuss it centrally on the list's talk page, and merge/re-direct minor articles to the list. --rob 05:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but most of the people aren't notable enough for their own article. The ones that aren't should be redirected and the current red links should be removed. -- Kjkolb 05:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oops, they all have articles. -- Kjkolb 07:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - The Anti-Americanism can be solved by editing the top paragraphs, the red links by making the names non-linking. Removing the names altogether as now has been done, was a bad step, which I will be reverting. - Andre Engels 11:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - This is vitally important information concerning a significant and continuing political event. The article needs serious improvment, and accurate sources need to be cited the for content of the first two sections and the names on the list. I see no anti-Americanism in the article as it stands, and it should be kept and improved, redlinks or not. And when was the existence of numerous redlinks a reason for deletion? Well done to Andre Engels for restoring the full list. --Cactus.man^>Reply 14:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, delink all the redlinks. Most of the names that do have links are so stubby they should be redirects to this list, anyway. Maybe someone could look into that. Proto t c 15:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Is that what you see? I see a few, which, at this point, remain small stubs. I see many that are several K in length, and I think almost all the remaining articles contain both noteworthy, verifiable facts and link to sources where those facts can be verified, or expanded.
• I must be missing something. Could you please explain how redirecting an article back to the list improve the wikipedia? -- Geo Swan 17:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly, a stub is a stub, waiting for expansion, not deletion, merging or redirection. --Cactus.man^>Reply 17:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, any criticism of the Bush administration's attempts to rule the world with an iron fist is a sign of communism, terrorism, and hating freedom. — JIP | Talk 15:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep These detainees have been at the cetner of significant public debate, and their identities are significant for that reason alone. Whether or not they are rightfully detained, whether or not they did in fact commit acts of terrorism or "unlawful combat", and whether or not it is proper that they be detained as they now are are significant issues both inside and outside the U.S. The identities of the detainees can be sued to help research facts relevant to the above debates. Highly encyclopediac, assuming that the list is verifiable, whcih it should be. DES ^(talk) 16:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup, NPOV, remove redlinks, and maybe move to Guantanamo Bay detainees, as it's substanitally more than a list. -R. fiend 16:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, delink red links, as per Proto. -- SCZenz 21:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• I've done some cleanup work - anyone with 15 minutes to spare an do the rest of the redlinks. Have also tried to dePOV and cleanup some English. This article is an obvious keep. Anyone in Guanatanamo is notable. Vizjim 00:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, delink red links. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Not really anti-american, and definitely important.--Alhutch 01:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. a list of people of being detained in a specific location is not inherently/unavoidably POV. if it has POV problems, that in itself is not grounds for deletion. possibly move per R. fiend. Nateji77 04:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not anti-American POV. -- Decumanus 14:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Of both historical and current interest. I just took a minute and delinked the red links for 'I'; it won't take long to do the rest. Chick Bowen 00:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

*Delete the sourcing is suspect. needs clean up and sources. Joaquin Murietta 04:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Can you offer those name(s) of the entries whose sourcing you find "suspect"? Since I worked on trying to make sure there was at least one source for each entry I would be happy to set your mind at ease. -- Geo Swan 23:40, 6 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. – Rich Farmbrough 16:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outsider (comic)

A webcomic which can be found here, on a website a website with an Alexa rank of over 450,000. If a page were made about well-of-souls.com, where the comic is hosted, it would most probably be deleted. Yet because this is a minor webcomic hosted on that site, it deserves its own article! Such is the failing of WP:COMIC. I do not want to endorse WP:COMIC in any sort of way, but this fails even the massively lax inclusion criteria. - Hahnchen 01:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Dottore So 15:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. I created this article as it fits the requierments on List of webcomics. I'm still working on the article and am in contact with the author, soon to obtain an image to go with the article. Zhatt 18:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply - There is a growing consensus that the proposals on WP:COMIC are inadequate. I think the article would be of a lot more use on a project like compixpedia as mentioned below. Another point is, why was the article created about a specific part of the site? I don't think it is notable enough for inclusion anyway, but surely, having an article about the author and all the works on well-of-souls would fare a lot better on Wikipedia. - Hahnchen 23:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: You might want to consider moving this to the Comixpedia Webcomic Wiki --Carnildo 22:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply: The article is already at Comixpedia. Delete this article if you wish. Zhatt 16:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Zhatt CLW 06:44, 9 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. — JIP | Talk 08:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slumming

Nn neologism. --Blackcap | talk 02:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Nom removed. I came across this when all it said was about it being a phrase in Good Will Hunting, apparently not a neologism, keep. --Blackcap | talk 04:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not a neologism but not encyclopedic either. Gazpacho 02:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Far from being a "nn neologism" this is a common and well-established word. However the article is an incomplete dictionary definition. Delete CalJW 02:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• This is a valid concept, but this article defines it narrowly and incorrectly. "To slum" originally meant simply to patronize, for the purpose of recreation and adventure, an establishment (e.g. a bar or restaurant) that is well below one's means. The author of this article has mistaken a derived usage, which is nonnotable, for the original usage, which is notable. I think someone can easily write an encyclopedic article about this phenomenon, elaborating on its motivations and its connection to the yuppie subculture, etc. So I vote to keep and improve. Bhumiya/Talk 02:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I just expanded the article. It needs work and citations, but I think it's valid. Bhumiya/Talk 03:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why not? Matt Yeager 05:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but would have been a delete vote before Bhumiya's edits. - Andre Engels 11:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup with a better sense of history. Slumming, in the sense of visiting a poor areas of a city as a lark/adventure by the realatively well-off, was popular in 1880s London and 1920s Harlem (NYC) and in many other times and places, it is not nearly as new as the current article implies. DES ^(talk) 16:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but continue cleanup with historical perspective, as per DES. --MCB 17:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, important sociological concept of persons who "belong" in one level of establishment enjoying the forbidden fruit of patronizing a "lower" level of establishment. DES, I'd love for you to add your knowledge to the article. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The problem is I have heard about this from individuals (members of my parents' generation) and read accounts in period fiction (lots of mentions in Jazz age fiction, including P. G. Wodehouse), but I don't have any quality citable sources to hand. DES ^(talk) 19:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Understood - I'm confident it will develop in time. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep well known social relevance. Alf ^melmac 09:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep, withdrawn by nominator Pilatus 22:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maurice Achieri

Delete - This guy claimed to be pope. So what? No claims of a significant number (or any) followers. Anybody can claim to be pope, king, god, or whatever. By itself that means nothing. Also, happening to have the same name as another person (even if that person is notable) isn't signficant either. rob 02:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Widthdrawn and suggest delist - Based on what Pharos found, I'll agree to dropping this, and removing it. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do that myself, so maybe an admin can drop this, since nobody has voted delete (and re-directs, if wanted don't require an AFD). At this stage, I don't know if this person is notable, or not, but I now see he exists, and has one or two followers, at least. This is why people need to cite sources in articles. --rob 05:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Antipope or Antipope#Sedevacantist antipopes--Apyule 03:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep he's listed in Antipope which is a notable phenomenon. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 03:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable antipope. I would like to know more about him, but from the mention of his name in a number of places, one can presume he does have some significant following.--Pharos 03:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • In searches I've done, he seems to be mentioned almost exclusively in wikipedia itself, or mirrors of wikipedia. Is there some other signficant other mentions of this person? Is there any evidence, anybody other than him, considers him a "pope". --rob 04:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Mystery solved. The reason "Maurice Achieri" is only mentioned on Wikipedia and mirrors is because we spelled the name wrong (how embarrasing). His name is actually "Maurice Archieri" with an r. Here's his website.--Pharos 05:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per Apyule. The problem with this article is that it contains literally no information about Achieri beyond what is already stated in the Antipope article (the longer of the two sentences in this article is about a different antipope with the same regnal name). The article can be recreated if someone actually has some information to write about him. --Metropolitan90 03:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Apyule if the article can't be expanded.  :-) >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please but a redirect should be okay if that is what we are doing Yuckfoo 04:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, after move as per Pharos's comment. - Andre Engels 11:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep at new correct page Maurice Archieri, not a redirect to Antipope; the problem with a redirect to Antipope is that people are less likely to create/expand on an article if its already a redirect to something else, they might think that it's not important enough to recreate the article.--Kewp 14:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as moved. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Antipopes who have any following or press coverage are notable.--Nicodemus75 17:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and move to Maurice Archieri. Hall Monitor 19:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: As mentioned, I withrew the nomination, I took te AFD off the page as well. --rob 19:31, 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 speedy delete. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Virtz

Hoax/Personal essay--Shanel 02:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say original research, too, if it wasn't Patent Nonsense. Speedy and BJAODN --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• CSD as patent nonsense. --Apyule 03:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if not Speedy. Nonsense ♠DanMS 03:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, patent nonsense. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Maintain Further researches are going on.User:ChairLady 05:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy, perhaps BJAODN. Nonsense. - Andre Engels 11:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Tagged as Speedy... patent nonsense--Isotope23 20:32, 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 speedy delete. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jubin Jacob

non-notable person. Less than 1,000 Google hits, even assuming they are all the same person, which I doubt Johntex\^talk 02:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nn-bio. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only claim to fame is being the owner of a company that to me seems to be non-Wikipedia-worthy in itself. - Andre Engels 11:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. If for some reason not speedy deleted, delete as non-notable. DES ^(talk) 16:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. It appears this task has been completed already by Android79 a few minutes ago.  :D Hall Monitor 19:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus-Default to keep 11 keep/10 delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brown school

non notable Johntex\^talk 02:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no notable alumni / no important research or discovery / no other assertion of notability - Hahnchen 02:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please it is a school and it is notable too so we can include this Yuckfoo 03:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote disregarded due to closing admin due to fact that vote uses the "just because it's a school" argument, just because is not a general criteria to neither delete nor to keep. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - The school was founded in 1893, and I suspect it has some history and alumni worth mentioning, if it was given some time. --rob 04:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if it can be expanded to include historical relevance or notability. Otherwise, delete. Compare this Brown school to The Brown School here in Louisville, Kentucky. Some relevance is included in the latter. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep "Since 1893" indicates a long history with lots of details to be found. A very good school stub so far, and will be improved over time. However, I would encourage anyone feeling bold to move it to a more specific name as soon as one is decided. Unfocused 04:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 20+ schools are added a day. Nominating one now and again is pointless and mass deletion attempts are heavily defeated. Please don't nominate any more schools. CalJW 08:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - So nobody should nom a school for deletion just because nominating 1 is "pointless" in your view and mass noms are frowned upon? That is ridiculous reasoning. Unless there is a policy that all schools are notable, noms like this are going to happen and should happen until there is a standard set for notabilty of schools. Just because you don't agree isn't reason enough for someone who believes schools are not notable to stop nominating them.--Isotope23 18:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • But the facts that it achieves nothing and creates bad feeling are. CalJW 20:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Still, there is no policy to prevent a nom for deletion. I understand where you are coming from CalJW but just because it ruffles a few feathers is no reason to abstain from a nom for AfD. I also disagree with your contention that it achieves nothing: it keeps the issue of school notability alive on the AfD pages. Hopefully this will prompt a discussion where a consensus can be reached pertaining to school notability. Otherwise we will be having this conversation over and over...--Isotope23 20:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• We also have 100+ articles written on non-notable people and websites every day. The fact they're written doesn't have any bearing on their keepability. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Many people believe all schools have notable. We have the upper hand and have established a de facto policy. Schools shouldn't be nominated just as countries shouldn't be nominated. On the other hand almost no-one believes all people are notable and many biographical articles are deleted every day. CalJW 20:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • How many schools have to survive the AfD process before we can declare that a concensus exists "not to delete school articles" simply because they are about schools? What percentage of nominated school articles must survive the AfD process before we can declare such a concensus? How many poorly-written articles have to be fixed through the AfD process before we can declare a concensus that "it is better to just to fix a poorly written school article rather than immediately send it over to AfD"? How many months of schools surviving the AfD process are needed before we can declare a concensus that "it is better to work together to build the quality of school articles instead of gaming to system in a vain hope to get even one school article deleted"? While these are partly rhetorical questions, I think that those that nominated and vote to delete school articles on the basis that either A) "They are schools and non-notable" and/or B)"This school article is poorly written", should consider answering the questions. How long must the charade of AfD rules-gaming continue?--Nicodemus75 08:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Vote disregarded due to closing admin due to fact that vote uses the "just because it's a school" argument, just because is not a general criteria to neither delete nor to keep. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, this school has a long history. --Vsion 08:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per its indication of a long history. Note: just because an article is about a school doesn't mean it should never be deleted. It can be just as crappy and non-salvagable as articles on non-popular websites, and pretty much anything else. Don't try to stop people nominating schools just because you don't like it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Reason for notability should be something mentioned in the article, not something assumed on general grounds. - Andre Engels 11:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• YP-style stub that no one has bothered to expand. Kill it good. Delete Pilatus 13:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Dunc|☺ 14:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I suppose I should go around to every school article and add the sentence "A notable institution due to it's committment to education and the expansion of knowledge and effect on the lives of local people" in order to satisfy Andre Engels novel requirement for keeping schools.--Nicodemus75 15:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You could do that, Nicodemus75, if you wished, but you would likely to your own significant annoyance and regret find that many of us still would vote to Delete with extreme prejudice on the grounds that this school, like so many others, is ineffably and utterly insignificant. Dottore So 15:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for so obviously demonstrating my point.--Nicodemus75 16:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • You're very welcome. Dottore So 16:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote disregarded due to closing admin due to fact that vote uses the "just because it's a school" argument, just because is not a general criteria to neither delete nor to keep. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no particular indication of notability. DES ^(talk) 16:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - meets my second criteria for keeping a school - open since (well) before WWII. -- BD2412 ^talk 17:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These sort of time wasting exercises can be avoided by either tacking on a {{school-stub}} or merging the article somewhere until it can be expanded. There is demonstrable evidence that school articles are not deleted when nominated here, so it is not unreasonable to ask that people stop nominating these and find something more productive to do with their time. My personal reasons for keeping, in addition to the fact that this school is over 112 years old, are posted at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 19:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete-Another un-notable school. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:32 PM ESY

• Keep. -- DS1953 04:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, four walls and a roof are not inherently encylopaedic. WP:NOT a web directory. Proto t c 10:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote disregarded due to closing admin due to fact that vote uses the "just because it's a school" argument, just because is not a general criteria to neither delete nor to keep. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 00:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete primary school wastes bytes. Made me laugh though for its pitiful unnotability. Send to BJAODN under crap. Dunc|☺
• Keep -- Almost all schools are notable, and so is this one. --Mysidia (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Very few schools are notable enough to merit a place in Wikipedia. This article does nothing to convince me this school is any different. Denni☯ 01:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable public institution. --Centauri 02:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn school --redstucco 08:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, verifiable public institution with a yellow pages entry and no notable traits.Gateman1997 21:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete schools need to be notable to be included. This one is not. U$er 17:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge if anyone would like to suggest a merge target. JYolkowski // talk 21:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Denni. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied as attack page --Doc (?) 16:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The human lobster

Fails WP:MUSIC, does not assert notability, in fact, the opposite. --Blackcap | talk

• Delete - it looks almost like a short article whose sole purpose is to disparage its subject. Truly, notability has not been asserted and doesn't seem to be present --Mysidia (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Google gives 435 hits on "Human lobster", but only a minority of them are actually about this band - 3 of the first 20, 0 of the 20 from 101 to 120. No sign of notability. - Andre Engels 11:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as an attack. So tagged. Friday (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• And so speedied --Doc (?) 16:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 12:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bad spelling and grammar

There are only 13 Google hits for "bad spelling and grammar" tim bowen, most of them Myspace pages and the like. (The title is an accurate description of this article, by the way.) sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 02:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: This AfD page blanked by 68.88.177.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 04:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Nameneko 05:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Bad article and grammar. I mean, Delete. --FOo 06:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per FOo. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 09:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Foo. --JoanneB 15:05, 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. Robert 22:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scandal Sheet!

A webcomic hosted on keenspace, and can be found here. The Alexa report shows no mention of Scandal Sheet on its report for keenspace, and its forums is a ghosttown. A google search shows up nothing which would lift this website above all the other more popular websites out there. A webcomic is no more notable than any other website, and just because it has surpassed one hundred strips does not make it notable, no matter what WP:COMIC says. - Hahnchen 03:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• The Scandal Sheet! forums are a ghost town because they moved to Livejournal. Keep - what do you think WP:COMIC is for, anyway? And they had a crossover with Something Positive, which helps too. DS 05:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The main purpose of WP:COMIC seems to be to give non-notable web comics a reason to stay on Wikipedia when they would have been deleted if they were a non-notable anything else. Delete on general principles. - Andre Engels 11:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- the primary question here is of notability/vanity -- this webcomic appears to fall short of sufficient notability to merit an article in the encyclopedia. --Mysidia (talk) 03:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. WP:COMIC is just plain silly and I do not plan to use those criteria in my decisions. I see no reason not to judge any website by the same standards, regardless of whether they contain comics or not. Friday (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I am in agreement with the above. Dottore So 15:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Likewise... perhaps there need to be some skeptics participating in WP:COMIC. -- SCZenz 22:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the Comixpedia Webcomic Wiki and delete. --Carnildo 23:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn CLW 06:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as a patently invalid nomination. FCYTravis 05:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laverne & Shirley

No educational value. Not everyone in the whole wide world is familiar to it.205.188.116.11 03:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep article is good. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 03:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. The article claims to be a stub but is fairly detailed. The show is a clearly notable popular TV show and obviously meets our criteria for an article. Another obvious keep nominated by an anonymous user btw. Capitalistroadster 03:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • As this guys says, stubs are not a problem that require deletion. --SuperDude 03:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Bogus nomination. --SuperDude 03:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and give the anony a smack in the head with a WP:POINTy stick. Lord Bob 03:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Obviously a nuisance nomination along with the one for Taxi (TV series) 23skidoo 03:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. I think this is the same anonymous user (different IP though) who nominated WKRP in Cincinnati and 21 Jump Street last Thursday, both of which were kept. Probably a nuisance nomination. ♠DanMS 03:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. We also went through this last week with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dukes of Hazzard. Bad faith nomination. --Metropolitan90 03:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 03:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• 'speedy keep this please and get it off of this page it does not belong here Yuckfoo 04:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep and let's end anon nominations. This is absurd. It's happened to often. There's nothing to stop somebody from nominating every show on (or off) TV they don't (or didn't) like. --rob 04:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep --Mysidia (talk) 04:56, 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.

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 keep as invalid nom. FCYTravis 05:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taxi (TV series)

This article is too stupid to be an encyclopedia article. Educational rating of ZERO. Only Americans are familiar to that show205.188.116.8 03:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Bad faith and waste-of-time nomination. You gotta be kidding me. 23skidoo 03:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per 23skidoo. isn't there a policy regarding ludicrous anon ip nominations? Anetode 03:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. What I want to know is, if we all agree to ignore these B.S. nominations and not even vote for them ... would these legitimate articles end up getting deleted by default? 23skidoo 03:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Probably not, an editor would probably re-open the nomination for lack of response. Nevertheless, speedy keep. I can't assume good faith; this is a bad faith nomination. --Metropolitan90 04:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep -- (☺drini♫|☎) 03:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep -- and give the nominator a warning. --Mysidia (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per 23skiddo and agree with Mysidia. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 03:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. I think this is the same anonymous user (different IP though) who nominated WKRP in Cincinnati and 21 Jump Street last Thursday, both of which were kept. Also Laverne & Shirley above. Probably a nuisance nomination. ♠DanMS 03:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Taxi was on in Australia. Andy Kaufman and Danny DeVito rose to prominence on the show and it won 18 Emmys. We need a process to stop anonymous users from wasting everyones time in votes such as these while still allowing them to notify of things worthy of consideration for deletion. Capitalistroadster 04:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• speedy keep this too please we do not allow anonymous deletions sorry Yuckfoo 04:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 12:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs about mothers

Seems like this list is potentially unmaintainable. Some people might treat this like "List of songs about being a motherfucker", "List of songs with the use of the word 'mother'" and other possible wording.

• Delete as listcruft. --SuperDude 03:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the above --Mysidia (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for various reasons stated. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 03:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft —Wahoofive (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. Don't forget to contribute to Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs —Wahoofive (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. MCB 17:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Maybe clarify the title, but as it stands this is a manageable and (dare I say) potentially useful list. For someone. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep as per above. nom even admnits that the list is only POTENTIALLY unmaintainable. I think it is maintainable.Roodog2k (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The number of songs about mothers is finite, and the list is therefore easily manageable. It's also an interesting and useful source of information about a fairly major artistic theme. --Centauri 02:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Christopher Walken. Robert 23:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Walken in 2008 Campaign

This article is a hoax, as documented on wiki's article on Christopher Walken. Brandon39 03:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Christopher Walken Anetode 03:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, assuming the hoax existed outside Wikipedia. -- Kjkolb 05:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Removing POV leaves 0 words. Either delete or redirect. - Andre Engels 11:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Reinyday, 14:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Anetode. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Making this into a redirect would encourage this kind of nonsense. Also, failed attempt at humor. Paul 00:06, 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 12:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Human rights abuses by Anhui police

Once all the inaccuracies and POV statements are removed, this article has literally nothing (0 words) left:
Human rights frequently are abused by police of Anhui province of China. Says who? And what exactly is so special about the situation in the province of Anhui as opposed to the rest of China that merits this article? This has to be seen in the context that Anhui still is seen as a part of China which is less developed than the entire East of China excluding Manchuria. Patently false. Manchuria is far being from the poorest region of eastern China. Henan, Jiangxi, Shanxi, and Anhui all have GDP per capita lower than Manchuria.
It is administered by the provincial Public Security Bureau, whose director is Cui Yadong. Provinces in China are administered by Party Committees and the Provincial People's Governments. Public Security Bureaus are subordinate entities. This statement is laughably false.
In 1995 police in Anhui province launched a campaign to hit and eradicate five religious groups. Source? Which five?
Also, the first external link adds nothing to the topic of human rights abuses in Anhui, and the second link isn't even about Anhui at all. ran (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Miborovsky 04:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 100% POV. CambridgeBayWeather 04:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom, super POV. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pure fiction once you check the facts for yourself. Abstrakt 22:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The title is POV and the article should be deleted. But regarding the recent riot involving thousand as reported in the given link http://english.people.com.cn/200506/30/eng20050630_193309.html, is this a notable event? Should we try to document these social unrest? --Vsion 03:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE (12 delete, 5 keep). Robert 22:26, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] East campus

A non-notable dorm at MIT.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not specifically notable that I can see. Perhaps if someone famous was born, died or conceived there? >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 03:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. CambridgeBayWeather 03:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep -- I think the arrangement of the site at MIT is notable enough, as MIT itself is notable; remember, WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia. On the other hand, this article as it is isn't very useful or informative -- it needs to either go or be expanded.. --Mysidia (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, MIT itself is very notable, but if people want to read about the dorms there floor by floor, they should consult the MIT web site, not an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 04:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all articles about dorm buildings unless world-famous. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 06:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vegaswikian 07:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Szyslak. Unless the architect, style or design is somehow notable, a building is just a building, and a dorm even more so. Dottore So 15:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. I know many MIT students who take their dorm organization very seriously, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us ought to. -- SCZenz 21:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• comment I don't get it. There were articles about dorms at Harvard recently nominated for deletion and kept. If its good enough for Harvard, why not MIT??? Roodog2k (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete Oh yeah, I almost forgot. I voted delete on the Harvard dorms too. Roodog2k (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to East Campus (MIT). The article says almost nothing, but much more could be said - MIT dorms are much like frats in that people choose where to live, and EC has a particularly interesting culture. --SPUI (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with SPUI. This should be moved to East Campus (MIT) and expanded. Baker House, Simmons Hall, Burton-Conner House, and Bexley Hall are other dorms at MIT that have informative entries in Wikipedia, and I don't those pages up for deletion. I don't see any reason why East Campus should not have an entry. MIT dorms indeed have very unique and interesting cultures. --RadiantEuphoria (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If other dorms have pages, this should too. Cmouse 01:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --redstucco 08:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The number of dorms notable enough to have their own article is few to none. Just because other non-notable dorms have articles does not mean we should compound the problem. U$er 17:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- I think that you all are confusing a poorly written article with a subject that has no merit. I agree that the article needs work, however East Campus has a long and colorful history. For example, the recent Time Traveler Convention was held at East Campus, which got international press. I will appeal to my friend who lived at East Campus to ride in and fix the article. Theinfo 21:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom CLW 06:47, 9 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 Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slugfest

Non-notable floor of a MIT dorm.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 03:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and it should have been speedy. CambridgeBayWeather 03:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "NN dorm floors" is not a WP:CSD. Userfy or delete, btw. Jkelly 15:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Is it being blatantly self-promoting and contentless a reason for speedy deletion? (I'm actually not sure.) -- SCZenz 21:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment Self-promotion isn't a Candidate for speedy deletion. "Very short articles providing little or no context" is. Note that the word is context, not content. CSD policy is rather narrow. There is a current proposal to expand CSD that you may wish to express an opinion on. Jkelly 23:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Same as East Campus above. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 03:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete --Mysidia (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If this goes don't forget Fourth East, a redirect page. CambridgeBayWeather 03:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this is basically a student organization which exists in part of one dormitory, and is inherently non-encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 04:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dottore So 15:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - see my question above. -- SCZenz 21:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or possibly merge with East Campus. --SPUI (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The number of dorms notable enough to have their own article is few to none. This floor is certainly not notable enough for its own article. Just because other non-notable dorms have articles does not mean we should compound the problem. U$er 17:23, 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. Robert 00:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of foreshadowed media titles

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --NeilN 04:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Can an admin fix this on the afd page? The server threw up an error when I saved. Page is List of foreshadowed media titles --NeilN 04:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see a problem with the nomination, but I can't even understand what this article is about. --Metropolitan90 04:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment The Table of Contents on the afd page listed this nomination as "PageName". Seems to have been fixed. --NeilN 04:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not an information landfill. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Might be interesting to mention it in the articles on the various things mentioned, but not as a list. - Andre Engels 11:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are other articles that are rather trivial that end up being kept. (unsigned comment from anon)
• Delete I agree with metropolitan90, I'm having trouble seeing what the purpose of this article is. Amren ^(talk) 22:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Neither the nominator nor anyone else wants this article deleted. (A modicum of research shows that the Wikipedia:criteria for inclusion of biographies would have been satisfied in any event.) Uncle G 06:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lilian Keil

I'm actually voting to keep; I jumped the gun on this one, and googled for "Lillian Kell" rather than "Lilian Keil". I'm leaving this on the list only because of the notice not to delete the afd notice until the matter has been resolved. Brandon39 03:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep as mistaken nomination as above and expand as article is short. I would be grateful if admins could look at this matter. Capitalistroadster 05:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and close the nomination. -- Kjkolb 05:38, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Casual Competition

Orignal research? Nonsense? Call it what you want... NeilN 04:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, and I'll go with OR. --Apyule 04:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:09, 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 merge Woohookitty 10:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Students' Union Offices

Useless article. Delete --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete obviously. Dottore So 16:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Students' union. There's no reason this sort of thing shouldn't be there.--Pharos 16:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Students' union. --Marknew 07:27, 11 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of gross-out songs

Listcruft NeilN 04:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete subjective and unmaintainable list. --Apyule 04:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Impossible to maintain, unencyclopedic, subjective listcruft. --Blackcap | talk 04:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because they didn't include "Puke" by EMINEM ;-). >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable list —Wahoofive (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. Don't forget to contribute to Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs —Wahoofive (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because otherwise it might one day include "Puke" by EMINEM ;-). Dottore So 16:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My sarcasm wasn't very well written ;-). I agree with Dottore So! >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 17:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as inherently POV listcruft. MCB 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Cnwb 00:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. Flowerparty■ 01:31, 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. Additionally, this was already on BJAODN last time i looked. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to make a PBJ

Don't know if this is a joke (the text gets pretty sarcastic), or just a confused new user. Either way, there has to be something to do with this. Delete. Tzaquiel 04:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP it's way better than any other recipe that I've seen on Wikipedia so far. The last line is a bit point of view and it should explain what to do if some of the ingredients are not available. What about if you don't like peanut butter or you don't like jam. I'm kidding send it to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. CambridgeBayWeather 04:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, wikipedia is not a how to guide. Try a transwiki to wikibooks. --Apyule 05:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN. Although it definately does not deserve an article, it does seem like a mild waste to just delete it... -Nameneko 05:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• I just put this page on BJAODN. Now that's BJAODN with a big "D". sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 06:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though I am eating a peanut butter and jelly sammich with crunched up potato chips in it right now. Go figure ;-). >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete The fact that someone spent time writing this makes me not feel so bad about how much time I spend patrolling recent changes. DJ Clayworth 17:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bad joke. --> BJAODN, possibly Uncyclopedia might want it? -- Karada 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP, Ok, so its not a wonderfully creative recipe, but does describe a process that is relevent to modern people who, in all seriousness, might not know how to make a PBJ correctly their first time ( or open a jar of Jam ). Besides a little semi-serious levity couldn't be that bad. --pvanbloe 10:54, 29 September 2005
• BJAODN - the home of semi-serious levity. -- BD2412 ^talk 20:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ROFL at the idea of Uncyclopedia taking our unwanted articles, much as the Salvation Army would take our unwanted clothes Paul 00:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide. Еdit 02:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN Have a sense of humor... :) Roodog2k (talk) 21:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• bjaodn this it is pretty funny but can this be transwiki added to wikibooks too Yuckfoo 19:14, 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.

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 as on attack page about Jorn Barger. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jornbarger

Delete. Nonsense. --Salleman 04:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• CSD under A7. I will list it at CSD. --Apyule 04:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • A7 applies only to people, not to mythological critters. --Blackcap | talk 04:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but I think that this is about a real person. Even though he claims to be a mythical creature, the rest of the article and the results of a web search strongly suggest that he is just anouther nn blogger. --Apyule 05:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax and load of tripe. --Blackcap | talk 04:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It looks like someone is making a mockery of Jorn Barger. Еdit 05:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per Apyule. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:45, 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 merge and redirect to Nobel Prize. – Rich Farmbrough 17:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why Isn't There a Nobel Prize in Mathematics

Badly-named OR. DS 05:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Nobel Prize as trivia? >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Personal essay, original research. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 07:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• CommentThis is not original research; the original post provided a good bit of (copyright-violating) source material, and it has been suggested the whole thing was lifted from the sci.math FAQ. While I can see the temptation to delete it, I think it can be turned into a worthwhile, if quirky, article. No vote from me yet. The Land 09:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • . Merge. The Land 11:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge: I am inclined to agree with User:RobyWayne. In case, the consensus is for this, than the contents may be suitably condensed. --Bhadani 09:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Dekete there isn't one in biology either, so what? Dunc|☺ 13:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Anything as long as it is not delete. Tintin 15:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I go for a merge. Who is going to type the whole thing in the encyclopaedia anyway ? Tintin 01:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If there's any substance to this, it will eventually find its way into the larger discussion at Nobel Prize. Dottore So 16:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Nobel Prize, though it needs some cleanup. Jonathunder 16:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup and then merge, as suggested by Jonathunder. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 21:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research/personal essay. --Carnildo 23:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hardly an original research. Google comes up with a lot of links starting with this Tintin 23:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• MergeJendeyoung 01:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep assuming it is true. But move to get rid of the caps from "isn't there". -- RHaworth 02:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoary old urban legend [3]. -- Grev -- Talk 03:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge a mention of the urban legend into the Nobel Prize article. But please move this to a more reasonable name before merging and redirecting (as GFDL requires) so we're not stuck with a useless redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Private Butcher 02:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Nobel Prize - or move to a sensible title. But do not delete. \Mike(z) 14:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. the wub "?!" 15:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Completely useless, full of unfounded rumour. Cynicism addict 02:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Nobel Prize--Bkwillwm 16:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Contains nothing factual. (preceding unsigned comment by 80.58.8.107 (talk · contribs) )
• Move/Merge This is a terrible title for this article. Add a section to the nobel prize page with this info. [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent^†_∈]] 09:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep because the page had been edited so that the reason for deletion did no longer apply. - Andre Engels 11:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orchids of Western Australia

This article is written in such a way that it's nothing more than linkspam. I've got no problem with the subject material, but it needs to be written in a much more encyclopeadic fashion. I've removed the URL to defeat the linkspamming. jmd 05:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy under WP:CSD A3. --Blackcap | talk 05:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Western Australia has a number of orchid species see [4]. However, this article tells us nothing about them other than Orchids of Western Australia refers to orchids in Western Australia and would deserve deletion if not improved during the discussion period. However, might vote to keep a decent stub if it discussed the types of orchid in that state. Could someone please contact me if article has been improved.Capitalistroadster 05:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. --Apyule 07:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. User Apyule has turned this into a nice little stub with references. Capitalistroadster 07:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the credit, but Jonathan de Boyne Pollard did more than I did. --Apyule 07:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten article. Ambi 08:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although it would probably be better discussed in a Flora of Western Australia article.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 08:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The rewrite looks fine (perhaps a little overlinked). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Now it's got some material, I'll vote for a keep. jmd 11:16, 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was to delete the article. User:Nichalp/sg 08:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sanket Alekar

Not sure if this ought to be speedy or not. Seems like nn-bio and or patent nonsense. jmd 05:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Alekar or delete them both as nn and promoting. Seems nn here in the States, perhaps a notable tome in India? >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• This article may sound promoting, but I believe it is a good entry. I have read the book in the original language, and it is quite funny, to be honest. I suggest it should be redirected, not merged, as some people will want to search for their favorite character on Wikipedia. Or, this page could be translated to Marathi, the language of the book. Also, Wikipedia is not important only to Americans, is it? HistThe Big Guy
• Delete Well, I live in Maharashtra, and I've never heard of this book or author. Not that I read Marathi novels, but a google search only points to only one site [5], which suggests that this is probably a prank or so. Certainally non notable, unless user:The Big Guy can give us an ISBN number, and prove otherwise. User:Nichalp/sg 18:37, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 12:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tooheys New

NN. Local only. Jwissick^(t)(c) 05:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't like the stuff, but it's certainly notable, and "local only" is patently untrue. I live 3000km away from the brewery and it's readily available here. jmd 05:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep. It's a major beer in Australia, has sponsored major sports teams and events, and is the leading brand of Lion Nathan. --Apyule 06:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and expand in Tooheys#Beers. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

THat would require a merge and redirect instead of a delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Very popular Australian beer. Far more Australians drink New than Foster's Lager which is mainly drunk in other countries. Capitalistroadster 06:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very popular Australian beer. Cnwb 06:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Very notable beer. And while I hate to be nasty, if the nominator had done the slightest bit of research, it would've been abundantly clear that it was not a local beer. Ambi 08:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Well, it's local as in it's predominantly drunk in only one country, like - say - Millers. Notable (if not particularly good) beer. Grutness...wha? 09:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above opinion by Australians. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Tooheys. While it's the most common beer where I'm from, I don't believe there will be sufficient information available to make it worthy of its own article. - 3mta3 10:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a big part of the culture of Melbourne pub goers as it represents the Melboure/Sydney rivalry.
• Keep Notable Australian beer brewed since the 1930s--User:AYArktos | Talk 11:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Either keep or merge into Tooheys. - Andre Engels 12:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Al 19:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Popular product. Xtra 03:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 220.253.12.86 08:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely not local only. Slac speak up! 09:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, one of the major beers in Australia. Not as nice as Carlton Draught, though. --bainer (talk) 10:41, 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 delete. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kiyotei

Delete as promotional advertising. Еdit 05:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete promoting. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Extremely blatant linkspam. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert - Andre Engels 12:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic, doesn't belong here. --Alhutch 01:08, 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 4diskclean gold

Advertising spam, also 4diskclean -- Ketil Trout 06:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, CSD by promoting. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. *drew 09:51, 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 4diskclean

Advertising spam, also 4diskclean gold -- Ketil Trout 06:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, CSD by promoting. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, 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 KEEP. Robert 00:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CJDJ

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

• Delete-- Same as above.--Jondel 06:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Changing vote due to new cleanup efforts by Bearcat. Good job. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist• E@} 22:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup but keep. Established Wikipedia convention is that radio stations, especially ones serving major cities, are valid article topics. See WikiProject Radio Stations. Bearcat 01:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- JamesTeterenko 02:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Bearcat. - SimonP 01:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above. --YUL89YYZ 22:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Bearcat. Mindmatrix 19:39, 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red White and Brainwashed

One track from some CD. Doesn't quite fit the Speedy criteria, so I better ask ;-) Lars T. 08:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Lars T. 08:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't appear to have been a single let alone charted nor have achieved any other form of distinction making it worthy of note beyond the article on the album Die for the Government. In short, I doubt that it is capable of much expansion beyond its current oneline substub status. Capitalistroadster 08:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 09:10, 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) 04:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Dodd

Hoax. (Compare Special:Whatlinkshere/Charlie_Dodd and also Tiffin Boys' School. The dates don't match (the school opened in 1880), and the image cries hoax, too.) Delete unless verified. Lupo 09:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Shall we start with the poll tax? Obviously, Dodd was not a pioneer of the poll tax because he supposedly lived in the 1800s while the poll tax is from the middle ages. Otherwise, I wasn't able to verify any of the info, and had it been true it should have been easy to do so. I think we can safely say this article is a complete fabrication. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dottore So 16:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete-I have put in correct dates corresponding to when he lived. Somebody had been lying, he never went to Tiffin school but he was minister on the council of leicester. I can't verify if he was minister of transport but he was on the council. P.s He did not die from liver failure, that is somebodies idea of a "joke". Grabbo

• Comment I cannot confirm Mr.Dodd's attendance at any particular School, nor Tiffin Boys' Schoool. However, having a flatmate that Studied in Leicester, who worked part-time in the House of Records, I can confirm that Mr.Dodd is indeed mentioned as being on the council for at least 2 terms, I am planning a trip to Leicester soon, and shall post my findings on his status as Minister for Transport. Dupe
• Comment reverted vandalism on this vote. -- Sliggy 17:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can find no reference to this person as described in the (revised) article, and there is suspiciously little detail about the "drastic railway reforms" introduced by Mr. Dodd. Sliggy 18:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No Google hits on "Charlie Dodd" + "Minister of Transport". - Andre Engels 08:16, 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 12:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Ong

Probable fabrication. I don't think there was any person named "Ong Tzu Sun" who changed his name to "Alex Ong". Some google hits on "Alex Ong" and "Alexander Ong" (they are fairly common names) but nothing on "Ong Tzu Sun". Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax, created by the same childish guy as Charlie Dodd. (Yes, I know, the IPs are slightly different, but check the page histories of the two articles and that of my user page for yourself. The kid also goes by the names User:Bude and User:Bjude.) Lupo 10:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I take care to inform you that google is not the source of all mankind and will consistently fail to provide you with all the right answers. Also, Lupo has been on my case for ages making his opinion incredulous.

Above comment was posted on 12:44, September 29, 2005 (UTC) by 213.18.248.17 (talk · contribs). Lupo 12:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Do British school kids have nothing better to do than to fool around here? Remember Ong, Nebraska? Lupo 12:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to remind user:lupo that you cannot change user's pages at a whim. the other false "Bude" is a nickname by some prankster i imagine; my name is my real second name. I hope this witch hunt will end. Bjude

Cut the crap and get back to learning. Lupo 12:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Lupo. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dottore So 16:05, 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 Speedied under A7 --Doc (?) 12:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Willems

Vanity article by a non-notable amateur musician The Land 10:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Contant the same as the contributor's User page, and as JanW. The Land 10:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, there is another page whith the same content JanW. That was an error due to unfamiliarity whith Wikipedia. The other page can be deleted. This one (Jan Willems) can not please.

• Delete, vanity. (I'd have said "userfy", but since that content already is on User:Janwuitv, that's not even necessary.) Lupo 11:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. This is what user pages are for. --Ashenai 11:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied under A7 --Doc (?) 12:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JanW

As Jan Willems; non-notable vanity page from an amateur musician The Land 10:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons stated. Copy of a user page.
• I agree
• Delete. Lupo 11:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fyx

Looks like fancruft or something, but I have no idea of what. Maybe some private joke? - Andre Engels 10:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Player character in an online game called Hyperiums, which itself is only barely notable (Alexa rank near 200K) and its individual players and their characters certainly are not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as insignificant gamecruft. MCB 17:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete gaming clans and their members do not deserve articles unless they win a major tournament covered by the media. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable --Interiot 18:53, 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 no consensus. Robert 00:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Davis (footballer)

Player on the Sydney Swans list. Recreate the article when/if he actually plays a game. JPD 10:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Playing a game I find a rather non-stringent criterium still. One season in the base squad might cut it. - Andre Engels 12:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's worthwhile to cover the entire squads of major clubs, and he is at a leading club in Australias main sport, which has something like the 6th highest average attendance of any league in the world. CalJW 20:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep based upon the rationale provided by CalJW. Hall Monitor 23:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. His team just won the AFL Grand Final, one of Australia's largest sporting events, so I believe his entry is valid. Cnwb 00:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm fine with creating articles on players - even those who have played very few games. But this guy hasn't even played one. It's vanity if I ever saw it. Ambi 05:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. In principle, I don't like to vote to delete people, but I think that if we do -- and we do -- a criterion for sportspeople that they should have played one game for a professional club is not wholly unreasonable. This guy would be the absolute borderline, I think, if you took that view. Grace Note 05:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I am have been a Swans fan and passionate supporter of Australian football since a young age, and I still nominated this article for deletion. I don't think the importance of the sport or the team are relevant here. If he had played in the Grand Final, or even one game in the season, I would be more than happy to keep it, but as it is there's not much to go in this article, and no guarantee that there ever will be. JPD 08:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per JPD, who seems the only knowledgeble one about the article at the moment. Proto t c 10:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As someone who has been creating these stubs, I am actually not sure...I know Matthew Davis has played a few games, but as a relatively new fan I think I will keep him. I mean if you're going to delete Matty Davis why not go ahead and delete Stevie Doyle as well? J L C Leung 17:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Stephen Doyle has played 40 senior games for the Swans, Matthew Davis has played 0. That's the difference from my point of view. Do we create these stubs for every player who has ever been on a team's list for 1 or 2 years? JPD 14:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Waitaminute...I thought he played at LEAST one. Maybe I could be wrong...but when I created all those stubs I looked at the Swannies' senior player page to start it all. So I really was quite blind to who has played a game at the AFL level or not...and besides, I did all those stubs at 4:30 in the morning two days after the qualifying final vs. West Coast. I'm sorta bound to make a mistake or two...! --J L C Leung 09:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The individual players' pages at the moment list all the games played by that player in the 2005 season. Nothing is listed for M Davis. He didn't play last year either. The only reason I nominated this article for deletion is because it seemed it must have been a mistake. JPD 10:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• weak keep. He appears to have been in the Swans' base squad for 2005, even if he never got onto the ground. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Aussie rules is major sport. --MacRusgail 15:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with the article on the club. No one is arguing it's not a major sport, but this guy didn't even play. Jonathunder 02:29, 7 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. Rx StrangeLove 14:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Desempacotamento

The assertion that "Desempacotamento belongs to the top [pub quiz] teams in The Netherlands" notwithstanding, this does not appear to be notable.--Ashenai 11:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Playing pubquiz is a very serious business in Holland and is fast becoming an inseparable part of the Dutch identity. Considering the growing importance of the pubquiz in Holland it is in fact notable to be a top quiz team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.208.225 (talk • contribs) , at 16:50, 2005 September 29. First edit.

Google seems oblivious to any mention of this team other than their own website (though not knowing Dutch, it's difficult to tell). --Ashenai 11:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this is similar to online gaming clans, who are also regularly deleted. Playing pub quizes may be serious for the members of this team, but: "Playing pubquiz is a very serious business in Holland and is fast becoming an inseparable part of the Dutch identity." is seriously overstated. I am from the Netherlands and study in Utrecht and haven't come across any pub quiz players in the 5 years I've been studying here. If this was as serious as claimed, I would've at least seen more announcements and come across fellow students and PhDs playing which I have not. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, MgM's remark about not having come across players in the last 5 years in Utrecht is irrelevant. I've lived in Utrecht for 9 years and have not met any Mah-Jong players in that period. Despite that, I would welcome a Wikipedia-page about the best Mah-Jong players in Holland. Besides, MgM uses his own rather limited empirical experience as argument, which doesn't do much to help his case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.208.225 (talk • contribs) , at 17:25, 2005 October 10. Second edit.
• Delete per Mgm's magical analysis. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:V, WP:N. encephalon 10:47, 11 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. Rx StrangeLove 15:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nonversation

neologism Ashenai 11:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - and submit the contents to http://www.urbandictionary.com - Andre Engels 12:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. protologism. Furthermore runs afoul of WP:V and WP:NOR. encephalon 10:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naruto Manga Returns

• Delete. I'm a fan of this manga (that's how I found this page) but I don't think this specific forum is close to passing any reasonable test of notability. -AceMyth 11:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• I'm uncertain about that. It gets 970 Google hits, most of which seem to be relevant. I haven't checked their "14,000 members" claim, but if true, I'd think we should err on the side of keeping. I abstain, for now. --Ashenai 11:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I just googled it myself and found TONS of spam search results. Little to no "I've just been to Naruto manga returns, and..." or "Check Naruto Manga Returns, I think you can get what you're looking for there", or whatever, but lots of "porn tennis Natalie Portman Naruto Manga Returns free DVDs". Fishy, if I may say so. --AceMyth 12:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Forums on a subject are worth articles only rarely. - Andre Engels 12:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete echoing above. It is dismaying how many useless and nn forums already clutter up WP as it is. Dottore So 16:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SLUM

Personal vanity plus advertising. Also unencyclopaedic. Ben W Bell 11:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Copyright violation: http://www.slum-rainbow.com/bio.html - Andre Engels 12:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopaedic. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 21:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, leave a reditect to slum - or will it automatically handle capitalisation? Proto t c 10:17, 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. Robert 00:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fast Forward Scripts

There's already a Fast Forward article. (Tagged for clean-up. I've cleaned up the introductory paragraphs, but there's a long, rambling, poorly written list of various sketches still there.) No need for a Fast Forward Scripts entry which would probably be a breach of copyright anyway. Delete CLW 11:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Non-encyclopedic, and a probable copyright violation. Delete. - Andre Engels 12:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, clear issues with IP in addition to being unencyclopedic.--nixie 00:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Probably breaches copyright. Xtra 03:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 05:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Fast Forward as examples of style of humour if not a breach of copyright, else delete as copyvio. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• Could be fair dealing if only a small amount is used and only as an example. Xtra 06:07, 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 merge and redirect to Fast Forward. – ABCD✉ 04:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fast Forward Series One

There's already a Fast Forward article. (Tagged for clean-up. I've cleaned up the introductory paragraphs, but there's a long, rambling, poorly written list of various sketches still there.) No need for a Fast Forward Series One entry which is mostly another more-of-the-same non-encyclopedic rambling list of various sketches. Delete CLW 11:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Fast Forward. - Andre Engels 12:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge --nixie 00:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:03, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avivasoft

Delete. CSD'd as an ad, but not speediable that way. Blatant advertisement for non-notable software company. 18 hits for avivasoft, but take this Google test with a grain of salt as the company is from Hong Kong. android79 12:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. I wish advertising/promoting was a general CSD (or at least article CSD). >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 13:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Woggly 17:16, 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 Nomination Withdrawn. android79 01:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caleb Ralph

No vote. Wasn't sure if this was an A7 speedy so I brought it here. I know nothing about rugby, so I can't tell if this article asserts notability or even if it's a flat-out hoax. android79 12:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Plenty of google hits, and while I don't know much about NZ rugby (as the google hits suggest this is the country Caleb is from/playing in) it does certainly assert notability and he appears to be notable. weak Keep but cleanup. Thryduulf 13:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup. he's a New Zealand international. Dunc|☺ 14:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup-expand. Notable rugby player as per [6]. Played as an All Black and played in a number of Super 12 championship sides as a member of the Canterbury Crusaders. Capitalistroadster 19:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• If no one objects, I'll rescind the deletion nomination and slap a cleanup tag on this article, since consensus seems to be forming in that direction. android79 19:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. Please check before making such ridiculous nominations. Grutness...wha? 23:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Someone nominated this for speedy deletion. I disagreed, so I brought it here, as described in WP:CSD: If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. What's ridiculous about that?! android79 23:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Forgive me - I misread your initial comment as being that you had originally considered it a csd but changed your mind. Apologies. In any case, I've tidied the article up a bit now, so hopefully it's a good enough stub now. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • No problem, I guess I wasn't crystal clear with the nomination. In any case, I'll close this one early. android79 01:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and tag for cleanup. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam Petroleum Institute

Delete. CSD'd as an ad, but not speediable that way. Blatant advertisement. Had contact info before I removed it from the article. 98 Google hits for "vietnam petroleum institute". android79 12:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. They are a subsidiary of Petrovietnam [7], a major petrochemical company in the country, and from a quick look [8] it appears that they are a legit institution that has collaborations with other institutes. Pilatus 16:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with a cleanup tag. I get the idea this institution is very notable in Vietnam. Someone needs to turn the "mission statement" into a legit article, though. MCB 17:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've categorised it. CalJW 20:19, 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. Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 2, and Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5 were deleted by User:JIP before this closure; I deleted Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10. Robert 22:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ang Mo Kio Avenues 1, 2, 5 and 10

This is a collective AfD for Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 2, Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5 and Ang Mo Kio Avenue 10. Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6 was nominated for deletion a few days ago; its AfD page is here.

All four roads are passing through the housing estate of Ang Mo Kio New Town, which has already a section on transportation where these roads are mentioned and put into context. As they have no cultural or historic significance and there is no point in having separate entries on every single one of them the lot ought to be deleted. Pilatus 12:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as with all minor and insignificant roads. Dottore So 16:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator CDC (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't see what's encylopedic about documenting every road. They are not particularly minor roads, either, many of them containing many muncipal buildings and tens of thousands of population on each - we can probably substantiate all of them soon. How about this: if they are not substantiated in say, a month, we can probably delete this? -- Natalinasmpf 22:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • These entries have been around since February this year and have been touched by three or four people (and that includes myself nominating them here). Pilatus 23:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all - if there are any reasons for any of these strips of tarmac to be notable, they should be - and are - covered in Ang Mo Kio New Town. Proto t c 10:20, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. *drew 15:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - These are not significant enough streets to merit their own pages. Singopo 06:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rambutans for Ang Mo Kio?

This is a fairly incoherent essay that discusses the etymology of Ang Mo Kio, a new town development in Singapore. It's nowhere near an encyclopedic format, not sure what can be salvaged from here. Pilatus 12:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Ang Mo Kio already has a big ol' section on the etymology of the name CDC (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and it does appear to lean a little too much towards original research.--Huaiwei 16:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. *drew 15:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - There's already an appropriate Wikipedia page on the rambutan fruit. This page isn't encyclopedic. Singopo 06:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was 'SPEEDY DELETE by user:Android79 as "Hoax vandalism". Thryduulf 16:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stefan Roberts

Self-admitted hoax. Delete, including the image. Lupo 12:43, 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aeolipilanthropy

This is a neologism and possibly nonsense as well. The only Google hit for Aeolipilanthropy is a Wikipedia mirror site. Thryduulf 12:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Someone's trying to do a parody of werewolves and relate it to railfanning. I had considered listing this one myself as patent nonsense, but didn't have time to go through the motions yet. slambo 13:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Quale 04:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it. The term may be unknown in the USA, but it is in use by wives and girlfriends of trainspotters and railway enthusiasts in the UK. This is my first post on Wiki, and I don't have a user name, sorry.
  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.109.107 (talk • contribs) Thryduulf 23:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC) (only edit from that IP).
• Keep it. As a railfanatic in the UK I use this term regularly as do many of my acquintances, this is no hoax.
  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.64.221 (talk • contribs) Thryduulf 23:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC) (only edit from that IP).
• Keep it. There's an Otherkin connection. Perhaps it would be better merged into an article on Mechanthropy or even Railway Folklore?
  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coppertop Darkwhistle (talk • contribs) Thryduulf 21:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC) (This user's third edit - 1st requesting an article on Aeolipilanthropy [9], the 2nd editing the Aeolipilanthropy article [10]). Thryduulf 21:12, 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magatama (disambiguation)

It lists only two elements, one of which has been voted for deletion and is unlikely to return Loona 11:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Disambiguation page with nothing to disambiguate. But should this really come here instead of AfD? It's in the article namespace, after all. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I figured that a disambiguation page, not being quite an article, was better off in the Miscellaneaous section, but I guess anyone can have this referred in AfD... if it helps dispose of something like this... Loona 10:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
    • AFD is for everything in the article namespace. I've moved the discussion. Uncle G 12:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or make a need for disambiguation. In other words write the second article or throw this page out. --Rschen7754 04:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no longer required --TimPope 16:54, 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. This is by a narrow margin, as contrary to obvious expectations, the anonymous IP who added the keep vote does have other contributions. But I personally feel this is a very non-notable neologism. — JIP | Talk 16:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dopetacular

Neologism / Dic. def.

• Delete --Quasipalm 13:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources and adds little to Wikipedia. Winnermario 22:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • • • • keep**** Neologisms often become accepted parts of the language. I see it as being useful, and also helping the language to grow and change; I believe itresembles a fun and creative way to play with a language.

I have heard this word several times in my area. I agree with Mr. Lewis's post. I do not feel it should be deleted.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silly Revolution

• Delete. Non-notable nonsense. Appears to be related to deleted article Pharsh. android79 13:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Never before have I seen so much nonsense thrown up in just one article here. We should get rid of this idiocy as soon as possible --SoothingR 13:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but not speedy. This is a non-notable phenomenon probably dreamed up by some kid in junior high with way too much free time. But similarly "silly" memes _have_ achieved notable status. This one hasn't, but that's only made clear after a Google search. --Ashenai 13:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article itself calls this so-called "silly revolution" - and I quote - the most pointless example of social activism since the pro-Star Trek demonstrations. End of quote. Why even add an entry in an encyclopedia if it's entirely pointless? --SoothingR 13:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • AYBABTU is entirely pointless, and yet we have a sizeable article on it. We want to include stuff that's notable, not necesarily stuff that has a point. The subject of this article is neither, of course, but that's a different issue. :) --Ashenai 13:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Silly, but true: Article re Pharsh Militia and the "Silly Revolution" in The Jerusalem Post, Israel's largest English-language daily newspaper. --DardaDos 13:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • A single mention in a human interest piece in a newspaper does not make something notable. Besides that, the Wikipedia article is still absolute nonsense. android79 13:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • comment: First of all, Nonsense it is not, beacause it states true facts (as silly as they may be), and secondly, while I agree that the article linked cannot be considered an epitome of journalistic endeavours, the many other, more in-depth articles (including Television, Radio, Printed and Electronnic Media) that could be presented are all in Hebrew, and as such will probably not be accorded the significance due to them.DardaDos 13:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting! This only highlights the shortcomings of the article, though; it says nothing at all about Jerusalem, Pharsh, and gives no names at all. If the article is cleaned up, actual encyclopedic facts are included, and notabilitiy is asserted, I could easily see changing my vote. Please note, though, that while Wikipedia articles can be about very silly topics, they should never themselves be silly. --Ashenai 13:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Noted. Will consider changes in style. DardaDos 13:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; regardless of merit/lack of merit of article itself, the underlying phenomenon is insufficiently notable. --MCB 17:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 15:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christos Karaolis

Not notable. Also, the subject of the page wants it deleted. 163.1.239.184 13:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - 163.1.239.184 13:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• The wishes of the subject are completely irrelevant, I'm afraid; see Ashida Kim. Seems to be borderline notable. Abstain, for now. --Ashenai 13:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't agree that the wishes of the subject are irrelevant; they are not decisive, but in borderline cases such as this one is to my opinion, they may give that bit extra to go to deletion. Another negative point is that the article is an orphan. - Andre Engels 08:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Very notable member in Downing Street. Bajocbi 18:38, 8 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. Robert 16:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tim poland

This appears to be a garage band. The article fails to assert notability, and a Google search yields largely unrelated results. Ashenai 13:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Slightly more than a garage band (website http://www.philfuse.plus.com/info.html) but not enough for Wikipedia in my opinion. Delete. - Andre Engels 08:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Andre Engels CLW 06:52, 9 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 Move to Cisco Global Exploiter. Rx StrangeLove 18:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cisco Global Explorer

This information is unverifiable, a web search reveals almost nothing.

• Delete per nomination. - Apyule 13:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Move: Hang on - the title is apparently a typo. This should be Cisco Global Exploiter, as mentioned in the article itself. That gets 1,400+ Google hits and appears to be well known in the hacker/cracker community and the subject of a number of articles.
• Move as per previous remark, then cleanup. Delete if not improved in, say, one month. - Andre Engels 08:36, 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.

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by Ahoerstemeier --Doc (?) 16:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Target identification

Nonsense page The Land 14:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no content. Speedy please. The Land 14:04, 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.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harumph

Delete, dicdef of an interjection with no actual meaning (making it IMO not even suitable for a transwiki to Wiktionary Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. - Andre Engels 08:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Proto t c 10:23, 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 17:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GalaxyX

I was as big a TNG fan as anyone, but I still say that a page of speculations on the detailed technical specs of a class of starship that only appeared once, in an alternate future, is cruft. DS 14:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete on account of being lame. --Hoovernj 00:39, 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.

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

The result of the debate was speedied by User:R. fiend (and quite rightly) --Doc (?) 16:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Technical University of Ilmenau

Content free speedy candidate The Land 14:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy D as stated The Land 14:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and so tagged. No reason to drag this through Afd. Friday (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• speedy delete as "no context" and as "an attempt to communicate". DES ^(talk) 15:21, 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 : turned into redirect to Light. Hext time be bold. mikka (t) 18:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vislble light

Virtually no content. That which there is should be in Light The Land 14:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• As stated. The Land 14:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this garbage. --DrTorstenHenning 14:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, confused article with substantive content already present in Light. -- Sliggy 17:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 00:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dane Stern

Hoax page; subject of the article does not exist. Google gives 346 hits [11], but "Dane Stern" cricket gives only two, neither relevant. Loganberry (Talk) 14:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax, confirmed by this Sam Vimes 15:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how that gives confirmation; the only thing it shows is that there is a Dane Stern other than the person discussed here - whether he is a hoax or not. - Andre Engels 08:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, probably should have specified. There have been three probable hoaxes added by the people in that class - see also Nathan Jacob Samuels and Joshua Milston, who, I believe, are both mentioned in that document Sam Vimes 08:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: hoax as per nom.Vivenot 15:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Stephen Turner 15:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax. Hall Monitor 19:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless confirmation is given. No speedy. - Andre Engels 08:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert 00:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Jacob Samuels

Hoax page; subject of the article does not exist. Google gives 31 hits [12], all from Wikipedia or its mirrors, while "Nathan Jacob Samuels" cricket gives the same. Loganberry (Talk) 14:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax, confirmed by this Sam Vimes 15:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: hoax as per nom. Vivenot 15:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Stephen Turner 15:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax, subject is non-existent. Hall Monitor 19:26, 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 to delete the article.

[edit] Utpal

Common Indian first name, but the article is poor and I don't believe that we try to catalogue information about name. I'm only a weak delete on this one. — brighterorange (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Precedent is not to include traditional/folkloric meanings of common given names as individual articles. MCB 17:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete – heard of the name, but not notable IMO. User:Nichalp/sg 18:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Freak Power Network

Vanity page. Only one google hit. All external links are to "coming soon" sites. Most "Rocky the Dog" google hits are from Microsoft's PR dog, and it's not clear how many google hits for "Chris Ramsay" refer to the one mentioned in this article. Interiot 14:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Not a vanity page actually. I was unaware that the web presenses for these items were not currently active. These are valid entities on the Eastern Canadian underground literature scene. Legions-of-Pluto 10:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is for independent, verifiable information about notable topics, it is not free web space for advertising groups who want to some day become notable. -- Corvus 18:09, 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, the content is on Webcomic Wiki now, there's no need to Transwiki and the consensus seems to be that it doesn't belong here. Rx StrangeLove 00:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rave Kitty

A webcomic which can be found here, hosted on comicgenesis/keenspace. Although listed on the Alexa rankings of ComicGenesis it is not one of the more popular comics, being that most are still hosted on the keenspace domain. Relatively new with just over 50 strips uploaded, furthermore, a google search shows no mention of notability for the website. If this were a website, it would have been deleted, but because it has a webcomics stub instead of a website stub, it makes it so much more elusive. It shouldn't be so. As of writing, there is no entry for this at Comixpedia, is Wikipedia becoming the first port of call for webcomic artists? Let's do something about it. - Hahnchen 14:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to the Comixpedia Webcomic Wiki and delete. --Carnildo 23:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Question: are the licenses of this wiki and Wikipedia compatible? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems to be. It uses the GFDL, and I think it uses the same cover texts. Someone who knows a bit more than I do should take a look, though. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 08:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, yes. They're both GFDL, and the Webcomic Wiki has a blurb at the bottom of the main page stating that their license is compatible with that of Wikipedia. --Carnildo 18:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. encephalon 11:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Relisting. Not enough votes the first time. --Woohookitty 10:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Even though non-notable comics are featured in wikipedia (such as Cat Town), this does not mean that everything is OK, regardless of any ranking! bjelleklang 11:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tidju Boxing

Tidju Boxing might be real, but the iron fist art, which is the entire subject of this article, is OR, nn, and has apparently been speedied before. — brighterorange (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy attempt to slip a previous speedy in under a new name. Dlyons493 Talk 02:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as apparent original research, given the signature at the end. The anon author declined an opportunity to show otherwise by removing my {{cleanup-verify}} tag. (Not a speedy; either it's not a recreation of the previous article, or that was improperly speedied, since it's not patent nonsense.) —Cryptic (talk) 08:29, 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. Robert 16:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Rejectors

blatant advertising for a band, which probably also does not meat WP:MUSIC. — brighterorange (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Nothing left after advertorial content has been removed. - Andre Engels 08:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Andre Engels CLW 06:54, 9 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) 04:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Videocardforum

Delete, nonnotable website. (Not exactly advertising, though, since the website is allegedly free. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no content except self-promotion. -- SCZenz 22:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as above, Pete.Hurd 16:59, 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. Woohookitty 10:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homelander Generation

Neologism. Tagged for speedy delte, but doesan't fit under any of the WP:CSD IMO. Speedy tagger also saud "original research" bug a source is cited. Weak delete keep if widspread useage is shown. DES ^(talk) 15:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (and no it doesn't appear to meet WP:CSD. I can't find any usage of this term outside the wiki article for Generation Z. I'd say redirect, but the Gen Z article is crap right now...--Isotope23 19:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All it says is contained within Generation Z. Redirect.
• Redirect to Generation Z. [[User:JonMoore|— —JonMoore 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]] 01:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Gen. Z. --Army1987 12:03, 10 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) 04:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crystalclouds

Patently nn site; few to none non-selflinks on Google, Alexa Ranking 1.2 million. Delete  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 15:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete nn website. — brighterorange (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom, Pete.Hurd 17:00, 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Milston

This article is pure fiction! Please refer to Dane Stern and Nathan Jacob Samuels who all attended the same school [13] Vivenot 15:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax, per nom. Sam Vimes 15:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax per nom. Loganberry (Talk) 15:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Stephen Turner 15:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax. Hall Monitor 23:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Planetary habitability. Robert 16:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Habitable planet

This is a laundry list of dubious noun conjuncts ("Inhabited Terraformable Marginally Inhabitable Planet"). Hard to follow and if not OR essentially an off-the-top-of-the-head ramble. The much more comprehensive Planetary habitability has recently been created. I'd merge if I saw anything worth it and instead think it should be deleted. Marskell 15:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• • I'll officially go redirect ahead of delete. The history will allow for merge material if anyone finds it useful. Marskell 10:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Poorly written, but not nonsense. I would vote to keep and cleanup, but Planetary habitability is a much better article on the same general subject. Redirect to Planetary habitability, and possibly merge the contnet about Planets for man. DES ^(talk) 15:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delet/redirect Vsmith 16:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the superior article at Planetary habitability.--Isotope23 19:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• OK, given that I'm involved I won't do it, but could the next editor stopping by do a speedy redirect? The history will still provide potential merge material. Marskell 22:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with "Planetary habitability" --MacRusgail 15:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Superhero Intern

Can someone tell me if this exists? Is it a flash animation? I tried googling it and only found some forum posts, but mainly wikipedia-esque articles on the thing. A search on the warner brothers site came up empty. Even if it does exist, I'm still moving to delete on notability grounds. - Hahnchen 15:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• del. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete, nn, Pete.Hurd 16:59, 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.

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

The result of the debate was speedied as patent nonsense/poss. attack page --Doc (?) 16:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woehl

Hoax. Article claims tha subject is born of a sea-captain and a whale. In addition, it claims to publish "Great Expectations 2" and the "Star Wars trilogy. Tagged for CSD but removed by author of article. Hurricane111 15:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete Obvious hoax, on the edge of patent nonsense. I won't re-speedy, but.... DES ^(talk) 15:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax CLW 15:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry, well over my edge of patent nonsense - speedied --Doc (?) 16:05, 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] STONA

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. poorly named, poorly formated piece of US-centric political advocacy. Delete. DES ^(talk) 15:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. What DES said. android79 15:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Thryduulf 16:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Sliggy 17:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Isotope23 18:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Misterrick 23:00, 01 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TrafficWorks4U

Spam. Apears to be promotion of a non-notable website. Created by the same IP user who created Jubin Jacob. Delete. DES ^(talk) 16:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Thryduulf 16:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• del. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Adcruft.--Isotope23 18:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grandcolor

Advertisment Zeimusu | Talk page 16:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• del. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom, Pete.Hurd 16:59, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "dearth of acumen"

Appears not to be real. Got 4 google hits, none relevant. R. fiend 16:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, per above. --Interiot 17:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• del. Nonnotable, nonverifiable. mikka (t) 18:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - may be real, but appears to be vanity and is definitely non-notable.--Isotope23 18:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 21:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brick Day

Notable? Real? Only seems to exist on some guy's blog. DJ Clayworth 16:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This is the second year that some of us are celebrating the holiday, from St. Louis to San Francisco. It may be small, but that does that mean it's insignificant? It *is* listed under "humorous" holidays, after all... Oh, and what blog did you find mention of it? Kopper

• • [14]. From 2003. DJ Clayworth 17:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow, cool! I hadn't seen that before. Thanks for the link. I actually learned about the holiday last year from one of the guys in The Mothballs. I guess it's a big deal in SF. But just because it's gotten little "Web exposure" is no reason to kill it! I took a brick to a bar last October 15th. Didn't you? Save Brick Day!! Kopper

• delete. Amusing, though. mikka (t) 18:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can cite sources. Currently this is unverifiable.--Isotope23 18:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Brick Day is an important holiday and legislation is being written to commemorate it as an official holiday in the State of California. SwampDogg 14:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Posted by 4.231.183.109. mikka (t) 20:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources are cited. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability for a discussion of this. (By the way, being impressed that the topic has come up in some guy's blog is probably not a good way to convince us that this topic is encyclopedic...) Bunchofgrapes 20:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not very encyclopedic. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 21:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. --Carnildo 23:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep it!!! brick is way cooler than adobe and especially siding. this is an important american holiday....dunjen
• Why not move it to fictional holidays?
• Keep Though the article needs improvement. I, too, saw mention of this on a blog but it was a blog of the San Francisco Bay Guardian. It is also mentioned on the page for radio station KALX. Crypticfirefly 03:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC) Here's another blog mentioning Brick Day as falling on October 15. More impressively, I found an article about Brickday on the website for a print publication, East Bay Express. There are, however, some remarkable similarities between the story and the article. Crypticfirefly 03:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed so similar that it might be copyvio. DJ Clayworth 13:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not-notable. U$er 17:27, 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. --Phroziac^(talk) 00:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Madison House

Not even a complete sentence, and from a commercial advertisement posing as a username. —Uris 17:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. –Uris
• Content-free page. Expand or delete Pilatus 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. feydey 20:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article contains no content. It could possible worthwhile but it has been posted for almost two months and no one has expanded it, so dump it. It can always be re-created if someone cares to fill it out. ♠DanMS 23:56, 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 · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ARAGI

Non-notable. I couldn't find anything on Google about this group. Only a single sentence. --Quasipalm 17:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Quasipalm 17:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn high-school student group, even if verifiable. MCB 17:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as above Pete.Hurd 16:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, probably unverifiable, probably non-notable, but if indeed they exist, I don't ever see anything more being written about this. Bobo192 06:36, 6 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. Robert 16:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stereotraffic

NN collage band. Vanity. Allmusic search comes up empty. Google search comes up empty [15]. Hurricane111 17:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, does not appear to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria.--Isotope23 18:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Isotope23 CLW 06:55, 9 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) 04:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CLiX Network

Looks like spamvertising to me, but I'm not sure whether it's actually notable. I'm going to abstain from voting until I hear some other opinions. -- Avocado 18:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a website involving a few people, Delete. ··gracefool |☺ 17:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Not enough votes, re-listing. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• del. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — As per nominator. — Christopher (talk) @ 22:28, 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) 04:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Lord

This article has no sources; there is no "John Lord" or "John Michael Lord" to be found on the web and no record of a supposed involvement in the similarly fictional Maserati-Lamborghini F1 team, or with IndyCar. » Christopher | Talk | 18:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Loganberry (Talk) 00:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Not enough votes, relisting. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• del. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... appears to be a hoax. Unless someone can cite sources...--Isotope23 18:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Do not DELETEMy name is Jonny Micky Lordy and I'm the son of John Michael Lord. I love him, he is a hero!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk 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 keep votes are by sock puppets, their only edits are to this AfD. — JIP | Talk 08:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milgo

Neologism and if not, just a dictionary definition. Google says 151, none of which have anything to do with a teenage word for boring. --Celestianpower ^hablamé 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• del. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - belongs in urbandictionary.com--Isotope23 18:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Has been used as a LiveJournal icon, created by a teenager. [16]

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.232.155 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 1 October 2005 --Celestianpower ^hablamé 17:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Has been used in several LiveJournal entries, as subject -"It was the best of times, it was the milgo of times [17]

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.183.31 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 October 2005 --Celestianpower ^hablamé 17:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete just because it was used by someone once, or a few times, doesn't mean it should be in an encyclopedia. Private Butcher 17:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep HAS been used by MANY teens in livejournal and myspace comments [18], [19],

[20]

• —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontbemilgo (talk • contribs) 01:18, 3 October 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was delete · Katefan0^(scribble) 04:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sermons at Beech Hill

No encyclopedic value, promoting a podcast. feydey 18:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• del. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Adcruft.--Isotope23 18:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete self-promotion CDC (talk) 20:19, 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 keep (no consensus). Suggestions have been made to transwiki parts, and merge parts but finding something clear here is awfully difficult. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jihad Verses of Islam

del: (1) move the whole bunch of 300+ quotes from Quran into wikiquote. (2) Merge the remaining 2-3 sentences into Jihad. mikka (t) 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Hmmm, what to do with this one. On one hand I could support a transwiki to wikiquote provided someone cleaned it up a bit and removed the bolding which is pretty obviously added for POV purposes. On the other hand though, what is the value of having these quotes retained? All this information exists already in Wikisource if I'm not mistaken. What is the value of sourcing it somewhere else in a decidedly POV format? I'm going to say outright Delete for now.--Isotope23 19:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • What you call "POV format", I call "quotations on a subject", like, "famous quotes about music". mikka (t) 20:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It’s the selection of quotes that makes it POV format. One could make an entirely different selection of quotes to prove the opposite, or any point. ♠DanMS 00:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
    • DanMS is correct. These particular quotes are taken out of the full context of the Quran and displayed in a format that obviously has a POV connotation. I just fail to see the value of keeping this or any collection of quotes from a source that is pushing one POV of the source as a whole, even in wikiquote--Isotope23 19:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, no vote yet. This article could not possibly be made NPOV and it’s likely to cause an edit war and a lot of flaming. ♠DanMS 00:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten. The article does say this is disputed in Islam. If the quotes supporting the self-purification side of the debate were given equal weight, then I feel this would be a useful source article (rather than having the indiviual quotes available but scattered). Best to redirect to a NPOV title as well (i.e. turn this into a redirect). Dlyons493 Talk 02:20, 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, just barely, no consensus, leaning towards delete. (10 delete, 4 keep, 2 merge, discounting User:Earthian's vote). Robert 22:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flemington Circle

This is one of three traffic circles in Flemington, New Jersey, a village of 4000 people. Pilatus 18:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Now hold on there. This is definitely a notable road feature, if not an infamous one. Technically, it's in Raritan Township, not Flemington. And, you can't go purely by the population of the town. In New Jersey all of the towns seem to run together. There are many, many more than 4,000 people living in the area. Al 19:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC) Keep
  • How am I supposed to know from the article? Here in Britain there are tens of thousands of roundabouts, dozens in each town. The article should mention why that particular roundabout would be of importance to a non-local, otherwise it has to go. Is it the first in New Jersey or a known accident blackspot? Please note that I am aware of two British roundabouts in here, the Magic Roundabout (Swindon) and the Magic Roundabout (Hemel Hempstead). 129.215.194.205 Pilatus 19:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The article as it stands is a stub, and therefore patently incomplete. If we were to delete all incomplete articles on Wikipedia as soon as we noticed them, a new article would be a rare thing. And the fact that no one has seen fit to add a comparable set of articles on British roundabouts is neither here nor there. It's not the fault of this article. The correct solution is to add them, not to delete other articles out of some misplaced sense of "fairness". TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Add highway junctions? This is insane! Pilatus 21:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Why not? We have webcomics here, for instance. I guarantee you that more people have been directly affected by the Somerville Circle than have ever even read a webcomic. When people moved to the area from out-of-state, negoitating the traffic circles was often the very first thing they'd remark on.TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
          • But they wouldn't remark on this particular exhibit, unless they were local to the area. There is a section (than can probably be expanded) in Traffic circle on the Twenties-built NJ roundabouts, that's where the information belongs. And I have seen a slew of webcomics on VfD in the last few days. Pilatus 23:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I think they probably would, but you've never had to take the Flemington Circle to get to anywhere I've lived. But I think I agree with you that a section (or article) discussing them collectively and singling out prominent ones is a good idea; better than seperate articles. I had hoped for some future historical information which I do not have access to, but was assured was available, and have been somewhat disappointed that they have not been developed further. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
        • It is sometimes amazing to me the things that get to have the "notable" tag around here (e.g., List of fish on stamps of the Falkland Islands). Anyway, I would support Traffic circles in New Jersey as TCC describes. It is a unique feature of New Jersey roadways. It might do to have an article on that unique Jersey road feature of the jughandle too, but none of them are named nor are any particularly notorious. Al 12:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It isn't a notable road feature. Quale 20:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a very heavily travelled roadway, one of the few remaining intact traffic circles in New Jersey, and certainly is therefore notable. Besides, to call Flemington a "village of 4000 people", as if those who lived in the borough were the only local inhabitants, is to ignore the rather dense suburban housing of the surrounding area. But even if the borough were all there were to it, it's a historically significant locale. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish notability. --Carnildo 23:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish or even assert notability. --Stormie 02:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• The largest traffic in Flemington, New Jersey is NOT my idea of encyclopedic, even for the NewJerseyPedia. Delete. --Calton | Talk 02:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with the nominator. Zach (Sound Off) 05:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - our mission is to compile knowledge, not just any facts. --Pjacobi 09:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Flemington, New Jersey - even if it's too minor for it's own article, it's at least interesting in the context of it's location. Alphax ^τεχ 09:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, as per Alphax. -- user:zanimum
• Keep or merge this fine example of roadcruft. Cruft is not a bad thing. --SPUI (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as the other traffic circles of this sort. -R. fiend 19:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This one is interesting and notable. I would not object to a merge to the appropriate locality. Unfocused 19:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable --TimPope 21:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Please remember civility. Calling the good faith contributions of other editors "ridiculous" is not civil. If Dr. Who fans can indulge their every tiny interest on Wikipedia, I don't see the problem with granting a little of the same courtesy to traffic engineers and those who are interested in that subject. Unfocused 18:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Don't make this personal. The Doctor Who wikiproject actually urges limits on content, in line with WP:FICT and other guidelines oft ignored by inclusionists. It would be nice if other areas of content were as restrained. --TimPope 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
      • It isn't personal at all. Claims of "notability" and "not notable" can only ever be judged on a relative scale by personal POV. Civil engineering topics are, in my opinion, far more notable than obscure details of a British television series that only fans will recognize. I never proposed deleting such Dr. Who trivia, only that the reasons for keeping it are similar to the reasons for keeping items like this fine article. We're having this discussion because we have POV differences, and Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. Unfocused 21:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
        • It is personal because you based what you said on what you perceive about me and how I edit wikipedia. It's a matter of scale and if you think a traffic circle is a major piece of civil engineering, that's fine, we are all entitled to opinions. I find it extremely minor. What you call "obscure details" have so far formed three featured articles, because there is much to write about a television programme that has been around for over 40 years. This traffic circle is hardly in the same league of fame, which had it not been given a name noone would know of. I have the same opinion of the "obscure detail" of Doctor Who and if you don't believe me you can check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Constantine. --TimPope 22:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
          • It still isn't personal, it's a simple comparison of POV. If you hadn't called someone else's good faith contribution "ridiculous", I wouldn't need to compare POVs to make a point. You're welcome to your own opinion of what is appropriate for an article, but your incivility is very unwelcome. Again, I don't really care how many featured articles come from your interest set, but calling someone else's good faith contribution "ridiculous" is just plain wrong. Unfocused 23:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
            • From WP:CIVIL: starting a comment: "Not to make this personal, but..." is a serious breach of civility. --TimPope 17:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
              • It still isn't personal nor is it uncivil. If you're not willing to calmly and rationally debate the relative notability of subjects you're interested in as compared to those that others are interested in, then simply don't use "ridiculous" or "not notable" as your argument to delete. Comparison of our POVs regarding notability, when notability is used as the reason to advocate deletion of retention of an article, is neither personal, nor an attack; its the only avenue available for debate. You've taken words from a policy completely out of context. Unfocused 19:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
                • I regret my original choice of words, but non-notable is not uncivil. I found your comments personal, whether you think they were or not. Csernica found my original comment personal and I have apologised. I am sorry this has continued to escalate, may we stop now? --TimPope 16:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
          • You said "ridiculous", and that made it a personal insult directed at me, who contributed the article in the first place. You protests to the contrary don't change that. I was willing to ignore it as long as you didn't try to defend your bad behavior. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
            • My apologies to you Csernica. --TimPope 17:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is just another bad faith nomination by User:Pilatus. Earthian 23:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC) User registered on September 27 and made contributions to four articles and their AfD pages. Special:Contributions/Earthian Pilatus 17:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Another Traffic Circle that is nn --JAranda | yeah 21:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn --redstucco 08:40, 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.