Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 September 6

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Metasyntactic variable. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ned Baker

covered by Metasyntactic variable ♥purplefeltangel 00:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Wouldn't this be a good redirect? Correct me if I'm wrong, however, it's not my area of expertise. Meelar (talk) 00:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• I've redirected the article, per WP:BOLD. If anyone objects, revert me and re-open the discussion. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of non-profit organizations

del. A list of external links. mikka (t) 00:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Even if written properly, redundant with Category:Non-profit_organizations. — Phil Welch 00:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - prefer categories over lists, personally. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Philwelch. Jaxl | talk 01:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I also prefer the category rather than the list. --Hoovernj 02:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Improve. List could provide a short information for each entry while category cannot. Both exist for their own reasons. This list could be improved. --Plastictv 02:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Can never be complete nor verified, has no standards of discrimination between significant and not. Geogre 02:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete i prefer category. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, scope is impossibly broad. As it stands it would encompass essentially every organization in the world which is not a business (for instance, most universities and political parties). - choster 03:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, I said it. Use categories instead. —RaD Man (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Currently, it falls under CSD A3: "Any article whose contents consist only of an external link, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, or rephrasing of the title." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although I feel that lists and categories can co-exist, lists of external links should go. Zoe 04:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. List is redundant due to the existance of a category. – AxSkov (☏) 07:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant with category and far too broad. A few very notable examples are listed in the main article. the wub "?/!" 10:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Slap. Lists and categories serve different purposes and can coexist as per Zoe. But still a list external links should go as per policy. Delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:59, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While CSD criterion A3 (Any article whose contents consist only of an external link [...]) should probably be interpreted as allowing only the deletion of articles containing one link and no lead, it might be a good idea to rephrase it in order to cover this case. / Alarm 17:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-article --redstucco 08:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stealing From Peter

Band vanity. Does not satisfy WP:MUSIC Al 00:21, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Routine vanity deletion. — Phil Welch 00:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if they don't meet WP:MUSIC. Flowerparty 01:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn band vanity. 790 googles and no AMG entry. Jaxl | talk 01:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Band vanity. Plastictv 02:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. the wub "?/!" 10:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete' nn vanity--Isotope23 17:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--SpaceMonkey 18:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Cnwb 05:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. 68.9.30.14 (talk · contribs) removed the AFD tag from the article. Al 01:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Obviously, the consensus here is to Transwiki. However, Uncle G has (repeatedly) pointed out, as has the nominator that the article is factually incorrect and that the relevant Wikibook already has a factually correct version. In effect then, this is a AfD which mandates transwiki, which has been completed correctly and the article is an A5 speedy. -Splash^talk 19:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darth Vader (cocktail)

Is this notable? If anything it's factually incorrect, and in any case, Wikipedia is not a bartender's recipe book. — Phil Welch 00:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Bartending Wikibook. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 00:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The Cookbook doesn't take cocktails. That's the Bartending wikibook. Why give it a recipe that's wrong? Uncle G 01:12:34, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I've corrected the wiki name above. I didn't know we had a Bartending wikibook. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 11:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • You haven't answered the question. Why impose a burden upon us editors who do transwikification and upon Wikibooks editors, when you already know that the recipe is wrong? Uncle G 12:46:08, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
• If it's corrected, transwiki to the Bartending Wikibook. Otherwise delete. Jaxl | talk 03:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Appears to be a totally different cocktail to the one at the extlink. Transwiki this and add the one at the extlink to Bartending wikibook. the wub "?/!" 10:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• It's notable, but I agree, Transwiki. Adamwankenobi 10:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. JFW | T@lk 20:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki. Let the folks at the Bartending Wikibook determine the veracity of the recipe. --Icarus 23:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki is not an option. The Bartending wikibook has the correct Darth Vader recipe. Delete. Uncle G 12:46:08, 2005-09-11 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:39, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In propria persona

Dicdef, already on Wiktionary.--Shanel 00:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - was going to nominate this too. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 01:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: what about all the other stuff in list of legal Latin terms? Flowerparty 01:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• It's actually a copyvio, so I've tagged it. But it's also a requested article, should anyone wish to write it properly. Flowerparty 01:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if someone is willing to write it properly. not it. --Ektar 07:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hahaha. - UnlimitedAccess 08:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete copyvio without prejudice, so a proper article can be written. Titoxd 23:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Mecanismo 18:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 11:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citation of Wikipedia

Was recreated since it's not a candidate for speedy deletion.--Shanel 00:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, original research.--nixie 02:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• I think this would be a good redirect to Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia, which is one of the most frequent questions we get from newbies at the help desk (and reference desk). I know we don't ordinarily redirect from articlespace to Wikipedia space, but perhaps this should be an exception. Otherwise delete. Meelar (talk) 02:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to existing article on the subject, Wikipedia:Citing_Wikipedia. --Hoovernj 02:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect only. Present content is not helpful, duplicates extant page, and yet is at a logical spot for a redirect. Geogre 02:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:05, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Jaxl | talk 03:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as with Citing Wikipedia. the wub "?/!" 10:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete content and replace with redirect per Meelar's reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect - again, I've been bold and done this. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 11:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rheumatoid arthritis (band)

non-notable band. Delete--Shanel 00:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no AMG entry. This looks more like a test page than an article. Jaxl | talk 01:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable. --Hoovernj 02:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete please. --Plastictv 02:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn most likely vanity. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:06, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as test page. the wub "?/!" 10:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per The Wub. --Isotope23 18:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Test. Tasteless name at that; someone should give them methotrexate. JFW | T@lk 20:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Cnwb 05:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ambition Designs

The website does not currently exist. From the description in the article, it seems to be a group of people interested in some of the various games by Ensemble Studios, but isn't actually affiliated with them. I could find no Alexa data. The description states that there are only somewhat more than 30 members. Joyous (talk) 01:06, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: No there there. Also, it appears to be a clan as much as a company, with the usual vanity claims. If it represents an actual corporation, it has not made a dent in Google, so it is not now sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia. Geogre 02:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Could not find any verifiable information on this group, could be vanity. – AxSkov (☏) 08:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete currently just a bunch of modders with big plans. WP:NOT a crystal ball, if they produce something notable then they may deserve an article. the wub "?/!" 10:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Indeed. Delete. jamesgibbon 19:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 AFD request unnecessary, speedily closed, page redirected as below. -- Soir (say hi) 02:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek The Beginning

Highly speculative, crystal ball. First draft scripts are too speculative - neither the title nor even a production date has been established and the article itself says this. Copied from Star Trek where this is already covered. Attempt by another user to change this to a redirect to the main article just resulted in a revert by the page creator, so I started the VFD 23skidoo 01:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy redirect, but I don't think AFD is the way to handle this. But just in case this sticks: Page is copied minus wikimarup from Star Trek, as well as copyvio from the link provided at the bottom. -- Soir (say hi) 01:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If someone wants to drop a copyvio notice there instead, I have no objection. AFD/VFD isn't the best option, however the creator of this page has already reverted one redirect and also blanked the copyvio notice at Star Trek 11 (which was essentially the same as this article) so I felt this was a better way to go than to risk a revert war. 23skidoo 01:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Copyvio notices are for pages where there is no prior page to revert to. All I'd have to do is leave the top half in, that's still at least GFDL, even if redundant. I just don't see the need to wait a week to resolve when we can seek admin attention. I won't revert again if he does, though. :) -- Soir (say hi) 01:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Original page was not reverted from redirect, so there's no need for this proposal to be here. Closing. -- Soir (say hi) 02:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. (09:40, 6 September 2005 Petaholmes deleted "Meb" (CSD A7)) - Mailer Diablo 07:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meb

non-notable half-life 2 player. Delete.--Shanel 01:30, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• It's gone. - Mailer Diablo 07:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Harry Potter: Book Seven. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 11:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter book 7

For related deletion discussions see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry potter news, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter: Book Seven, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (video game).

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete--Shanel 01:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Harry Potter: Book Seven; information on this page is inaccurate/duplicated. --Kwekubo 01:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Jaxl | talk 01:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• With the personal pleading from "I, the editor" subtracted, there's next to no content in this article. There's content in Harry Potter: Book Seven, though. It appears that the original author knows about that article aready, too. At the very best, this is a Redirect — like Harry Potter : movies, another duplicate article that that same author began. Uncle G 02:26:43, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
• Redirect to Harry Potter: Book Seven. --Hoovernj 02:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above. – AxSkov (☏) 05:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the existing article. This one has no non-speculative content whatsoever, so a merge isn't necessary. Does this even need a VfD? --Zetawoof 08:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Redirect. the wub "?/!" 10:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Redirect as per everyone else. — JIP | Talk 10:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect - which I've gone and done, in the spirit of WP:BOLD. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 11:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mwah

Non-encyclopaedic. I doubt that anything useful can be made of this... Kwekubo 01:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I was considering putting this up for deletion myself for the same reason. Psy guy ^(talk) 02:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not encyclopedic. Jaxl | talk 02:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Certainly not encyclopedic. Heck, its barely dictionaric (if that makes any sense). --Ektar 08:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. the wub "?/!" 10:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Such a shame to see it go, sweetie, but really must delete, daahling. Peeper 15:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, another Urban Dictionary candidate. Mcfly 16:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Mwah, delete I'd say. JFW | T@lk 20:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. 6 delete votes and 2 keep votes. User:Shocker Toys, User:MerchLAD, User:Sithfighter and User:AoiJuuni are sock puppets (accounts created after AfD started, no other contributions) and thus their votes, whether keep or delete, have been ignored. — JIP | Talk 15:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shockini

The article is of an advertising nature. There is no evidence that Shockini toys are so popular and well-known that they require their own article. Plastictv 01:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I gave de-advertising the ol' college try. It may well not be notable, but there it is. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, another non-notable. --Hoovernj 02:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Um Stikfas is advertising as well and not that popular so remove it as well listing on Wikipedia "Stikfas"
  • This was an unsigned comment by User:Shocker Toys, first contriubtion: this comment, second: blanked this page --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 05:09, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

"There is no evidence that Shockini toys are so popular and well-known that they require their own article"I think the Shockini fans would beg to differ there is almost 300 of them! unsigned comment by Shocker Toys 01:13, 6 September 2005

• Delete non-notable advertising. Shocker Toys has now edited the article to be less encyclopedic, using the first person. --DavidConrad 05:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: 300 fans can be wrong. More importantly, the company/product is not significant. Were all of its fans to be gathered together, they'd number fewer than the smallest of small towns, and we wouldn't want a mayor of a town with 300 votes. We wouldn't want a restaurant visited by 300 people. We wouldn't.... You get the idea. Far too minor. Geogre 11:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia dosen't seem that popular maybe we should delete It! And trust me 300 fans do mean alot maybe not to you but they consider themselves a close group and 300 for you info is just the ones we see that are signed on our forums there is 100s more not signed up or are children! As well as the listing for Stikfas on Wikipedia was written by a member of their company and was confirmed! unsigned comment by Shocker Toys 13:26, 6 September 2005

Yes i admit that stikfas was poorly written as well and should be cleaned up (or deleted if it meets the policy), but that's all in another day's work. i respect very much the fan base of Shockini, but please understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for a worldwide audience (at this moment it has 419,707 registered users) and is not a hall of fame or something like that. --Plastictv 13:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Well that is why we have shortened it to a brief dictionary type description. We just want people to know it is a word and we do not need any links pointing to our site either!If you would like to leave it up we would be happy to be on Wikipedia if not it is your call! unsigned comment by Shocker Toys 14:09, 6 September 2005

• Delete, this is non-notable. Mcfly 16:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete perNo vote after revision, general guideline of 500 people who simultaenously care prevents me from voting keep. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC) revised 03:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. It looks like a legitimate enough product to me; 5000+ google hits.Bunchofgrapes 22:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Retract delete vote. Hey guys, sorry i'm going to the other camp and back this one. i put it up for VfD at first because the entire article stank of advertising, but now i feel that it is worthy to remain as a stub wanting further improvement. What say you guys? --Plastictv 23:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry guys I think i erased something I wasnt supposed to I got a message I am new to wikipedia. I hope we can just leave the small bit up and let fans and people add to it. We have a link at our forums for fans to visit and add and try out wikipedia. unsigned comment by Shocker Toys 00:56, 7 September 2005

• Keep. Google reveals that these toys are sold by numerous online stores. Seems notable enough. Make that a double keep if Shocker Toys sends me some samples - they look pretty cool. Cnwb 05:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

LOL you can get a free Shockini after 20 posts at our forums all members get that. So come on by all and try em out! unsigned comment by Shocker Toys 06:03, 7 September 2005

• Delete void of encyclopedic value, shameless add. --Mecanismo 18:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep/Comment I think it is short and sensable and can be added to by fans of the toy. I think I get a vote since I am a wikipedia member? Plus we do link to quite a few other companies here on Wikipedia that did deserve articles! As well as the other product Stikfas has external links to their company page and their distribution sales page and if they are listed and we are a similar product people should know the differences. I think it helps define differences in similar toys. Also instead of burning us at the stake maybe the knowlegable folks here can tell us how we can improve the article and make it more of a learning defining description. I happen to like Wikipedia and so do my fans and wanted to contribute not for advertising but for the sake of Wikipedia, this is why I tried to keep the advertising and external links out of it unlike others!-- unsigned comment by Shocker Toys 20:28, 7 September 2005
  • Add a clear, high-resolution picture of a Shockini toy if possible. All the pictures i found at your website are too small and unclear. Also, next time sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~), it will be automatically converted to your username and datetime of your message. Thanks. --Plastictv 03:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks I'll try and get that pic. Hopefully I can figure out how. Shocker Toys 16:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok the picture is up and someone moved it to the right side it looks very good!Shocker Toys 20:57, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yar i did. Anyway tomorrow would be the closing date for this vote. Hopefully this article would stay after all. And if it doesn't, i hope you stick around and continue to contribute to Wikipedia yar? :) --Plastictv 02:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is non-notable. --merchlad 9:30, 10 September 2005
  • I really hope it stays and think it should since its less advertising then the other guys and more info like and waiting to be added to. Thnaks for fixing the pic. I would like to add company info and styles and such and have asked fans to add things as well. Thye are excited about seeing it on wikipedia as some of them are members here as well but I guess they don't know how to vote or haven't seen this discussion article. So viva la wikipedia and long live our article!Shocker Toys 02:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• I didn't actually vote above, I wanted to see what other's thought about notability. I say keep now. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:19, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad for non-notable product. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:13, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Superkini:VOTE......I Think shockinis Rule They Should be Talked about All over the World they Are Great For Customizing and Playing with Especily For kids, So i SAY KEEP THE KINIS!

AoiJuuni:I vote for Keep, if you delete this you might as well delete items dealing with crafts or other customizable items.AoiJuuni

• Delete Even this delete page has elements of advertisments. "LOL you can get a free Shockini,etc" --Sithfighter 16:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment toSithfighterHello Sithfighter it was joke aimed at Cnwb. You people really need to lighten up you do not rule the world and will get no where with Wikipeida treating people like they are always advertsing!Anytime you speak of something it's advertising so we should delete all of Wikipedia!What's funnier is the more Keeps we get the more mysterious Deletes we get!Shocker Toys 23:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Keep was leading anyway. Woohookitty 08:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jailbait

Nominated for deletion in accordance with WP:NOT section 1.2.3: Wikipedia is not a slang, idiom, or usage guide. This article is a slang definition.

• Delete as above, but a better executed article would have a higher chance of survival. -Breathstealer 05:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Section 1.2.3. goes on to say: "In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate." I agree that a better executed Jailbait would be worth having. Mareklug ^talk 05:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
• This nom was never added to a main VfD page and was also malformed. Fixing now. Keep, more than a dicdef. JYolkowski // talk 01:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The new article needs some cleanup, but its an article worth having. I don't understand the above votes. If you would have voted keep for a better article, why not leave the bad one as a stub? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:32, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It could belong to Wikitionary as well but i'm hoping that it could be further improved. --Plastictv 02:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep and cleanup. Already beyond a dicdef, and potential for expansion. —brighterorange ^(talk) 02:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • comment I rewrote the first section and cleaned up the rest; take another look. More help appreciated. —brighterorange ^(talk) 03:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep on expanding Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• I support keep :: this may have begun as slang, but it has now passed into a broader usage, which has run for at least ten if not twenty years. To the extent that other phrases have superceded it, the entry deserves to be encyclopaediased for future reference. --Simon Cursitor 08:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Whater does or could go beyond a slang dicdef is covered, or could be covered, in existing non-slang articles. --rob 08:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is fine, actually Pilatus 08:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, fairly good article on an extremely notable term. the wub "?/!" 10:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: I hate to be the dissenter, but the extra part is the extension of the slang term to a highly, highly, highly specialized group of speakers -- anime fans who happen to use this term because they are interested in the pictures. That's what's "extra" here. The first paragraph is unlikely, if not inaccurate. "Jailbait" is used for women above the age of consent? It is? I must not be keeping up, then. The term is offensive for being sexually suggestive, suggesting both that the object is promiscuous and that the subject is only interested in sex, but I don't think the bad part of it is due to the reversal of blame. (People who take jailbait are not "rapists" and "pedophiles": that's the whole point of the term!) Anyway, I don't see the great value here or the way that it escapes being dictdef. Geogre 11:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand information on traditional use. -- BD2412 ^talk 11:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's more here than just a dicdef. 23skidoo 13:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, I think this might be salvagable, but I can't figure out how myself. Mcfly 16:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons already said. SchmuckyTheCat 22:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for same reasons. Vizjim 22:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete looks more worthy of wiktionary. --MacRusgail 14:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia isn't urban dictionary --Mecanismo 18:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete good riddance to bad rubbish. Ashibaka (tock) 02:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep there's a cultural significance to the idea of jailbait w/r/t age of consent laws, popular music as well as a tiny linux distro and 359,000 Google hits. Worth expanding and rewriting more accurately. Jessamyn 01:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Expand and rewrite, sure, but this goes beyond a simple dictionary definition IMO. Elrith 01:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I actually found the article very interesting, but it conflicts with WP:NOT section 1.2.3 If we want to include this, then we need to re-write WP:NOT.--Outlander 20:44, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - if the article had more history and references, that is if it was about how the term came into use as in 23 skidoo, I could be pursuaded to change my vote --Outlander 20:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. We are not a slang dictionary and this is nowhere near notable or encyclopedic enough. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems ok --redstucco 08:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This article is a garbage magnet and any useful information can be put in articles about statutory rape and/or sexual mores/customs. Paul 00:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep Marskell 10:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jay Zuckerman

delete it

• This nom was malformed and never added to a main VfD page. Fixing now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 01:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't see much quality in the article. --Hoovernj 02:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep National commentator, useful stub. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. —RaD Man (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. the wub "?/!" 10:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but transwiki the quotes and clean up the description of his commentaries. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, adding stub. Mcfly 16:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but cleanup...--208.215.25.131 18:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. But needs a cleanup. Cnwb 05:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 move to Jessica Di Cicco. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 11:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica Dicissio

Delete, Actress's name is Jessica Di Cicco. If she has an article, it should be under her real name. Then it might be worth expanding.Bjones

• Keep and move - Her imdb credits easily qualify her. The current article name is a common misspelling, so a re-direct from it would be needed anyhow. --rob 11:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• This nom was malformed and never added to a main VfD page. Move. JYolkowski // talk 01:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to correct title. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 03:07, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to correct title. Jaxl | talk 03:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move along. —RaD Man (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, move and expand. Surely more could be said about her than one sentence. Capitalistroadster 04:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move. Nice work by Thivierr in expanding it. the wub "?/!" 10:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep qualifies for an article and misspellings require a move, not deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:05, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Jessica Di Cicco. Which I've done. This didn't need an AfD nomination. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 11:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 12:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John_Kevin_Bradley

(No reason supplied for nomination) 195.171.106.169 15:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• This nom was malformed and never added to a main VfD page. Fixing now. Delete unless references added before end of VfD. JYolkowski // talk 01:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a significant person. – AxSkov (☏) 08:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as attack page. the wub "?/!" 10:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Sanguinus 10:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as a libel page:

"His beliefs are all the more controversial for the intense sexual element. The main tenet of his philosophy is that all male followers should conjoin with him in "Holy oral Eucharist" whereby he passes the sacred bread of the Lord to them via his "Rod of Massey". This has led to local claims that Mr Bradley is merely a predatory opportunist who seeks to use his wealth and influence for illegitimate aims."

Semi-clever attack junk, but just the usual name calling when you get down to it. Geogre 11:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. JeremyA (talk) 03:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John the Silent

User:WillC added a VfD tag to this page but never completed the nomination. Fixing now. JYolkowski

• Delete, I'm pretty sure there never was such a saint. JYolkowski // talk 01:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)I was wrong. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 20:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Catholic Online says there was. -EDM 04:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as real saint. Capitalistroadster 06:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not that much infomation available on this person. – AxSkov (☏) 08:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• All the more reason to keep and expand we have information on the guy. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per EDM Irmgard 10:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. the wub "?/!" 10:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. - Mike "Mig" 12:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, notable saint. Hall Monitor 16:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gamaliel 23:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Cnwb 05:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep saints are notable --redstucco 08:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ThePunkSite.com

A punk website created two years ago. Alexa ranking of 2,109,933. Vanity, and non-notable. Delete.--Shanel 01:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Vanity - UnlimitedAccess 02:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, It's an advertisment. --Hoovernj 02:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete ad. Jaxl | talk 03:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advert. the wub "?/!" 10:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide and does not accept advertising. Geogre 11:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Advert. The LB 4 17:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete - No comment needed. Blech. 19:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Goregames

Self-described neologism. Delete. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 02:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, absolutely pointless article. --Hoovernj 02:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Jaxl | talk 03:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. the wub "?/!" 10:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Mcfly 16:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge? The term is familiar, but I believe there are other similar terms which it could merge or at least redirect to. --MacRusgail 14:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Design Innovations (World of Warcraft)

Now im not 100% positive on this nomination, but I guess thats why we have this so we can discuss it. The whole article seems to smell of Original research, with the whole thing being a loose unstructured commentry on what some people feel is better in Warcraft than in previous MMORPG's. Because of this it also seems like the article will always be inheritantly and inescapably POV. UnlimitedAccess 02:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, personal essay.--nixie 02:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with UnlimitedAccess, it's original research. --Hoovernj 02:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Delete. Delete as original research, unless references are added. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 02:39, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep if this is shown to be a general article, not a single-reveiewer POV piece, and if it does nto copyvio a recvent article in one or another gaming mag (IMHO it has that *flavour* to it, but I lack the resources.expertise to spot copyvios easily). --Simon Cursitor 08:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Not an article, but a fanboy review. Delete. --Calton | Talk 03:48, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with all of the above. --Kevin 13:32, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per UnlimitedAccess. --Ajshm 08:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly encyclopedic if rewritten under the guise of "notable developments in the MMORPG genre", but that would require extensive sourcing where this has none. --Kyle Davis 04:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tekhir

Somehow, I doubt these are common in fantasy works.--Shanel 02:52, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, I think. Internet searching returns zero a few relevant hits, so either it's a non-term - or the context given isn't enough to expand the article. (WP:CSD A#1) -- Soir (say hi) 03:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC) -- I suppose someone could write an article on the game Siege itself (mentioned per creator keep below) or Mindcraft itself, and note them briefly there. Unsure of the notability of this by itself, though. -- Soir (say hi) 10:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as hoax, never heard of them and neither has google (unlike Kitsune). the wub "?/!" 10:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for failing to provide context. Given context is not even enough to verify existence. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. They're a throwaway monster type in The Magic Candle series of games; as far as I can tell, they don't exist outside of it at all. The sum total that can be written about them is that they use bows and their graphic looks sort of like fox-people. —Cryptic (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Mcfly 16:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I forget where I first heard of them, but they're in an old PC game called Siege. Maybe the article should be edited to state that they're a fantasy race that is uncommonly used. Ok, I've changed the entry to state that they're used in the Mindcraft universe.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 12:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kaseidramon

Kaseidramon is a completely fanmade Digimon, as the author of the article has admitted this. This is evidenced by any informed person. A real Digimon might have a image, and no 'looks like a Mega-level "insert Digimon here."' This article may be considered a hoax, and is not suitable since it is fictional, whereas Wikipedia is for broadcasting facts and information.66.189.165.27 01:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Orignal work DV8 2XL 12:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination Cmadler 13:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above. Amren ^(talk) 16:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Nandesuka 19:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as a recreation. The previous VfD is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Kaseidramon. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 22:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and protect page from recreation. --Apostrophe 22:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy and protect. the wub "?/!" 10:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as recreation of previously (validly) VfDed material. If the creator opposes the deletion they should take it to WP:VFU. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hanging out

dicdef, already on Wiktionary--Shanel 02:58, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per Shanel. – AxSkov (☏) 07:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, minuscule dic defs. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Cnwb 05:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wikipedia isn't urban dictionary --Mecanismo 18:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Shanel. Psy guy ^(talk) 01:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Zhonghua

Incident neither significant nor verifiable. No credible source could be found. Plastictv 03:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a significant person. She probably isn't the only woman this has happened to in China, perhaps merge into an article that is about this sort of practice. – AxSkov (☏) 07:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If her death attracted any attention from the press, then she'd be worth an article in the same way as other people who were non-notable in life but had notable deaths. Sadly, it hasn't and she isn't. Last Malthusian 11:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable, apparently not NPOV, plus Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine.---CH (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 10:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Melt some nines

Neologism, 0 Google hits —Wahoofive (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as stated above. Jehochman 03:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Information could be merge into a related article. – AxSkov (☏) 08:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above --Mecanismo 18:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty 10:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs whose titles are comprised solely of numbers

Another useless song list, also misuses the word "comprise" —Wahoofive (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. {{sofixit}}. Zoe 04:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial. -- Kjkolb 04:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Listcruft. android79 05:05, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, lists are not articles, lists have no encyclopedic merit, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The Literate Engineer 06:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Suggest you look at Featured lists the wub "?/!" 11:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but if kept, rename to 'List of crufty inane pointlessness #32973'. Proto t c 10:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to List of songs with only numbers in the title. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of songs with numbers in the title which was kept, and this list will be more comprehensive. the wub "?/!" 11:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Trivia, not encyclopedic. A list of popes is important, this isn't. Average Earthman 11:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this is actually one of the more useful lists I've seen about songs. The fact all the song titles are numbers make the items NOT just loosely related. The songs are by well-known bands, so that makes them quite notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional delete The fact that all the song titles on the list are, by definition, not in the least bit interesting makes the list itself automatically uninteresting. If someone adds a brief sentence to each song explaining the significance of the title, I'll change my vote. Last Malthusian 11:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain My original reasoning still stands, but I added a few songs to the list and voting for its deletion would be a bit hypocritical ;-) Last Malthusian 13:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move as suggested. Interesting and, importantly, well defined list. Flowerparty 12:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment No vote. But my perception is that articles like this are contrived exercises by people who wish to create an article and search for something, anything that hasn't been written yet—as opposed to writing articles for which there is plausibly a real audience. Individual articles of this kind are mostly harmless, but the dynamic of wanting to create new articles rather than edit existing them is not harmless at all, and becomes more and more harmful as Wikipedia's coverage of "legitimate" topics becomes more and more complete. I wish I could suggest something sensible to do about this. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopaedic. Mind you, Wahoofive, the article title doesn't misuse the word 'comprise', it's just using a very old-fashioned phrase. But that doesn't save it so I'm still with you on this one ;) Peeper 15:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (Btw, it does use 'whose' when it should use 'of which' - so it still guilty of crimes against language either way).
  • Au contraire, Peeper, it's using "comprised of" as a synonym of "composed of" that's the modern usage. Traditionally, these titles comprise only numbers. But it's a lost battle, along with "if I was..." —Wahoofive (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep as an interesting and maintainable list. There is plenty of precedent on Wikipedia. —brighterorange ^(talk) 16:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep, seems totally harmless. Sdedeo 17:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep factual, sourced, interesting... it's great! --Quasipalm 17:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but regardless of outcome, start a centralized discussion about lists of songs by various criteria so we don't have to do this over and over again. / Alarm 17:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional delete: I roughly agree with Last Malthusian's sentiments. In the unlikely event that anyone has anything interesting to contribute regarding the history or tradition of writing songs whose titles are comprised solely of numbers, I will change my mind, but as it stands, it is utterly trivial. --Lezek 18:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless trivia does not an encyclopedia make...--Isotope23 18:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Interesting to those of us who are numbers freaks. Krakatoa 19:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keepable. One of those things Wikipedia is good at. JFW | T@lk 21:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Popintless compendium. Dottore So 22:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I see no evidence that there is some genre or tradition of naming songs after numbers, and therefore any reason to lump all these together. The list is, to my mind, as pointless as a List of songs that were track 7 on their respective album. Sabine's Sunbird 22:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I beg to differ. Being track 7 on their album with make them loosely related topics. Consisting of numbers only makes such a list just as pointless as a list of people by any criteria. The people themselves have nothing to do with each other, but they're linked by a common profession, belief or whatever. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be more impressed with the list if there was anything you could say about them other than 'they have only numbers in the title', as you can for example with Hidden track and the associated List of hidden tracks. But I shouldn't worry, it isn't going to be deleted anyway. Sabine's Sunbird 19:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Possibly useful. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep SchmuckyTheCat 22:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Gamaliel 23:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:29, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another useless list of trivia. --Calton | Talk 03:49, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -Sean Curtin 06:10, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, {{sofixit}}. —RaD Man (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless trivia. not worthy of an encyclopedia article --Mecanismo 18:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I think the information should be kept.. somewhere Astrokey44 09:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I found it fascinating, actually. :) RADICALBENDER★ 19:32, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; as legitimate as many other song lists here. Owen× ☎ 00:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another arbitrary list. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 19:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patent Symposium 2005

This was originally marked for speedy deletion. I don't think that it falls within any of the speedy criteria. I do however think that it is unencyclopedic so I am listing it here. Delete. JeremyA (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - no mention is made of why this event was notable. This article was created as part of an advert for the Goa Institute of Management, complete with bios for all the speakers, all of which were speedily deleted. — ciphergoth 06:56, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can assert notability. Mcfly 17:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Even with taking the sockpuppet votes out, it's still a virtual dead heat. Woohookitty 11:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Skip (in record player)

Another dicdef, with a couple of examples of people who have used the term. Yawn. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A dictionary definition, belongs in Wiktionary. – AxSkov (☏) 08:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• If it belongs in Wiktionary, we can at the very least transwiki this extra definition there. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Comment - the above four users are non-existing (not even sockpuppets), and the text was added by User:HelloolleH andy 11:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

As if that wasn't already obvious to anyone with any experience in judging AfD's. =) — JIP | Talk 16:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Doesn't the mention of artists that use skipping in their music lift the article above dicdef? Last Malthusian 12:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - dictdefs belong to wiktionary. I don't see any potential to make it a real article, nor a topic worthy one. andy 12:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - dictdef --G Rutter 12:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictdef already in Wiktionary. —Cryptic (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly a dictdef! End of story, surely. Peeper 15:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article has clear potential. What causes skipping? What has it been used for? Etc. etc. Also, die, sockpuppets, die. Sdedeo 17:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Sdedeo, but find a better title. Skip (recording), perhaps, since even as-is we're not discussing just records? We'd also want to disambiguate with Skip (music), which was my first guess at a name. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 18:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • How about "Skip (recording media)" or just "Skip (media)". We should make a disambig page if one doesn't already exist. Sdedeo 18:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• transwiktionary as per above Roodog2k (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete per above (or transw.) Does not warrant an article. Dottore So 22:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, has more potential to be a decent article than a lot of things we've kept. Tagged it for cleanup. Titoxd 23:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rename, the bit about intentionally using skipping in songs could be enlarged making it an encyclopedic entry. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:05, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Sdedeo. —RaD Man (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiktionary as per all. Owen× ☎ 01:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gramophone record, which discusses the phenomenon under Gramophone record#disc limitations in more detail than the article under consideration contains. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete! It's a detail of a dicdef. Barely even that. Any detailed info attached is just vinylcruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:21, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 wasdelete. Woohookitty 11:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khoi Nguyen

Vanity; not significant Ropcat 04:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. GinaDana 05:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Ropcat. – AxSkov (☏) 07:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under WP:CSD Articles 7, as the article does not assert importance or significance. Sliggy 13:20, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7. On a related note, someone with this exact name goes to my highschool (Gulf Breeze, Florida). Mcfly 17:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not even a mistaken userpage, as user has not added anything since July. Cnwb 05:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. this is a pointless vanity page and should be deleted,
• Delete. Josh Parris # 05:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn vanity, and as if that were not enough, the author slips in a half-hearted description of some kind of interpersonal dispute between two UM students, this Khoi Nguyen and a resident of the dorm. Sheesh!---CH (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning towards keep. 3 to delete (counting the nomination), 4 to keep, 1 to merge. -- BD2412 ^talk 01:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Four Wheel Drive Party

Some articles reach out to you to be kept, or at least put up a fight. This one doesn't. NN. Paul 04:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. This was one of a group of micro-parties that led to the election of Malcolm Jones to the NSW Legislative council in the 1999 through distribution of preferences. As this article by Marion Sawer of the Australian National University states, the use of these scheme led to a change in the distribution of preferences see [1] Capitalistroadster 07:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Outdoor Recreation Party or Malcolm Jones if there was an article for him. Not notable on its own. --Ektar 08:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Needs more information and sources cited. – AxSkov (☏) 08:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs expansion though. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 11:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Capitalist has some interesting things to say about them. And don't we have pages on U.S. political parties that haven't won any federal elections? (*cough* United States Green Party *cough*) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:10, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I have absolutely nothing against minor parties-they're the best kind, as far as I'm concerned-but to warrant an article, it should at least have a website that shows up on Google when you search its name (especially a party with a distinctive name like this one.) Paul 01:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • What this isn't good enough for you [2]?  :) Paul has a good point, "Four Wheel Drive Party" -wikipedia turns up only 88 hits and no serious webpage. I'm still okay keeping it, but others might care. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until proven, this article is void of encyclopedic value --Mecanismo 18:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment ‘until proven’? —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 23:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 287 Google hits, but that includes unrelated car websites as well. According to statistics, it got 7,547 votes and was beaten by obviously non-notable parties like Australians against the Promotion of Homosexuality and Young Australians Caring for our Future. It's non-notable even by generous definitions. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thar

Confused and crufty Paul 05:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It is about another article, which it mentions in its text. – AxSkov (☏) 08:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No reason this merit's a separate article.--Isotope23 19:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - contains no actual info. Speedy delete? CLW 11:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pretty Boy Floyd (American)

Wow, two bands with the same name! And both non-notable! Paul 05:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Entry on Allmusic.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Andrew pmk (talk • contribs)
• Keep bands with writeups on allmusic.com. Gamaliel 23:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Sorry, wasn't aware of allmusic.com, just relied on a straight Google. Paul 01:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 16:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pretty Boy Floyd (Canadian)

Wow, two bands with the same name! And both non-notable! Paul 05:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I can't speak for the US version, but the Canadian version of this band actually was somewhat notable, charting overseas and touring extensively. Its founder went on to form Outlaw Entertainment. I'm not even a heavy metal fan and I recognize the name. See this article. Needs some serious expansion. 23skidoo 13:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per 23skidoo. Guettarda 19:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Entry on allmusic.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Andrew pmk (talk • contribs)
• Delete. The allmusic.com entry is for the American band. Gamaliel 23:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. —RaD Man (talk) 07:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable band(s). / Peter ^Isotalo 21:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Considering that "has had a Top 40 hit" is in and of itself considered a criterion of notability for Wikipedia articles on rock bands, I fail to see how a band that has met that standard suddenly has to meet an arbitrary and unexplained further criterion of notability. Keep on "has had Top 40 hit" grounds. Bearcat 22:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. No consensus to delete, no consensus to merge. Merging is an operation that can be performed by any editor and as I believe in the rule of consensus on Wikipedia I shall leave it to other editors, now that the deletion question has been answered, to determine what is to be done with this article. If you decide you want a merge-and-delete, please bring it back to AfD. This operation can be performed but it's tricky and would require a substantial consensus. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Faceless Man

NN fancruft. However, I will not disagree for a second with an observation the article makes: An exploded head, innocent or guilty, is a vivid object lesson of the penalty for crime. Paul 05:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Merge information into Durdane article. – AxSkov (☏) 08:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You can't merge and delete, as those are incompatible (see: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Enough space to merge and redirect per WP:FICT. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Durdane. Nandesuka

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. According to the reasons given in the votes, this could almost have been speedy deleted. — JIP | Talk 17:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shaun Bill

• Clearly, not notable. 37 votes for Senate out of the entire state of Illinois. K1Bond007 05:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn writein candidate. You beat me to it, I was going to add the afd myself.  :) Zoe 05:31, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Personally, I'd go so far as speedy for A7--37 votes is essentially a claim of non-notability. I could have done better than that if I'd filed the paperwork, based solely on people from my high school. Meelar (talk) 05:42, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 37 votes over 8 counties adds up to 4 and a half votes a county. I don't think Barack Obama is lying awake at night worrying about another race against this guy. Capitalistroadster 06:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Insignificant failed write-in candidate. Gamaliel 23:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "Insignificance" is irrevelant. Article is not incorrect nor offending. 14:43,9 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Mr./Ms. Anon, you should probably read Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. Standards for biographies are low here but they are not nonexisteent, as you seem to think.---CH (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Clearly a rather pathetic case of nn vanity resume cruft ---CH (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 17:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The undisputed heavyweights

Reads just like band vanity, much of the article is simply nonsense, delete --nixie 05:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, as per above. – AxSkov (☏) 08:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Searched for '"The undisputed heavyweights" billboard' and found no reference to the claim that would make this meet WP:MUSIC. If that can be cited and proven, then I will change my vote to keep. - CHAIRBOY 16:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity --Quasipalm 17:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and nonsense --Mecanismo 18:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Groseclose

Apparent hoax, I have been unable to verify any part of the article or even the ritual's existence. I could not find the people listed as references, either. Kjkolb 05:43, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. OK, kids, it looks like somebody's pulling our leg. "Groseclose" produces no relevant Google hits, but "Groseclose druid" has exactly one hit, which points to a page listing email correspondents of one Jack Sarfatti, a Usenet physics kook whose WP article was listed in AfD a couple of days ago, and "Doug Groseclose" is the name of one of the correspondents. COINCIDENCE? You be the judge! --MCB 06:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Kjkolb. – AxSkov (☏) 07:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I doubt it is a conspiracy, MCB. It probably has something to do with the quantum information wormhole matrix. Sdedeo 17:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My suspicion is that it is a smear. There are lots of people named Groseclose, but I couldn't find anything on a supposed druidic ritual... Deirdre 18:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above --Mecanismo 18:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughtless

Thoughtless was nominated for deletion on 2005-09-06. The result of the discussion was "speedy delete". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thoughtless/2005-09-06.

This is the second nomination; the first, 2 months ago, was for homophobia etc. This page has none of that content; rather, it is not noteable per WP:MUSIC as the band has not yet released an album, etc. Colonel Tom 02:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Do not delete, I am making this for my band, I dont even know why it is being considered for deletion.
• Delete, per nom. Tom Lillis 03:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• It's being considered for deletion because your band is not yet well-known enough to get an encyclopedia article. Please read WP:MUSIC which explains which bands get an article. When you have two albums released by a major label or very well-known independent label, you get an article, for instance. Even then it's considered better to wait for other people to make the article about you, then fix any inaccuracies. I say delete. DanielCristofani 03:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete according to WP:NMG. Melbourne band yet to release any records. By the way, the AfD notice is missing and I don't know how to install one for a second nomination. Capitalistroadster 04:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • template changed again to 2nd nomination. Colonel Tom 04:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -^demon 04:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable band. Cnwb 04:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 04:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• The band has not released any albums or singles, been signed by anyone, or even had any gigs apart from performing in school. Furthermore, not only does the article explicitly state that they play in the garage of one of the member's parents, the article even has photographs of all of the band members in said garage. This article therefore fails to satisfy any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. However, failing to satisfy the notability criteria isn't the only problem. The article is original research, comprising an obviously firsthand account of the band's history. The place for this is the band's own web site, not Wikipedia. (Ironically, the band has its own web site, but the images are broken and the text is in white on a white background.) Delete. Uncle G 04:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, does not satisfy WP:MUSIC--nixie 04:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete But good luck guys, maybe after a couple of years and a smash album or two we'll see you back. pfctdayelise 04:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Ambi 04:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Who's the one saying we haven't played anywhere except school? That's all it says in the history thing. But we have played at many gigs. 3 battle of the bands in 2004, 4 in 2005. We played at push up in the western suburbs. also that image is not in a garage. the ones of us playing are in a garage, but the image of all of us is in an abanodened place where we thought it would be cool to take photos in, and make them look official possibly giving us some credibility. the problem with our site is that all the links are linked to live.com.au but the host moved to music.net.au, they have reset all passwords and thus anyone owning a site with them is unable to access. thus i cannot fix the links until the host resets everyones pw back to normal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thoughtless Band (talk • contribs)
• What is this? Garage band self promotion week? I'm from the Western Suburbs of Melbourne and my sympathies lie with you, but sorry guys, as for this article - a definite deletion! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Well I spent a lot of effort on this page, and now all of a sudden its going to be scrapped. I mean, a lot of other pages exist here and are really bad or pointless, why should mine be targetted 10 minutes after its completed, once I've done all the work?Thoughtless Band 06:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The difference is that you've missed the point of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia isn't a free wiki host, for anyone to come along and write articles about themselves, their bands, their schools, and so forth, from firsthand knowledge. It isn't a vanity press or a self-publishing service. It's an encyclopaedia. Everything here must have been published somewhere else first and have been already acknowledged by people and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge. If you want to publish a firsthand, previously unpublished, account of your band that incorporates stuff that nobody else knew before, your own web site is the place to do it. You were warned about this before you started the work that you did. You are encouraged to keep contributing to Wikipedia, but please heed the warnings about what is acceptable here before you do. Uncle G 06:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I acknowledge that you have done a lot of work on the article. Have you thought about alternatives such as MySpace, GeoCities or Google Base which allow for free hosting. Unfortunately, your band doesn't meet our music guidelines as yet although we all wish you well. Capitalistroadster 06:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy as creator might want content to move elsewhere as suggested by Capitalroadmaster. KillerChihuahua 14:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and do not userfy and let this hang around forever. If the creator can't be bothered to copy this somewhere else in the week it takes us to delete it, tough cookies. —Cryptic (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• I unilaterally userfied it for them yesterday for the reason subsequently given by KillerChihuahua. I still think that may have been a good idea; "tough cookies" sounds a little like biting the newcomers. DanielCristofani 05:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Nice job for this kind of page, but it really does belong elsewhere. CarbonCopy 21:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Sarah Ewart 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete IanBailey ^(talk) 09:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. To the guys who did the page - good luck with your band, and a nice job on the page, but this isn't what Wikipedia is for. We hope you guys want to contribute pages about other, well known bands - there are a list of them here. -- Chuq 09:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Roisterer 07:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is it that I keep getting messages about deleting of articles? I havent been doing that, nor would I know how to.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 19:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Norris Brown

Non-notable, personal bio. Internet search lists a lot of edits, but most lead back to site owned by subject of article. Possibility exists that author is subject of article, has no other contributions. Had originally thought this qualified under CSD A#7, but it seems it doesn't, so putting it here. -- Soir (say hi) 06:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a significant person, looks suspiciously like vanity. – AxSkov (☏) 08:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Blogging is the art of getting other bloggers excited about things, typically trivial. Perpetuum mobile. Delete. JFW | T@lk 21:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Persons who are interested in this fellow's blog are already there, or will be taken there by someone's blogroll. For the rest of the world, he is entirely nn.---CH (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Joolz 10:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Haseldine

A previous article on the subject of Patrick Haseldine was deleted after Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Patrick Haseldine. A new version was speedy deleted as a recreation of the original article, but a request for undeletion based on the second version being substantially different from the first was successful, since this is still a candidate for deletion it is being relisted on AFD per the undeletion process. My vote is below. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. By itself being an unsuccessful runner for office, a fired diplomat and a person to prepare dossiers for the lod advocate is not notable; however the story in the article is an interesting one, and the combination of his achievements makes me believe that this person is notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you planning to re-check before the closing move, mate?Phase1 16:26, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. I've added a bunch of wiki-links, but it still needs sources cited, maybe some NPOV-ing, and generally needs to sound more like an encyclopedia article. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This has some significant info, it just needs to be cleaned up and have its sources cited. – AxSkov (☏) 07:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An obviously notable politician and diplomat.--Nicodemus75 10:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Latest edit has transformed something mediocre into a brilliant article.Phase1 21:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • should the {unreferenced} template be removed at this stage?Phase1 21:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Unless I am missing something, there do not appear to be any external references cited within the article at the time of this response. Hall Monitor 22:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Quite right at the time of the above response. Citations and references (inline and external) have since been added.Phase1 23:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and provide sources as per WP:CITE. Hall Monitor 22:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Sjakkalle. Add citations as per several comments above. DES ^(talk) 14:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable because of newsworthy political controversy of his case.---CH (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep well written article --redstucco 08:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Votes prior to User:Grenavitar's deletion of votes have been ignored, because the AfD at that time was for Gillian Slovo (who is notable and has been kept on Wikipedia). The only keep vote is by User:69.196.68.6 (see talk page), who is the original creator of the article. The consensus is therefore clearly delete. — JIP | Talk 18:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JDizzle Comics

Non-notable web comic. gren グレン 21:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: I have deleted all votes because I previously had the header Gillian Slovo at the top. I suppose this is my effort in "being bold", however, I figure it is only fair to delete all votes in order to eliminate any type of confusion that I have created. Sorry. gren グレン 21:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nominator. DS 22:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless it can be shown that this webcomic is notable enough to warrant retention. Capitalistroadster 00:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Dragonfiend 00:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom. – AxSkov (☏) 08:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Winnacott_kats

nn BrainyBroad 07:22, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• delete sports team vanity. —brighterorange ^(talk) 16:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete void of encyclopedic value. vanity. --Mecanismo 18:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. jni 11:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mannequinism

neologism and/or nonsense BrainyBroad 07:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• delete neologism. —brighterorange ^(talk) 16:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Confused manifesto. Delete. It's even too new to be a dicdef. JFW | T@lk 21:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "too new a phenomenon to be included in Webster's or the Oxford English Dictionary"... or Wikipedia. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think it's a cute word, not a neologism, but being a word which doesn't yet have dictionary entry is not a qualification for requiring an encyclopedia article!---CH (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It already has 307 search results at Google, and I came here to find the deffination of the word (used by one of my teachers), because it was not in Webster's. ---Nero_Nuri 23:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • ^{Above post actually by 65.145.102.157; first and only edit. -- BD2412 talk 01:37, 15 September 2005 (UTC)}

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 18:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] God inc

Band vanity. They've just released a demo. We should be able to speedy this stuff. Zoe 07:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, band vanity. — JIP | Talk 07:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments. Punkmorten 07:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity band page #167,490,925, sigh --Quasipalm 17:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Band-that-has-just-released-a-democruft. JFW | T@lk 21:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Flowerparty 23:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 05:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Use Your Illusion II. -Splash^talk 19:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My World

Was previously on speedy, reason given being NN. - Mailer Diablo 07:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.40 (talk • contribs) September 2005

It means "Was previously a candidate for "speedy deletion" on the grounds of not being notable enough; the admin considered that speedy deletion wasn't appropriate, and moved it into the consensus deletion system, which is this one. See WP:CSD — ciphergoth 06:59, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect to Use_Your_Illusion_II unless article is expanded enough to warrant it's own page. --Alan Au 16:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• merge and redirect to Use Your Illusion II. —brighterorange ^(talk) 16:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Use Your Illusion II. The LB 4 18:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Use Your Illusion II. — ciphergoth 06:59, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, defaults to KEEP. Ral315 04:54, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sin Ming Road Bus Terminal

The entry tells us that this is a closed Singapore bus station that used to be served by just one line. Pilatus 08:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Apparently every rock and twig in Singapore is notable. Zoe 08:35, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • From people that have lived there I hear that Singapore is different. You've got a point, Zoe. Pilatus 08:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well, indeed it is different, as I just reflected in the article. We dont remove articles on structures or anything just because there are no more or a sorry state of their former self. They do have a place in transport history too.--Huaiwei 11:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I can see that ghost towns are notable, but ghost bus terminals just don't cut it! Pilatus 11:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

A ghost bus terminal is not notable if it is merely a ghost bus terminal as you think it is. Bus terminals do have a history and do have an impact on local demography and social life too. As a geographer, I should be more than aware of this. We have had academic thesis written just on an otherwise seemingly non-notable bus interchange, and I wrote one of my academic papers analysing the history and geography of another bus interchange as well.--Huaiwei 12:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, then let's have wikipedia articles on the bus terminals that there have been academic theses written on and then we'll link to those theses, and then that explains their notability. Having articles on every bus terminal because it might possibly be notable is, it seems to me, a form of original research. Nandesuka 12:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. I don't like it, but there are numerous other examples of this kind of article at Category:Bus stubs. If they stay, this should stay as well. unsigned vote by khaosworks. --Nandesuka 12:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This argument is fallacious. If we accept the premise that we should never delete an article because at least one other article of its kind exists on Wikipedia, it is likely that no articles can ever be deleted. If you think it should be deleted, then vote accordingly on this vote standing by itself, and deal with the "numerous other examples" in their own time. Nandesuka 12:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Pilatus. Nandesuka 12:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Huaiwei. Kappa 12:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pilatus, and Nandesuka. The article itself doesn't even make a case for notability! Rather than pointing up how this bus terminal has affected local society and demography as Huawei suggests, it in fact does the opposite, alluding to social change (left largely undescribed) which did for the bus station. Sorry, but this is obscure and seriously nn. Peeper 15:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep bus terminals. --SPUI (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough. If the point is to bring across the fact that "few terminals of the 1970s era survive today", it could be discussed in Bus transport in Singapore. --Plastictv 16:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — This could be covered well enough with a couple of sentences on the Bus transport in Singapore page. — RJH 17:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless local history. CalJW 18:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep all roadcruft Roodog2k (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:POINT - Mailer Diablo 20:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Who's disrupting and what's the point? / Peter ^Isotalo 21:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. A merge is okay with me too. JYolkowski // talk 21:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep no reason to delete except for deletionist agenda driven nominator. SchmuckyTheCat 22:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment How long before bus stops are wikiworthy? Sabine's Sunbird 22:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you tell the difference between a bus stop and a bus terminal?--Huaiwei 22:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

uh. yes, I can. Though they can be the same thing. To be precise, then, how long before a pole sticking out of the ground next to the road with a little London Transport or MUNI logo and a number gets its own article? Sabine's Sunbird 05:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Erm, then you obviously cannot tell the difference between a bus stop and a bus terminal in Singapore, because the two are never the same here. A bus stop numbers by the hundreds here, with each one merely a transition stop along roadsides and such and are sometimes as small as a single post from the ground. A bus terminal/interchange, however, is a large structure where at least one bus route terminates, along with the provision of adminstrative offices, berths, and large parking bays for buses. There are about 40 of these structures here. If you think we are calling for an article on a pole in the ground, then your concern is obviously unfounded.--Huaiwei 16:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

" Your concern is obviously unfounded " sounds a bit too strong. :-P — Instantnood 17:07, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I meant a bus station is a stop in a conventional sense, it is a stop on the route (even if it is the last one). In the sense you mean of course I can tell the two apart. I have spent more of my life than I like in bus terminals, and while I laud public transport I find myself unconvinced that a bus terminal deserves an article. This has nothing to do with Singapore, which has a good public trasnport system. It's a general concern. If this was about the bus terminal in Salisbury I'd feel the same way. But seems like I'm, well, maybe not a minority, but it seems that plenty of people disagree with me. But I will vote against poles in the ground. Sabine's Sunbird 01:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Then let us take a look at just how big this "pole in the ground" is from space. I illustrate in the two images on the right Jurong East Bus Interchange, one of the articles also on the VFD. The first one shows the extent of the interchange compared to the typical sizes of your normal bus stop, and with an MRT station beside it. You can see the individual buses parked there, so that should give you an idea of its relative scale. Compare with the sizes of nearby buildings as well. Now, look at the second image, which shows its relative size to the entirety of the New town it directly serves (which btw is a relatively small town compared to others in Singapore.) You can still see the terminal's shape clearly even at this scale.

I think it is plain clear from this illustration, that you are not talking about a stick in the ground, not just simply a "large bus stop", but a HUGE one. To say it is not worthy of being on wikipedia is like saying an airport is merely a bigger airstrip, a city a bigger village, a mountain a bigger lump of sand, and so on. Clearly, size is a relative factor which cannot be used as a determining factor alone. What I would like to know, however, is why this seemingly widespread discrimination against bus transport, as thou it and its related articles have less notability than their more facied cousins in aviation and rail transport etc. Again, why do we keep articles on airports (and airstrips), railway stations (and the smallest metro stations), and such, but not bus terminals (and no, I am not refering to bus stops)? Is this again an issue of physical scale? Or do people think somehow that bus transport do not have as much an impact on human civilisation than airplanes, ships, and trains do?--Huaiwei 10:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep --Vsion 23:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a guide to bus routes, it is an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 23:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Are Bus Stops and Terminals the next big wiki thing if it is Im ready to write info for every bus stop in Miami-Dade County Lol. --Aranda56 03:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • To repeat. A bus stop is not a bus terminal. If there are concerns that having aritles on bus terminals will lead to having articles on individual bus stops, than I suppose we should not have an article on planet earth least it may trickle down to us having an article for every grain of sand? Again, I wonder just where the concern is coming from.--Huaiwei 16:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable --Camw 06:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep bus terminals, schools, and battleships. —RaD Man (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete void of encyclopedic value --Mecanismo 18:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dare I say it? Singaporecruft. Zoe 19:04, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • So Singapore, a population of 5 million is NN? Calling the article 'Singaporecruft' only serve to hinder the principles of Countering systemic bias. - Mailer Diablo 19:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed, and I am left wondering if his actions were the result of genuine, unbiased deliberation over the notability of this article, or that of something more personal.--Huaiwei 19:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Gamaliel 19:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • "His"? My comment has to do with the fact that every time somebody tries to delete anything having to do with Singapore, we are deluged with personal attacks claiming bias against Singapore. QED. Zoe 21:42, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
      • In other words, you are admitting you are responding to what you consider as a personal attack? Just as I expected. As for the claim over bias, it seems more like a result of your own insecurity, although I do remember pointing out quite accurately that you do know next to nothing about this place anyway to be able to comment much on its "noteworthiness".--Huaiwei 22:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Your repeated personal attacks on me will not be tolerated, and I suggest you desist immediately. Zoe 22:42, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
          • Zoe's first edit on this page [3] is not helping either, and it apparently started all this. --Vsion 23:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
            • No, it all started when Huaiwei decided to attack me for having the temerity to think that some inconsequential church doesn't need an article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queenstown Baptist Church. Zoe 19:57, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
              • Your reaction in the wake of having someone else pointing out to you matter-of-factly that you are unable to support your nomination in a cohesive, factual, and verifiable manner is perhaps understandable. That you are an admin is probably not. I find it extremely odd, that the same person who thinks it appriopriate to pass condescending remarks on others, on their people, their city, and all that they represent should think he has the moral authority to tell others not to engage in personal attacks (which there was none as far as the church discussion was concerned).--Huaiwei 21:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Bus terminals are not inherently notable. Be they in Singapore, be they in New York City, whatever. The only systemic bias I'm perpetuating with this vote is a bias against articles on bus terminals. Lord Bob 01:12, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki to wikitravel if there is a category for this. Vegaswikian 04:59, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. — Instantnood 09:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another non-notable bus terminal. Please waste everyone's time on something constructive. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems a bit too obsessive about bus terminals --redstucco 08:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No Consensus, defaults to KEEP. Ral315 04:58, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jurong East Bus Interchange

This looks like a local bus station on Jurong Island. No further information is given other than that a fair number of buses leave there. Wikipedia is not a timetable. Maybe this can go to Wikitravel, but this is not the right place here. Pilatus 08:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a major terminus, where many trunk services begin to other major parts of Singapore. Jurong East is a considered a regional town. - Mailer Diablo 09:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • it's the bus-equivalent of a dictionary definition, that's why Wikipedia is not the right place for it. Pilatus 08:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. I don't like it, but there are numerous other examples of this kind of article at Category:Bus stubs. If they stay, this should stay as well. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 09:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This argument is fallacious. If we accept the premise that we should never delete an article because at least one other article of its kind exists on Wikipedia, it is likely that no articles can ever be deleted. If you think it should be deleted, then vote accordingly on this vote standing by itself, and deal with the "numerous other examples" in their own time. Nandesuka 12:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Bus interchanges are major bus terminals in Singapore worthy of articles. If we can have one for every single Metro station, I dont see why bus terminals cannot have one.--Huaiwei 10:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Unfortunately it's true about the rocks and twigs. I suspect that countries the size of singapore put extra weight on features that us in larger countries regard as fairly ordinary. In any case, this is a fairly major interchange. Grutness...wha? 10:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pilatus. Nandesuka 12:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Mailer Diablo and others. Kappa 12:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pilatus. Peeper 15:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep bus terminals. --SPUI (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Good article. CalJW 18:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep all roadcruft Roodog2k (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant terminal, well-written article, nice picture. JYolkowski // talk 21:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a guide to bus routes, it is an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 23:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Vsion 23:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable --Camw 06:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above --Mecanismo 18:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bus terminals are not inherently notable. Lord Bob 01:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Jurong East Int is a major Interchange in Singapore worthy of an article. Also per Mailer Diablo and others.Advanced 04:58, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Lord Bob. If the vote is to keep I may start writing articles on the bus terminals in Greater Manchester - be warned!. Theres also quite an unassuming bus terminal in New Mills in Derbyshire - if Jurong East deserves an article, I'm New Mills Bus Terminal does too. Rhyddfrydol 21:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • How many bus terminals are there in Greater Manchester?--Huaiwei 21:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Apart 9 or 10 that I know of -- Rhyddfrydol 20:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Well why not? As long as these articles are well-written. =D -Mailer Diablo 09:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki to wikitravel if there is a category for this. Vegaswikian 04:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikitravel's license policy is not compatible with our's, so they can't take it. This is still localized buscruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Nonsense! Why delete this article? This is the greatest terminal in Singapore!!!--Ruennsheng 08:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, defaults to keep. Ral315 05:02, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hougang South Bus Interchange

According to the article, this is a Singapore bus station, now closed Pilatus 08:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This closed interchange has a very strong political and social history behind it. I will embark on writting a summary of it for now.--Huaiwei 10:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The protests against expanding Hougang suburb and shifting its commercial centre have nothing to do with this bus station and are best dealt with at Hougang. Besides, the one-line stub could really do with expansion. Pilatus 17:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I would have thought this was quite clear in the article (which I have not completed espanding). As far as Singaporean transport planning goes, a bus interchange is build in every new town in its main commercial centre. When Hougang's town centre was moved, the planners wanted to shift the interchange as well, and it was the closure of this interchange which led to protests, not the expansion of Hougang or the movement of the town centre. In fact, this episode was a hot political topic as well spanning over a decade, with MPs manipulating it to win votes amongst the electoriate.--Huaiwei 19:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
      • You see, all of this I wasn't aware of as a foreigner. Bus transport in Singapore is the obvious candidate to put this in. 129.215.194.205 20:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I don't like it, but there are numerous other examples of this kind of article at Category:Bus stubs. If they stay, this should stay as well. unsigned vote by khaosworks. --Nandesuka 12:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This argument is fallacious. If we accept the premise that we should never delete an article because at least one other article of its kind exists on Wikipedia, it is likely that no articles can ever be deleted. If you think it should be deleted, then vote accordingly on this vote standing by itself, and deal with the "numerous other examples" in their own time. Nandesuka 12:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, highly encyclopedic article. Kappa 12:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Nandesuka 13:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Pilatus. Statement left by User:Pperos
• Keep bus terminals. --SPUI (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Very non-notable. — RJH 16:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Like death, closure makes no difference to the notability of a subject (unless it increases it). CalJW 18:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep all roadcruft Roodog2k (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:POINT - Mailer Diablo 20:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. If someone wants to merge that's fine too. JYolkowski // talk 21:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a guide to bus routes, it is an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 23:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Does this particular article read like a transport guide to you?--Huaiwei 16:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Vsion 23:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable --Camw 06:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep bus terminals, schools, and battleships. —RaD Man (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable --Mecanismo 18:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bus terminals are not inherently notable. Lord Bob 01:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing to say it belongs in an encylopedia. Maybe these need to be combined in one article. Vegaswikian 04:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neither schools nor bus terminals are comparable to battleships. Especially non-notable ones. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:51, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bus spotters' obsession --redstucco 08:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus (defaults to keep). Ral315 05:06, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Punggol Bus Interchange

A local Singapore bus station, currently closed. Pilatus 08:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This interchange is very much in operation.--Huaiwei 11:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I don't like it, but there are numerous other examples of this kind of article at Category:Bus stubs. If they stay, this should stay as well. unsigned vote by khaosworks. --Nandesuka 12:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • This argument is fallacious. If we accept the premise that we should never delete an article because at least one other article of its kind exists on Wikipedia, it is likely that no articles can ever be deleted. If you think it should be deleted, then vote accordingly on this vote standing by itself, and deal with the "numerous other examples" in their own time. Nandesuka 12:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pilatus. Nandesuka 12:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, bus interchanges are notable, like metro stations. Randomly deleting articles is no way to build an encyclopedia. Kappa 12:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, Kappa! Please familiarize yourself with some of our policies and guidelines, especially no personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thanks in advance. Nandesuka 13:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a breach of either of those policies here. Please be careful in making such comments as if they lack sufficient justification they may themselves appear to some to be a breach of the no personal attacks policy. CalJW 18:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

CalJW, I'm afraid I don't understand you. What part of reminding someone about relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines could possibly be considered a personal attack? Please elaborate. As for my welcome message to Kappa, I thought it appropriate, since it is clear that Pilatus is not randomly deleting articles — whether you agree with his nominations or not, you surely must acknowledge that they are systematically focused on one topic at the moment — and describing such nominations as "random" is an argument addressed to the nominator, not to the content. Kappa correctly takes umbrage when people describe him as "always voting keep no matter what the subject" (and he doesn't — I've seen him vote delete quite a few times). I'm reminding him to extend the same courtesy to others with whom he disagrees. If you choose to interpret that as a personal attack, you are welcome to; I'm confident that your opinion will be in the extreme minority. Nandesuka 20:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, its your words which beg to be understood. I too, do not find Kappa's comments contravening any wikipedia policy, and your message to him does appear overboard and inappriopriate to me. I suppose that makes me a "minority" as well?--Huaiwei 21:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If you believe that politely reminding someone about relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines are a personal attack, then yes: I sincerely believe — and hope — that you are in the minority. If anyone else would like to discuss this, I suggest you drop by my talk page and comment there, rather than clutter up this vote page. Nandesuka 21:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a major difference between a "polite reminder on wikipolicies" for a genuine case of policy violation and a "polite reminder on wikipolicies" where no clear-cut evidence of violation exists. Obviously, the issue is not whether a "polite reminder" is a personal attack or not. It is whether you somehow consider someone else's edit as a policy violation when they are not, which then amounts to a personal attack. You appear to completely miss the point there, delibrately or otherwise. Anyway, I do not think I need to go to your talkpage at this juncture, for I have nothing else worth saying, and I do not wish to continue on this discussion any further.--Huaiwei 16:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Wait, wait. I'm confused? Is Kappa new? Looking at his user/talkpage history I thought he's been here for a while. And the protocol of welcoming users is via the user talkpage? - Mailer Diablo 19:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Pilatus. Peeper 15:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep bus terminals. --SPUI (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — utterly non-notable. — RJH 16:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless, and must be relevant to thousands of people. CalJW 18:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep all roadcruft Roodog2k (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:POINT - Mailer Diablo 20:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. If anyone wants to merge that's okay too. JYolkowski // talk 21:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a guide to bus routes, it is an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 23:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Vsion 23:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  03:02:58, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable --Camw 06:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep bus terminals, schools, and battleships. —RaD Man (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable --Mecanismo 18:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bus terminals are not inherently notable. Lord Bob 01:15, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is a temporary structure! Vegaswikian 04:54, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Bus interchanges are not notable, unlike a Metro station. Deleting superfluous and needless information is a good way to build an encyclopedia. Hamster Sandwich 00:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per Hamster. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bus spotters' obsession (how many of these are there??????) --redstucco 08:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are 21 bus interchanges in Singapore. Too many for you? Seriously, am I right in suspecting more than half the people here cannot tell the difference between a bus stop and a bus terminal?--Huaiwei 13:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Ral315 05:11, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abigail and Brittany Hensel

nn conjoined twins. Zoe 08:55, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I approve your work on deleting vanity entries on non-notables, Zoe, but in this case I think it is something different. Only today I saw a television documentary on these girls; I was reminded of an article I had previously read on them a few years back. I was after extra information, and a google came up with this article, which I found an extremely useful summary. It also contained some information I couldn't find easily elsewhere on the web. --211.29.199.111 09:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with above comments. Moreover, are there many conjoined twins that aren't notable simply for being conjoined twins (or for associated medical complications)? -- Smjg 10:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep There are only few pairs of cojoined twins aliwe in the world, and this girls are extremely rare type of cojoined twins, what makes them unicue mediacal case. Kneiphof 10:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per 211, but needs a reference to the documentary as proof of notability. I'll cleanup the language a bit as well. Last Malthusian 12:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I went through several edits before being happy with it, but in the end I deleted the quotes from the twins as unencyclopaedic, though if someone can figure out how to include them in the context of an encyclopaedia they are quite cute. I deleted the section on their personal tastes for the same reason, then changed my mind, and put it back in. I still don't know whether it belongs in an encyclopaedia or not, but I've erred on the side of caution and left it there. I deleted the sentence about how "rumours of the twins appearing in a sitcom are unfounded", since it's unsubstantiated by definition and frankly sounds like patent nonsense. Still needs the name of the documentary they appeared in. (I also posted this comment on the talk page.) Last Malthusian 12:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The name of the television documentary you are most likely referring to is "Katie and Eilish: Siamese Twins", which aired on the Discovery Health Channel in early 2002. Hall Monitor 23:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rare and exceptional type of conjoined twins.Gateman1997 16:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, significant internet and media presence... very notable and interesting pair HoratioVitero 16:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC) (sorry about that)
• Keep As above. CalJW 18:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• strong keep These girls are exceptionally notable. I'm a little suprised that this article was nominated. Roodog2k (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep conjoinedtwinscruft. JFW | T@lk 21:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per the comments above. Hall Monitor 23:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. And this serves as an example of how anons should contribute to AFD. :) Titoxd 23:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Life Magazine ain't what it used to be, but if you're on the cover, you're de facto notable. --MCB 06:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. LIFE magazine cover stories are non-notable? Seriously Zoe, what the fuck? —RaD Man (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Pay attention: the VfD predates the magazine cover having been added to the article, even if by less than a day. -- Smjg 09:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but Zoe could have done her own research. --211.29.198.218 10:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • So every soldier and B-girl who made the cover of LIFE during WWII should have an article? Zoe 18:59, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • No, but unique medical cases who make magazine covers and have whole documentaries devoted entirely to them should have an article. --203.173.8.12 03:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • • So, when will it be decided that this article should be kept, and the ridiculous votes for deletion thing stop and be removed from the top of the article? --211.29.198.100 07:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• keep Zoe, what were you thinking?; they were on the cover of Life magazine! ---CH (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see, Zoe didn't know about the cover when she VfD's the original version. Sorry, Zoe. ---CH (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Interesting phenomenon Patio 07:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Although there is less than a two-thirds majority, I am making my decision in connection with another AFD debate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of primary route destinations in English Counties. That debate will almost certainly end with a "delete" result on all those lists, making this article useless. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Primary Route Destinations in the United Kingdom

Wikipedia is not a travel guide or collection of links I would like this vote to include all the List of Primary Route Destination by county pages as well, which simply consist of links to the named towns, etc. I do not think that this category of pages is encyclopedic and I think these pages violate several points of what Wikipedia is not. --G Rutter 09:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• As the writer of this list, I have decided to move it and the lists for particular counties to Wikitravel. If you wish to contribute there, please feel free to do so. Ted Ted 10:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into one list, assuming there is a consistent system that the road department follows. (By the way, in the U.S. these are known as control cities, and are not very consistent, but that may be because different states do things differently.) --SPUI (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but it needs much more coverage of what this system is about. This is neither a travel guide article or a collection of (external) links. CalJW 18:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The articles are a collection of internal links, which is also listed in WP:NOT. Also, if they're not a travel guide, what are they? --G Rutter 07:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Check again. There is an exception, not only for disambiguations, but also "for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." This is a classic case, organizing the articles on Department of Transport-designated major locations within a county into a single list. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, but here's the crux, Tony: the DoT-designated major locations aren't encyclopedic per se. Listing them doesn't help in that department. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Spooey Roodog2k (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Utterly useless. This is just a list of towns. Not remotely encyclopedic even if it was fleshed out. Gamaliel 23:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It gives no more information than a linked list of counties in UK (which exists) where each county includes a list of linked towns. That'll do for me. -- SGBailey 20:26:35, 2005-09-09 (UTC)
• Keep. Excellent idea, very useful list. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Useful for what? The article doesn't tell. Pilatus 15:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • They provide a link into the organization of the road system. Tag each destination with the major roads leading through it, and then link each road to each relevant county article for destinations along it, and you have a completely different way of studying the geography of Britain, using the structure of the road system itself. This is excellent stuff. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This provides links to counties which in turn provides a list of cities. No context given. WP:NOT a directory of original data Pilatus 15:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Arbitrary list. / Peter ^Isotalo 21:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You don't understand what it is a list of if you consider it "arbitrary". --SPUI (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as I'm concerned "arbitrary" and "pedantically over-specified" differ little in this context. This serves absolutely no purpose except to entertain some editors and a few road aficonados. / Peter ^Isotalo 16:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems like just a list of Countys --redstucco 08:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Ral315 05:15, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Blanked per request. Alphax ^τεχ 06:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 19:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chinon parchment

Unverifiable information. The only link given is dead. Web searches only show how many mirrors and rip-offs of Wikipedia articles exist. May be related to some publicity stunt of self-proclaimed modern days templars [4]. --Pjacobi 10:52, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless verified. Gamaliel 23:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable --Mecanismo 18:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This link 1 (search it for Frale) makes me think it's legit--or at least that Barbara Frale is legitimately claiming this and has gotten some attention for it. If legit it's an important document, both from a historical perspective and as a new source for conspiracy theorists. --Dvyost 22:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT. Clearly, we do not have a consensus to delete. Since the new article is a copy-paste of this, I'm going to presume the debate applies to that article with its sensible title, and interpret the 'moves' as keeps (which is what they are, really). So the new article is KEPT, and this one obviously redirected there. -Splash^talk 19:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An explosion at the Naples post office kills 100 people. The explosion was caused by a Nazi time bomb placed there 6 days beforehand.

This is about a news event in October 1943. The event might be notable, but the article's title is beyond horrible. Delete or redirect to a better title. — JIP | Talk 11:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Move to 1943 Naples post office bomb. There's no need to tell the entire story in the article's title. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Move per mgm. As long as the story is true. Punkmorten 12:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Perhaps title of the page is highly unusual – deletion is a better option as no one is expected to search with such a “voluminous” title. Option for shorter redirects may be explored. --Bhadani 14:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • My above comments modified in view of rejoinder comments by User:Lomn on my talk page. --Bhadani 06:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move as above...HoratioVitero 15:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. What's the implication of this explosion? How did it affect the US's military involvement in Europe? How did it affect the Naples community? If these questions can't be answered, this is just a large explosion 62 years ago. --Plastictv 17:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • In an encyclopedia things don't get out of date in the way you imply. This is as notable as it would be if it had happened today. CalJW 18:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • i'm not implying that it shouldn't stay because it was out of date, but rather it could be just an isolated event with no impact. There are countless explosions in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Philippines etc. today that aren't wikiworthy. But the recent London bombing was. Do you see the difference? --Plastictv 01:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move. Huh, why is this on AfD? Plastictv, read the article, of course notable (by the low standards of wikipedia.) Sdedeo 17:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Rename 1943 Naples Post Office bombing. CalJW 18:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move as above with preference to delete the pointless redirect. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:04, 2005 September 6 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Is this a notable event? Is every explosion in the war a notable event? Can this be verified?Roodog2k (talk) 20:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but sourcify, get actual casualty numbers & tie in with Operation Overlord articles. JFW | T@lk 21:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect. I've tagged 1943 Naples Post Office bombing for cleanup, and wikified it a little bit. I wonder where this falls in the Allied invasion of Italy during World War II... Titoxd 23:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per Roodog2k. Or can this be moved to WikiOldsNews? -- Austrian 00:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, now there's other article for this. No need for a redirect. --Apostrophe 00:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Which "other article" are you talking about? --Plastictv 01:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • 1943 Naples Post Office bombing. Helps to kinda read the whole voting shebang. --Apostrophe 03:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to 1943 Naples post office bombing, which still needs cleanup, wikification, and sources. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hi Angr, long time no see. :) i agree with the cleanup, but i guess there's no need for the redirect. Nobody will key in such a monstrous title. --Plastictv 05:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sad excuse of an article --Mecanismo 18:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. Nothing links here--did the author really expect a reader to type this description into the "Search" box? Owen× ☎ 01:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• if there is really no existing article with which this can be merged, I vote to delete. From the title, looks like a newbie experiment which went terribly wrong. On second thought, move to 1943 Naples post office bombing and add a "stub" flag.---CH (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Please be cautious when casting "joke" votes like the merge-vote here, the sarcasm rarely shines through as well to the AFD closer as it does to you, and may suddenly wind up having undesirable consequences. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Harloe

Fiction - the only full google hit was a student ballplayer. The anon index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=203.59.111.226 has also created other nonsense pages Vsmith 11:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

True - there are two google hits for dan harloe, one, a student ballplayer, and the other is for the ancient mathematician and scientist described in the article. (added by User:202.72.148.102)

No, when the search is "Daniel Harloe" there is but one - from Scotch College Junior School, AUSTRALIA. Vsmith 17:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Real subject may (or may not) be worthy of an article, but version as written is just fiction. --Alan Au 16:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, near certain hoax. - choster 19:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to null as per WP:FICT.  ;-) —RaD Man (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as transparent hoax by some bored schoolchild. Vsmith, I can't find the Google hit you think you saw. I am a mathematician and I've never heard of this alleged person. I just checked the well known history of mathematics by Boyer and no Harloe is listed there.---CH (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Articluatreate

Fiction - zero Google hits. The anon[5] has also created other nonsense pages Vsmith 11:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Deletreate per nom. unsigned by Alan Au at 12:33, 6 September 2005
• Delete, near certain hoax. - choster 19:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete this thing! Titoxd 23:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Coffee 14:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Boilpoint

Smells of a hoax. Zero google hits, and the other contributions of User:HelloolleH make his only real contribution highly suspicious. andy 11:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Er.. YEH.. its real .. it has 118,000 matches .. your a lier, he shoudnt be an admin --HelloolleH 12:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[6] andy 12:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You shouldn't be impersonating an admin. android79 12:36, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy. Copy-and-paste of Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller with some of the names changed. Clear hoax. android79 12:36, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy. Hoax. Allmusic and google turn up empty. Article bears too much similiarities to Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller. --Hurricane111 19:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Clearly all the keeps are the same person, so I'm only counting it once. They appear to have some genuine article to write here, but the consensus is against it remaining, owing largely to weak sources and poor verifiability. I would think, then, that this AfD need not necessarily preclude a rewritten article being created which is properly sourced. -Splash^talk 20:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aqeel Islam

This article is a hoax. There is no such thing as Aqeel Islam. The pages Aqeeli, Aqeelah, and the image Aleeqahlogo.jpg refering to it should also be deleted. Yodakii 11:40:25, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

• Delete. Apparently an attempt to revive Mu'tazili, which clearly does exist, but there are no Google hits for the name or the supposèd founder and the single external link is about Mu'tazili rather than Aqeel. So no proof that this revival exists neither in the article nor elsewhere. Plus the list of 'figures' of Aqeel is apparently mostly a list of figures of Mu'tazili, with the exception of the founder - they're certainly long dead and nothing to do with the modern 'revival'. Five of the six tenets of Aqeel are lifted directly from the five tenets of Mu'tazili. Reads rather like a vanity page, only instead of being an up-and-coming politician, singer or programmer we've got an up-and-coming Islamic revivalist scholar. Last Malthusian 13:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Ok first of all i myself am a aqeelah and convereted to the secret organization a while back. I dont know why just because it is not commercialized it would make it a hoax. Aqeelah Islam is almost exactly alike to Mu'tazili because it is a modern version of it. It kept alot of its tradition, almost exactly. Our headquarters are located in NY and in CA. 68.8.70.214 22:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The random believer above of me is right, Aqeeli Islam is definitly not a joke, it is not successful or even big, it is made up of only 7 disciples in each state making only 350 disciples in all. If the article is kept i will promise to add more information on the division and i will add as much facts as i can. I will look up the "6" tenets as soon as possible from the local Imam in the Aqeeli Islam conference house near my home. The article may be a little unbelieveble, but i will try to add as much facts as possible later on. And i just wanted to make one correction on the random believer above me, the New York HQ is being sold so i think they moved to someplace else, i forgot the name of the city right now. Ok well last words, keep believing no matter the criticsim of others. RuthCoronado 6:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete.

• The anonymous user (apparently from 68.8.70.214) and RuthCoronado seem to be the same user.
• This user has already vandalized an article with false information. The "Aqeeli" article seems be to just another attempt at messing around with the wiki. Keep this up and you may get banned.
• The hoax itself isn't done very well. One give-away is the Arabic name for "Aqeel Islam" according to the article is "al-'iraqi" which translates as "The Iraqi".
• Wikipedia is an encyclopia, and its not appropriate for every one with a private club or "secret organisation" to be listed here.
• There is no proof that this organisation exists.
  --Yodakii 04:15:29, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

Keep The paul pierce article i edited was all facts, he was stabbed by the Made Men crew and was threatened by Ray Benzino. The arabic name i got is from a website that translated Aqeeli into that arabic name. Maybe somebody can change it or something. And the reason that the anonymous user and i seem like the same user is because probably he/she probably uses the local library computer or the computers down by the San Diego computer shop. I found ut that he/she lives in San Diego like me. --RuthCoronado 015:38:40, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

ok. maybe I was too harsh. If you want to contribute to wikipedia, provide information that can verified, and don't use sockpuppets. If you can't find any way of verifying what you are writing besides your own statements here, then it should be removed. --Yodakii 03:10:13, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

Sorry if this isnt enough information from the internet. I found a page from recommended by the imam in the Aqeelah HQ, i dont know if this is enough info. I will try to find more sites or things on the division. --RuthCoronado 17:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete since nothing shows notability. Ruth, your attempts to create this are fine but because of the way wikipedia operates you are going to need to find stronger sources. I know a bunch about Scott Newman's (Paul Newman's son) college days... but I know it from what my father told me... and while I trust my father I know that I cannot add this stuff to an encyclopedia without getting some sources on it. I recommend that you keep a copy of this page as a sub-user page so it ges preserved and edit it... if you find good sources (from some notable media and not just a site created on Geocities) then feel free to recreate and I'll probably support it. However, as it stands now nothingshows that this is real or notable. I think it'd make for an interesting article if you could prove it... but until then I'll have to stick by my interpretation of wikipedia policy. gren グレン 19:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

This is really hard, i want it to stay on wikipedia but because of its secrecy and low success, not many write about the organization. We have been to many peace rallys and i have many pictures of the disciples in my computer, but there is no (or atleast one i can find) website containing info on it. Can't we just put it up for "clean up" and during that period i will desperatly try to find info of it on the internet or atleast get a reliable resource? I really need help on this one. RuthCoronado 02:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Can someone tell me if the arabic word translates to "Aqeel". Ruthcoronado 02:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Myst. There's no consensus on what to do with this article so it is not deleted, but since everyone wanted it either merged or deleted and it has, in effect, already been merged (not as part of this debate, though), I'll just redirect it. -Splash^talk 21:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missed (game)

Non-notable online spoof of Myst. Google finds three links to the site (the pun is so abominable that it can't effectively be searched for normally); Alexa rank of 859,811. —Cryptic (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete unless it is expanded and shows notoriety. - UnlimitedAccess 12:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Myst. 23skidoo 13:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect per 23skidoo. --Alan Au 16:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: it is, bogglingly, already mentioned in Myst, and there's nothing worthwhile to merge. I don't see how a redirect from this title would be useful. —Cryptic (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac ^(talk) 17:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eudea

New, nn band Punkmorten 13:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete bandity/advertisement with copyright statement, suggesting they don't even know what they're contributing to... —brighterorange ^(talk) 16:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete / light on fire / shred / destroy simply stupid --Quasipalm 17:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN band vanity. Also agree with User:Brighterorange re: copyright message. Cnwb 05:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. This was never a deletion candidate and listing it on AfD, although an act made in good faith, was not the best use of Wikipedia resources. The article could have been merged with redirect to "the Hellen Lovejoy section of the simpsons" or whereever anyone wants it to merged. AfD has not decided on this; to editors have decided it's so trivial that it should be deleted, but neither they not the merge-proponents, nor those who propose a transwiki, constitute a consensus--rather the reverse! I recommend that those interested in a merge pursue this course. If this should fail, please return to AfD with a recommendation to transwiki or delete. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Think of the children

If anything, this article, which is a single sentence should belong to the Hellen Lovejoy section of the simpsons for quotes or wikiquotes for that is what this article is. It has no growth expectancy, and at most will become a paragraph long. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikiquotes. Feydey 17:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with ZeWrestler - merge/move. Athf1234 18:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Berkut 07:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Dave Porter
• Comment this nomination was not previously listed - now fixed (no vote) --Doc (?) 13:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of characters from The Simpsons, or if there is/will be a separate article for Helen Lovejoy, merge with that. Anyway individual quotes, no matter how famous, don't deserve their own articles. We don't have an article for Cowabunga dude, for example. — JIP | Talk 13:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geylang Lorong 1 Bus Terminal

Here we have another bus station in Singapore. This one serves the suburb of Geylang, and six lines depart from it. While public transport is an important factor in the geography of cities (just look at how the trolley lines and their subsequent abandonment in favour of the car shaped Philadelphia), the recent slew of Singapore bus stations does nothing for the encyclopædic treatment of the subject. The rightful place for the information would be the suburb itself or a separate article, Public transportation in Singapore. I'll get off the soapbox now. Pilatus 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, as mentioned, public transport is an important factor in the geography of cities, but we shouldn't clutter main articles with too much detail. Kappa 13:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pilatus, who makes the point that Kappa misses quite eloquently. Nandesuka 14:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pilatus. Reading all these Singapore Bus Station articles makes me feel like I've had a very boring holiday. Roll on Public transportation in Singapore, wherein all these bus terminals could quite properly be reinstated, notable or not. Peeper 15:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pilatus. Is the backlash against Singaporean bus stops beginning? Last Malthusian 16:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I am not too sure if we are talking about individual bus stops here, but its a terminal we are talking about.--Huaiwei 19:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • If buses stop there, it is a bus stop. Call it a terminal or a station or whatever you like, but if a bus stop has several buses depart from it, even if they go to other countries, that just makes it a big bus stop. Last Malthusian 11:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
      • So we should be deleting all places where buses happen to stop, regardless of other factors? Kappa 11:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, that is not the case here. A bus terminal or bus interchange is NEVER called a bus stop. If some voters here cannot even differentiate between the two, then I do not see how we can account for their votes? I am sorry, but do I need to use pictures to show the blatantly obvious difference between them here?--Huaiwei 16:42, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Obviously, you hav little experience of bus stops in other countries. I could find hundreds of pure bus stops in Stockholm that are serviced by 6 or more bus routes (especially if you include night routes). Some of them are in terminals, some of them are not; all of them are however non-encyclopedic buscruft. / Peter ^Isotalo 14:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep bus terminals. --SPUI (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Next it will be individual pea patches. :) — RJH 16:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hey, that's not a bad idea! Last Malthusian 11:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Plenty of material [7] to start some. This did give me the idea to turn P-Patch into something other than a red link. Seattle hippies get pretty militant about their urban gardens. SchmuckyTheCat 19:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I do not think bus stations are notable enough to warrant individual articles. Also per nom. Joelito 17:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the lot into one article (I'd even live with Bus stations in Singapore) - delete the template please --Doc (?) 17:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Lo and behold it's already there Bus transport in Singapore!--Doc (?) 17:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep good info, notable, breaking no rules --Quasipalm 17:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Subjects such as this can be covered in more than one level of article. CalJW 18:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I cannot forsee the day in which we have a single article talking about 20 bus interchanges, 21 terminals, and listing over 200 bus routes. And why this prejudice against bus terminals when no one seems to make noises over the hundreds of articles on individual metro stations?--Huaiwei 19:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:POINT - Mailer Diablo 20:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all roadcruft Roodog2k (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. If you want to merge it, be bold and do it, don't nominate it for VfD. JYolkowski // talk 21:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Vsion 23:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a guide to bus routes, it is an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 23:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable --Camw 06:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep bus terminals, schools, and battleships. —RaD Man (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bus terminals are not inherently notable. My pasting fingers are tiring rapidly. Lord Bob 01:16, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki to wikitravel if there is a category for this. Vegaswikian 05:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Doc above.Phase1 12:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per nominator. / Peter ^Isotalo 22:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bus spotters' obsession --redstucco 08:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Bus Terminal. notable info, breaking no rules. Why all the prejudice against bus terminals and interchanges in Singapore? Advanced 13:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • My prejudice is against articles on bus terminals anywhere. Bus terminals in Singapore happen to be the ones on AfD right now. I'm not anti-Singaporean, I'm anti-bus terminalsian. Lord Bob 17:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orange Pecco

Non-notable band. Could only find a few Google links, and those were questionable. The associated Stef, Phil, Rxke, and Torro should be deleted as well. --Fang Aili 13:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable CambridgeBayWeather 13:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Quasipalm 17:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac ^(talk) 17:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LavaCards Dot Com

Reads like an advertisement or an aboutpage: possibly copied from linked-to site. ('our' official website?) Not convinced of the assertions of notability on the article, and the site appears to be advert-heavy. -- Soir (say hi) 13:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Reads like an advert? Not a very good one. Assertations of notability are extremely suspect, and even if they are notable, anyone who feels like going through the article and NPOVing and otherwise de-advertising it has waaaay too much time on their hands, even for a Wikipedia editor. Last Malthusian 13:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Alexa ranking of 280k+ also fails WP:WEB. If somebody takes the time to go through and remove the marketing, let me know and I'll reconsider my opinion. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert --Quasipalm 17:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Page moved to Clea Rose case; renominated for deletion; discussion now at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clea_Rose_case. MCB 00:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clea Rose

Very sad story; I'm sure she was a lovely girl, and I know that her family and friends must be very deeply grieving. However, WP:ISNOT a memorial, unless it can be established that she did something notable or that the circumstances of her death were notable. DS

• Delete per nom. - sadly, being killed in a car accident isn't notable. The Australian police being implicated in the car crash is slightly more unusual, but it doesn't sound like there was any serious negligence on the police's part. So, a tragic occurence, but not a notable one. Last Malthusian 14:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - it may have had media attention, but I see no lasting effects such as a new law arising from the incident --Outlander 16:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is some implications in that the tapes from the security cameras in Civic (the CBD of Canberra) are missing and that there is some indication that there was a police chase underway when she was hit. The underaged driver of the vehicle is facing manslaughter charges as the result of her death. There will be a coronial inquest into her death. This case has been newsworthy in the ACT and raised in the Legislative Assembly. I hope to clean this up tonight. Capitalistroadster 17:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per CR, thanks for taking care of this. Sdedeo 17:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have no problem with this article. Alf ^melmac 21:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalist. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I rewrote the first paragraph of the story to emphasize the incident, rather than Rose, as the subject, removed later bio info, and moved the article to Clea Rose case. This avoids the nn-bio issue and hopefully leaves a useful stub on the accident/controversy. --MCB 07:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. The case was quite high-profile here in Canberra, being in the news for a couple of weeks. As tragic as it is, though, I don't expect it'll be of much interest to anyone in a month or two, but neither am I fussed enough to vote delete. If it is kept, though, please move it back to Clea Rose - Clea Rose case is ugly, unconventional, and less useful. Ambi 07:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The idea of "_____ case" is that the case (accident, aftermath, controversy) is notable, while the person involved was not. I would vote delete on a bio of the person, but the article might qualify as encyclopedic. I don't think it's unconventional at all. I don't have the inclination to do dig up a bunch of examples, but I've seen them in the form of "_____ case", "_____ controversy", "_______ matter". And of course the simple name form remains as a redirect. MCB 08:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDILY REDIRECTED to Campsite. -Splash^talk 21:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Camp-site

Unreadable, can't figure out what the heck this is talking about, reads like a very badly translated.. something. --Fang Aili 13:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Has been redirected to Campsite. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to send it back to AfD. I just figured the redirect was appropriate, and quicker and easier than AfD. Friday (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac ^(talk) 17:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Death Do Us Part

An independent label record company that doesn't exist that was owned by a band that no longer exists and only ever released one EP by that band. Al 15:52, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN --Quasipalm 17:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless it would make an acceptable redirect to Til Death Us Do Part. Grutness...wha? 02:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The writing on the wall

Nominated for speedy by User:Robdubar, but not a speedy candidate. I abstain. Meelar (talk) 18:19, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, right? (sorry bout the speedy delete thing; relative newbie) Robdurbar 18:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't take this off as it's really useful. The reason Wikipedia works is that it has so much information! 10:50, August 3, 2005

• Important comment: I discoved this article with a vfd tag on it - but, despite the above discussion, the nomination had not been listed here. I then re-wrote the article. Having done so, I discovered a shorter parallel article at Writing on the wall. I merged that article here as the phrase is seldom used without the definite article and never with the indefinite. I'm now listing this for completion. --Doc (?) 15:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep important Biblical episode it has linguistic and cultural importance --Doc (?) 15:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep, clearly. —brighterorange ^(talk) 16:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This episode is proverbial. Pilatus 16:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Decent enough article. Alf ^melmac 21:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very important bible event which is often referred to proverbially. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; proverbial/idiomatic phrases with an (illustrated!) article about them aren't dicdefs. Shimgray 16:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Hell, at this point I can't really do much to help the overwhelming majority, but since I've gotten here: it's got a lot of info on an episode which is often used in common, everyday talk. So I guess I just wrapped up the eight comments above. Keep, of course. WAS 00:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S.-- To the stuffed shirt who mentioned that Wikipedia is not a dictionary... That's why we've got the Wiktionary, dumbass! Check it out, if you like you should prove my point the better! (unsigned personal attack by WAS)

• Very strong Keep; very common and important phrase and important Biblical passage influential in art, history, literature, politics, culture...my question is why delete it anyway? Seems like someone merely getting persnickety. As is said elsewhere on this site, "Wikipedia is not paper." The advantage of Wikipedia is being able to go from the broad view of a subject to a specific detail, but there seem to be a few who think it should be more oriented toward exclusionary highlights of subjects. That's not necessary here and defeats the purpose of the project, which is to create an encyclopedia far more thorough than any print version could be.
• Gilesgoat 10:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep A very common phrase. I would venture that the origin of this saying is unknown to alot of people. Decent article. --PhilipO 19:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete with a laugh! --Phroziac ^(talk) 17:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Something that Dissolves in Milk

Does not appear notable. No entry in AMG. Also, according to Google, Wesigngaybands (the supposed label) appears only in Wikipedia. Al 16:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - for a band that supposedly produced four albums, they certainly don't leave much of an impression on the media ---Outlander 16:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN band #159,032,052... --Quasipalm 17:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete heh... Roodog2k (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not even a ho-ho in the hoax. Alf ^melmac 21:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Spider-Man 3 (I can't find anything to merge). Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spider-Man 3 (2007 movie)

Future event - Crystal ballism Outlander 16:05, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Spider-Man 3Strong keep. Announced films are not crystal ball. Sony has officially announced the film (see official website). There is also precedent. See Resident Evil: Afterlife, Casino Royale (2006 movie), etc. That said, I have gone in and cleaned up and wikified the article, removing a few statements that can be seen as crystal balling. Changing vote to merge as I was unaware another article already existed on this topic. 23skidoo 02:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Movie has an IMDB entry. --Alan Au 16:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The existence of an IMDb entry is not considered indicative that a planned production actually exists. There was a listing for a movie based upon The Prisoner for several years that was never actually made. 23skidoo 16:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — This one is fairly likely, and it does have the "future film" warning, so I think it's okay to keep. — RJH 16:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- This movie was confirmed by Sony. xSTRIKEx6864
• Keep. Movie is confirmed and much anticipated. Does not violate "crystal ball rule" and is notable enough. --Plastictv 17:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep factual, notable --Quasipalm 17:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Front rank film. Almost certain to be made and its cancellation would itself be notable. CalJW 18:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, not crystalballism, this movie is in preproduction already.Gateman1997 19:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep we have verifiable information about this now and more can be added as time goes by.

Capitalistroadster 20:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep should definitly be expanded as more information becomes available... HoratioVitero 20:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and Redirect to Spider-Man 3 as that entry is more complete. --Grcampbell 23:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/merge as suggested. In fairness, WP:NOT doesn't make this particularly clear. Flowerparty 00:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep/merge --scotsworth 22:38, 6 September 2005
• Delete. I'll go out on a limb here. The film has not been finished, it's still in pre-production, and therefore the article can only be speculative. Cnwb 05:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete: The movie already has a detailed page, this article addes no additional info, Delete or just add a redirect in it to the movie's main article. --Amr Hassan 07:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment okay, yes merge but not delete...207.158.1.209 15:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to "Spider-Man 3" article which is more comprehensive. *drew 04:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac ^(talk) 16:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whitehot

pseudonym from a nn band. here is biography. no mention of guideliness necessary on WP:Music. Very few google hits as well. that said, Delete. -- Bubbachuck 05:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, possibly speedy as vanity. They never learn, do they? - Lucky 6.9 05:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment nomination seems not to have been listed - now fixing --Doc (?) 16:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Quasipalm 17:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Note that this doesn't preclude anyone from being bold and performing a merge and redirect themselves. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations of rape against U.S. presidents

This article is simply an attempt to find a venue for POV material that would be instantly removed from the main Clinton article. It is highly POV and cannot hope to be otherwise. If the allegation is notable it should be in the main Clinton article, if it is not then the article should be deleted.

• Delete --Gorgonzilla 15:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — libelous. — RJH 16:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep I can't see how this is libellous - all the allegations are carefully sourced. The article itself reports, but does not make allegations. Nor is it inherently POV (there are some speculative comments and perhaps weasle-type words that should be removed)- it should not, and does not really, comment on whether the allegations are true or spurious. Being able to compare allegations and the media responses between presidencies seems interesting and perhaps useful. Certainly salvagable --Doc (?) 17:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. These are really just opportunistic accusations against recent Presidents. David | Talk 17:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep souced accusations... what's the problem? --Quasipalm 17:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, well sourced. Presumably the Clinton fanatics will be drawn here to vandalize, so hopefully someone will watchlist it. Sdedeo 17:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If these are notable they should be in the President in question's article. Jefferson's one is extremely point of view, and even admits that in the phrase this would be considered rape by modern standards. It is impossible to know the true facts of the case, and there is no evidence presented that Jefferson was accused of rape in his lifetime. My opinion is that if we allow this article we open the door to articles on everything United States President's have ever been accused of. The best place for this information is the article on the President in question. Hiding talk 18:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is about accusations, not proven facts. Thus, when these accusations are documented by either well known news source and/or court fillings, then they are not libelous. It may be important to stress the accusation aspect in the article though. Also, someone might need to watch / require all additions be supported by references. --Hurricane111 18:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have reverted the article to include Jefferson, as it should be. I don't think there is anything POV about considering Jefferson's possibly non-consensual sex rape, although it would be much better if a source could be provided. Oh wait. [8], [9]. There is nothing that limits this article to "accusations made during the lifetime of the president in question". Slippery slope arguments on AfD are inherently dangerous, because once you allow one slippery slope argument you open the door to deleting most of wikipedia's content</irony>. Sdedeo 19:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment I do not believe I am on a slippery slope here. I am merely making the point that we can not judge Jefferson by today's standards, as the article text does so. Do you also consider we should judge historic people's sexuality by today's standards? Should we judge all slavers as criminals if they broke no laws of their own time? Yes we can state their actions, butr we can not state they have been accused of rape if they have not so been. I am not limiting it as such to accusations in their life time, but rather that such accusations have been explicitly made. The two sources Sdedeo quotes do not make the accusation he so dearly clains they support, and he even admits himself it is a possibility. If Jefferson has been accused of rape, cite a better source and I'll be happy to agree. Failing that, do not make the accusation. Hiding talk 19:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC) Fair play, Jefferson section sourced now. Apologies for rant. However my vote is still currently delete. Hiding talk 19:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, well-sourced. Krakatoa 19:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep well-sourced and reported on often in media and historical accounts HoratioVitero 20:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• weak keep Accusations of rape != rape commited. Thats not the issue. The issue would be notability, which I think is proven (i.e. notable) for some of the examples listed. Roodog2k (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What is the point? The article is inaccurate and could probably never hope to be NPOV. Accusations? Hey, President Millard Filmore raped me! Guess I should go put it in the article. Sources can be very deceptive on this one. Does the source show that a claim was made, or that the claim has credibility. Like everywhere else, one person's claims should probably not be included in Wikipedia. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unnecessary, unencyclopedic POV article Soltak | Talk 21:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-encyclopedic and unless charges have been proved, little more than hearsay.Vizjim 23:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Jefferson's case was not raised during his lifetime and my personal view is that calling it rape is drawing a long bow. The case against Reagan was not raised until forty years later and originally appeared in a dubious source namely a Kitty Kelley book. The alleged case against George W. Bush was made by a woman with mental illness and appears not to have been taken seriously. I don't think we should be in the business of repeating hearsay claims unless they are widely-publicised and therefore notable. Capitalistroadster 00:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless this information is not present in the articles about the given presidents, in which case merge to those articles and redirect. In either case this should not exist as a separate article, unless there is some correlation between rape and U.S. presidents. Putting all these cases together does not appear to be useful as it stands. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:23, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
• Merge each section into the article on the president in question and delete this. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how we could do what Angr suggests under GFDL, but if we can, I support what Angr said. Zoe 06:48, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and delete as per Angr - GFDL can be fulfilled by cut and pasting the edit history of the deletia onto the talk page of each president in question. This is a very POV article that has been created to make a point, possibly due to umbrage over the recent accusations made by Clinton about Bush's incompetence in dealing with Hurricane Katrina's aftermath. Holy hell, it's like a soap opera. Proto t c 09:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • And people wonder why politics suck so much. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Are the sources reliable. Who are the people doing the accusing? Are they just one nn person? We should judge the article by the validity of its sources. Not whether it gives any sources, or whether the accusations were proven. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the only article that has a remotely credible source is the Jefferson one which is from a very different time and arguably keeping people in slavery is as heinous as rape anyway. I don't think that a neutral biography of Clinton would make more than a passing mention of the claim and then only as an example of the much thrown around. I certainly don't think any of the other claims would be mentioned. --Gorgonzilla 02:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The disproportionate length of the passages convinces me that the nominator is correct: the treatment of the other Presidents is cover for an article whose purpose is to attack Clinton. The Clinton section is really the thrust of the article; it's ten inches long, and probes deeply, but it's far from rock-solid. It's a mere bubble, and any prick would pop it.Dpbsmith (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Angr. Owen× ☎ 01:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep perfectly encyclopedic, although could be improved. Violence against women is an important issue. By the way Christopher Hitchens accused Clinton of rape in print and was never sued. Dubya may be a buffoon, but that does not mean Clinton was a saint (is that a pro-Nader POV?).PatGallacher 16:09, 2005 September 9 (UTC)
• Keep an entirely reasonable and interesting topic for an article. the juanita broaddrick stuff is, however, presented in ridiculous detail for an encyclopedia article. part of that is my fault as i got in a tit-for-tat evidence war with someone trying to selectively attack clinton. that should be judiciously pruned back to an encyclopedic summary and the article kept. Update: I went ahead & reduced the broaddrick part to the early july version, while keeping a few balanced points from the more recent stuff. Derex 00:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dome_kralj

This article seems to be mostly nonsense (even for a translation). The term "Dome kralj" gets 9 hits on Google, and four of them are Wikipedia. Mcfly 16:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-Notable--Isotope23 19:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nonsense or a bad joke - Introvert ^talk 08:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. --Phroziac ^(talk) 16:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bedok Bus Interchange

Bedok Bus Interchange in Singapore is served by certain bus lines, this entry tells us. See reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geylang Lorong 1 Bus Terminal. Pilatus 16:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - or merge the lot into one article - and get rid of the templet as well. --Doc (?) 17:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep good info, notable, breaking no rules --Quasipalm 17:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Just tuning into this debate. According to Bus_transport_in_Singapore, there are like twenty bus terminals total. It seems kinda silly to have a huge fight over this. We should respect dorkiness within limits, even if it is a kind of dorkiness we do not share. Also, it was not the best idea to AfD every single one of these terminals. Just AfDing one for starters and seeing the outcome would have been the best decision, IMO. Sdedeo 17:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless. CalJW 18:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As per every other bus depot article. As per Sdedeo, I too repeat the call to centralise the voting, and to expand it to discuss all bus depots in the world.--Huaiwei 19:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:POINT - Mailer Diablo 20:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. A merge is okay with me too. JYolkowski // talk 22:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Vsion 23:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a guide to bus routes, it is an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 23:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:POINT, Pilatus. Zoe 06:49, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable --Camw 07:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bus terminals (and interchanges) are not inherently notable. Lord Bob 01:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep bus terminals. --SPUI (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep bus terminals, like metro stations. Kappa 13:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bus spotters' obsession --redstucco 08:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep busy and widely used bus interchange. Notable info Advanced 13:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. --Phroziac ^(talk) 16:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ang Mo Kio Bus Interchange

The article tells us that this Singapore bus station is being rebuilt and what lines leave from it. Verifiable, factual and of use to thousands of Singaporeans every day – however not encyclopædic. See reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geylang Lorong 1 Bus Terminal. Pilatus 16:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep good info, notable, breaking no rules --Quasipalm 17:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is getting tiresome. CalJW 18:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Bus terminals have a place in wikipedia. Instead of nominating individual articles like this, why do you not initiate a centralised discussion on the worthiness of ALL bus depots?--Huaiwei 19:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:POINT - Mailer Diablo 20:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. A merge is okay with me too. JYolkowski // talk 22:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Vsion 23:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a guide to bus routes, it is an encyclopedia. Gamaliel 23:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Not notable --Camw 07:02, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, bus terminals (and interchanges) are not inherently notable. Lord Bob 01:18, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep bus terminals. --SPUI (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep,as it has good info.Tdxiang 04:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, like metro stations. Kappa 13:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bus spotters' obsession --redstucco 08:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep good info. Notable interchange.Advanced 13:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. I don't see anything here that isn't in the main article that is of use. Woohookitty 08:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roger Federer's playing style

The original text is a complete verbatim copy of a federer fan blog post: [10] (which now lists Wikipedia as a "mirror site" for his article). Some information should be merged into Roger Federer, but obviously only the extremely notable aspects of his game. The rest could be covered by a link to the blogpost from the federer article, if necessary. As only the Roger Federer article and one user's page link to the article, a redirect is unnecessary. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:59, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge any relevant information and Delete without redirect. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:59, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. You cannot delete the history while merging the content. GFDL requires attribution to remain. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:40, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Ahh I see. Well, merge then... --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:49, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • If a redirect title is objectionable, it can itself be renamed while retaining history (say, to Roger federer, or over the historyless redirect Federer). Failing that, it can be moved into the talk namespace, with a notice on the talk page ("This article contains text merged from Talk:Roger Federer/history."). There's no reason to preserve useless redirect names like this. —Cryptic (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't oppose a move to the talk namespace of Roger Federer if it needs to be merged. as long as the history is retained. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Copyvio. Gamaliel 23:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, copyvio. —Cryptic (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't know what I was thinking - if the blog author is linking it as a mirror, he clearly has no objection to it being here. Merge relevant parts per DropDeadGorgias and move to Roger federer or Federer or the talk namespace to preserve history and redirect from there. Delete the resulting redirect at Roger Federer's playing style. —Cryptic (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Turnstep 11:54, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• I disagree that the article should be deleted. There is truly nothing offensive about it and the mere fact that it is "mirrored" by another site is not enough to delete it. Wikipedia is a place to gather information on anything and everything. It is a valuable learning and researching tool and this article maintains that tradition. User:krocha12345
  • Krocha12345's seventh edit. —Cryptic (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• It is agood articale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.127.53.56 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• This is a VERY valuable article. A lot of information available on Wikipedia can be found somewhere else but to make Wikipedia a true encyclopedia, I believe it should be kept. Let's keep it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.60.88 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• This is a great article!!! WHY delete it? - Dave, New York —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.135.67 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• This is the best tennis article I've read. Perhaps just rehash it? - Tom, NZ222.152.214.83 05:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• This article is very good and should be kept alive, even though it is mirrored.
• If Pete Sampras, John McEnroe or Björn Borg with their merits do not have article like this. This should be deleted. And I'm not talking about potential (Formula 1 language). I'm talking about the merits. I suppose one could write a bunch of these type of articles from ANY of the players mentioned before. Thank You Fanatics.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warden Avenue

Delete generic road article. Mindmatrix 17:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete seems pretty minor. --TimPope 18:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a fairly long street, and significant to have a TTC station; what harm is there in covering it? David Arthur 18:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've cleaned it up, added links to the subway station and line articles. Ground Zero | t 18:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless, verifiable and known to a large number of people. CalJW 18:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Roads are best described as features on a map. As this article, and other recent deleted articles, have shown it is very difficult to adequately describe map features in prose. Only roads with some cultural significance (ie. Granville Street) or heritage value (ie. Main Street) should be written about. Being a piece of a larger infrastructure system (whether or not another piece of infrastructure, like a subway station, is nearby) does not make any particular road anymore notable than anyother. Until Wikipedia includes a GIS system, or simply wikilink maps, articles that describe simple roads will always be inadequate. --maclean25 19:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Even as a Torontonian, I simply don't buy the argument that a street deserves a Wikipedia article just because it exists and is verifiable; as far as I'm concerned, to deserve an article a street has to have demonstrable historic or cultural significance far beyond its mere existence as a strip of pavement. As Toronto streets go, that criterion includes Yonge Street, Degrassi Street, Spadina Avenue and Allen Road; it doesn't include Warden. (It doesn't include Birchmount Road, either, and I used to live there. And no, the "Birchmount Stadium, home of the Robbie" line in Barenaked Ladies' "One Week" is not enough to lend Birchmount the necessary cultural significance.) I have to go with the delete on this. Can anybody actually explain to me why I should consider the simple existence of a street to be enough to justify an article? Bearcat 20:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep HoratioVitero 20:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There is nothing of any note mentioned about this road. The fact that something exists and is verifiable, and even NPOV, doesn't mean that it automatically warrants an article. The recent debate over B-roads in GB also bears some merit in relation to this. --Icelight 20:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Icelight is referring to this debate. Mindmatrix 20:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete long or not, it's still just a street. Soltak | Talk 21:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per the b-roads debate and my general view that streets do not normally warrant encyclopedic treatment argument. To wit: why the hell does Allen Road have an entry? Dottore So 22:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Allen Road (which isn't a street; it's a freeway) is historically and culturally important as the sole existing remnant of the aborted Spadina Expressway. Bearcat 22:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Historically important? Allen Road? Come on, that's absurd! Dottore So 04:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • What part of "sole existing remnant of the aborted Spadina Expressway" are you having trouble parsing? Bearcat 17:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Stopping the Spadina Expressway was a watershed in the development of Toronto: stopping that also blocked other proposed expressways (the Crosstown and the Scarborough), and the fact that a subway was built along that route therefore helped shape Toronto city planning, with the idea that Toronto would be a transit city, rather than an expressway city (not that we are there, but it was an important signal). The dispute bewteen the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario over this was also an important event in shaping the city/province relationship. Yeah, it was historically important. Ground Zero | t 17:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not just a B-road. This is a major road in Toronto with a subway station on it. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Bessarion Road has a subway station on it, too, and that doesn't make it encyclopedic. Bearcat 22:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Roads belong on maps, not in an encyclopedia unless they are notable for something other than simply existing. Gamaliel 23:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, most roads are not notable. This is one of them. Zoe 06:51, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article merely tries to describe its location. Apparently there's nothing encyclopedic to tell about it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:26, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. It is indeed a road with a subway station on it. The subway station already has an article. If the road's only claim to fame is having the subway station on it, then any and all encyclopaedic information would already be covered in the article on the station. Wikipedia is NOT a travel guide. Proto t c 09:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Zoe. Owen× ☎ 01:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep streetcruft. --SPUI (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Significant if undistinguished artery in Toronto, but continues as a regional road all the way past Georgina, Ontario city hall to Lake Simcoe. Samaritan 18:49, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't very interesting --redstucco 08:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Bearcat. He is from Toronto and sounds as if he knows what he is talking about. Pilatus 19:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, there are other Torontonians in this debate voting to keep; I'm not sure my opinion should really be privileged in this way. Bearcat 22:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Billbrock

Delete.This article is written by one user, Sam Sloan, about another user, Billbrock (real name: Bill Brock). (Disclosure: I am on friendly terms with Brock, but have not seen him in several years. He has not asked me to submit this article for deletion.) About 90% of the article consists of discussion of the fact that Billbrock has been attacking Sam Sloan in various fora, including Wikipedia. This is non-notable, and of little interest to persons other than Sloan and Brock. Krakatoa 17:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Brock is non-notable (greatest claim is president of the IL Chess League or something.) Also, there is a newsgroup "rec.games.chess.politics"? That is scary. Sdedeo 18:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom. Mindmatrix 18:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and attack... While we're cleaning things up, I'd delete Sam Sloan as non-notable as well (Self-aggrandizing rhetoric and self-promotion aside, what has he done other than win a court case in front of the Supreme Court?) I'd ban both the silly twats and their flame war.--Isotope23 19:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think twats are silly at all; I would, however, cop to twit-hood (rhymes with...?) Billbrock 02:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't that a lame Paul McCartney song (redundant, I know): "Twats aren't silly, twats aren't silly, twats aren't silly at allllll"? Krakatoa 15:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy. This is a blatant attack page with a couple non-attack tidbits thrown in... --Daedalus-Prime 20:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Bill Brock has expressed no opposition or objection to this Wikipedia page and to the contrary has asked that some more information be added to his biography, including his Ph.D. in English. On August 19, 2005 at 7:55 PM on rec.games.chess.politics, Bill Brock wrote:

"My own wiki--kewl! Add: married to former Bunny; Ph.D. English; former resident (1976-77), Third West, East Campus (I played for the B team that year and had Ron Henley busted in an early round--the big fish got away)." [Note by Krakatoa: Sam Sloan wrote these last 2 paragraphs]

• Great... let's replace a useless attack page with a vanity page. I reiterate my vote above.--Isotope23 00:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity of vanities, all is vanity... Of course this has no place in Wikipedia, but as the subject of the entry (embroiled in a rather nasty ... whatever), I didn't think it was my place to call its validity in question. The entry cited above by Sam Sloan is of course tongue-in-cheek. Billbrock 00:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator and subject. Capitalistroadster 00:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: As per his/her comment above, Isotope23 has nominated the Sam Sloan article for deletion, too, so go opine on that one if you want.

Speedy deleted as an attack page. Zoe 06:52, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. If you count the nom, it's 4-2 for delete plus the keep votes are weak keeps and not every actor should be here. Woohookitty 08:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zach Roerig

From IMDB profile [11] One role in a 8 minute flick, parts as an extra, and a minor role. Not enough achievement to qualify for an article. lots of issues | leave me a message 17:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete not yet notable as per above and his Bacon number is infinity [[12]]. [User:Roodog2k|Roodog2k] (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep due to a recurring role in a network show. Gamaliel 23:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, it's not much, but I'd say that a recurring role in (one of) the longest running soaps of the world (As The World Turns) is just enough to scrape by on notability to me. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• delete simply working as an actor does not make him notable.---CH (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Phroziac ^(talk) 16:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 the rewrite article and merge into Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil. I'm closing the discussion early since no-one wants an article deleted through AFD any more, and so that Milena Popovic, Rx StrangeLove, or another editor can proceed with the merge. Uncle G 20:02:33, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

[edit] Dona Isabel (I) of Brazil/Temp

This was clearly a test page, and there's a good article about Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil (Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil). I suppose there's no need of maintaining this one on Wikipedia. Milena 18:03, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The "/temp" in the page name brings it close to Speedy but not quite... --Daedalus-Prime 20:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Change my vote to abstain. This is more complicated than I realized at first... --Daedalus-Prime 16:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect. It was listed in copyright problems so I rewrote it (not knowing about (Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil) in order to clear the violation. As long as we have a decent article about her this can go away or turned into a redirect. Either is fine with me. By the way, the temp page comes on every copyright violation template so that editors can work on replacement pages. Rx StrangeLove 20:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• This is clearly not a test page, but a rewrite page, scheduled to eventually replace Dona Isabel (I) of Brazil to resolve the copyright problem there. Separately nominating a rewrite page, that is in use as part of an ongoing Wikipedia:copyright problems deletion process, for deletion via AFD like this simply causes a mess. And nominating an article for deletion on the grounds that it is a duplicate article by an alternative title, when dealing with such duplicate articles does not involve deletion at all, is simply wrong. Editors who think that Dona Isabel (I) of Brazil should redirect to Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil after the copyright problem has been eliminated, because it is a duplicate article, should simply edit the rewrite article to be a redirect, not nominate it at AFD. Keep, and let the Wikipedia:copyright problems process proceed as intended, without spanners in its works. Uncle G 23:37:29, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
• Keep as per Uncle G. Capitalistroadster 01:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge: Okay, sorry because there was a misunderstanding, please don't bite the newcomers (like me!). Anyway, this may be a little confusing, since there's already the article named Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil. Maybe merging Dona Isabel (I) of Brazil to Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil would be a good idea. What do you think? Anyway, sorry for the misunderstanding. Milena 12:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • At the end of the copyright problems process, Dona Isabel (I) of Brazil will be deleted and Dona Isabel (I) of Brazil/Temp will be renamed in its stead. If you want, once the copyright problems process has completed, Dona Isabel (I) of Brazil to be merged with Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, then what you should do is simply merge Dona Isabel (I) of Brazil/Temp with Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil now, and leave the copyright problems process to run its course. The only thing preventing the merge bring done right away is this AFD nomination. Since no-one now wants the article deleted, I'll close this discussion early, so that you can go ahead and do the merge now. Uncle G 20:02:33, 2005-09-09 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Phroziac ^(talk) 16:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Christian

Delete Non notable? as per [13] PhilipO 18:06, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable & probably vanity--Isotope23 18:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN/Vanity. --Hurricane111 18:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete even more nn if you do this [14] --Doc (?) 19:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Have a nice day! -- BD2412 ^talk 20:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity ---CH (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete VECTOR and Vector Management Systems, no consensus (thus keep) on Human Capital Management. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VECTOR, Vector Management Systems and Human Capital Management

All were marked for speedy deletion but do not quite qualify. The question is whether or not this company and its product is notable. I abstain. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all. Advertising. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep "Human Capital Management", but Delete "VECTOR" & "Vector Management Systems". HCM reeks of management speak, but it does at least contain some encyclopaedic content, and is not purely an ad like the other two. --MacRusgail 14:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Menac Campaign

Fancruft. Al 18:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Al. This info would be better displayed on a personal website for the campaign setting; it's just not notable enough for Wikipedia.--Isotope23 18:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, would be great in http://rpg.wikicities.com/ Ashibaka (tock) 18:45, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hendelsen.com

Previously marked for speedy deletion but does not quite qualify. So far, I am still not convinced how this blogging community is important or significant. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Lean Delete. Appears non-notable; I'm not Norwegian however. I'd like to see an opinion from someone actually from that country.--Isotope23 18:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• I would argue speedy for attack page; no sourced attribution of notability. Note that googling "Hendelson.com" pulls up less than a page of results [15]; I would guess that a blog as important as asserted would pull up more. Sdedeo 18:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Hi, I'm Norwegian. A search reveals that while this site does exist, it is not well-known at all and thus extremely nn. Delete. Punkmorten 21:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Non-notable blog. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 me as utter rubbish. The only link provided was to a defunct myspace page, there was no informational content, and there was nothing verifiable. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Null band

NN/Vanity. Allmusic search comes up empty. The article's link suggested subject is some garage band. --Hurricane111 18:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN/vanity/possible copyvio ("From their website" or some such nonsense) --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 21:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bugdad - lost in berlin

Vanity page for a film that hasn't been released NeilN 18:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - self-promotion CDC (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 21:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Foodie

Dicdef, already exists at wiktionary [16] TimPope 19:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef. Friday (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Encyclopedia not dictionary. Psy guy ^(talk) 01:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flaming Milka

Google returned about a dozen results for either Flaming Milka or Amelia Milka Sablich. If other sources can be found-i.e., contemporary newspaper articles-this might be notable and verifiable, but as it stands, it doesn't appear to be either. Paul 15:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 21:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doujsh

Delete. Even if this was notable, which it isn't, it is a neologism and dicdef. BJAODN? Remove all nonsense from Wikipedia! --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, and absolutely zero google hits. None... not even as a misspelled real word. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Completely NN.--Isotope23 19:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- word is in common use in Seattle area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
  • Feel free to back up that statement with sources. We can't just take your word for it. If you can, it belongs in Wiktionary. Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:32, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Gamaliel 23:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. And by the way, it met the criteria for speedy deletion. --Phroziac ^(talk) 16:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Weeks

NN, vanity entry Dismas 19:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN.--Isotope23 19:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as nonsense, nn, vanity, take your pick ---CH (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Borderline, since there is numerically equal support for both delete and merge. But Roodog2k prefers deletion and, perhaps more importantly, the target article does not include details of possibly notable epileptics, it just lists their names. -Splash^talk 21:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Sharon

Not notable - very few links on Google for "John Sharon" epilepsy, no links from other Wikipedia pages, seems to have been an interviewee on a documentary programme Bluap 19:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• weak delete else merge with Epilepsy. I remember seeing this guy on the NOVA show. Granted, he is not notable.Roodog2k (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• merge with Epilepsy. He is an interesing case, but this one won't work as a stub.---CH (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hentai Lovers Club

Advertising, using WP as a webhost space provider for docs -- (☺drini♫|☎) 19:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete advert. Is it my imagination, or was something similar deleted once before?--Scimitar ^parley 19:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. I keep thinking blatant commercialism should be a Speedy reason... --Daedalus-Prime 20:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Badvertising. Alf ^melmac 21:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete forumcruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Isotope23 00:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete, blatant forum spamvertising. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advertising. Korg (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. The final participant has added the reference they cite here to the article, so Scimitar's concerns would seem to have been met, albeit somewhat minimally. This is a case where the two-thirds guideline is too low since there is little participation and an important addition to the article (a reference) after all the deleters had commented. -Splash^talk 21:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antiimperialist Action Front-Suxxali Reew Mi

Exactly one Google hit (to this page) and no substantive content or references. Daedalus-Prime 19:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless referenced. --Scimitar ^parley 19:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, organization existed in pre-www era, thus low coverage in google. See: Zuccarelli, François. La vie politique sénégalaise (1940-1988). Paris: CHEAM, 1988, Politics of Opposition in Contemporary Africa, etc.. --Soman 06:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (defaults to keep) Ral315 05:22, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Woodstock Elementary School

It's an elementary school, no importance, notability or anything at all that warrants an article to itself. TimPope 20:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep it may be small but that doesn't make it non-notable, it prepares young people to enter life as productive adults, that makes it notable enough in my book HoratioVitero 20:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete every parent prepares young people to enter life as productive adults, as do their houses and streets. I think there's a couple elementaries in Alva, Oklahoma; at one elementary school per 4000 people, that's 15 million elementary schools in the world. Not notable.--Prosfilaes 20:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A hard-won (rough) consensus is that high schools don't really have to show notability, while elementary schools usually have to have something going on. Sdedeo 20:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools and common sense Soltak | Talk 21:33, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Soltak/Views#Schools. Can I keep borrowing that? Nandesuka 22:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Feel free :-) Soltak | Talk 23:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn school. Dottore So 22:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic. Anyone with any sense should see that. Dunc|☺ 22:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Prosfilaes says it's one school for 4000 people? sounds like a notable subject for those 4000 people then. SchmuckyTheCat 22:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I know! I could buy them a mac mini and they could run a wiki on it and host this article there, instead of here. Nandesuka 03:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Why do you think that even the 10% of the 4000 people that has immediate family there would consider it notable? If all three or four schools in Alva, Oklahoma are notable, why isn't the local band? More people would consider the local Wal-Mart important; more people are employed by it, and more people are directly affected by it.--Prosfilaes 03:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete High Schools by default are Notable (IMHO), primary schools by default are not (IMHO) Roodog2k (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clutter. Gamaliel 23:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 4,000 reasons to keep, pick one. —RaD Man (talk) 02:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:29, 2005 September 7 (UTC)
• Keep. Brief and businesslike. Good stub. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 03:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• If schools aren't important, why on earth do we keep sending our children to them? Keep. Grace Note 03:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Does that mean that houses aren't important, or that each and every house in the word deserves a Wikipedia article? --Prosfilaes 05:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. -- DS1953 04:52, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Quality control must be applied to Wikipedia; four walls and a roof are not encyclopaedic. Proto t c 09:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, we apply notability criteria to people, bands, websites and businesses. It would be only logical to do the same with schools. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and stop nominating schools until consensus is reached on them --Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable school. I agree with MacGyverMagic --G Rutter 11:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing notable about the school is mentioned. If "all schools are notable," then find what is notable about this one and add it to the article. All actions are case-by-case. The absence of policy consensus just means that it is harder to be consistent and to sway others' votes by citing policy. So: apply good judgement, do not nominate school articles that should not be deleted, and do nominate school articles that should be deleted. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Good School Stub. Need to be expanded. Guerberj 16:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Schools notable at high school level, not generally below that. — RJH 17:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Time to start fighting the battle for elementary schools.--Nicodemus75 23:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • "Start fighting a battle"? I thought this was about trying to achieve consensus instead of fighting a war. Yours is just one of several keep votes that doesn't bother to state a reason on why to keep the article.--Prosfilaes 02:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, if you spent any time whatsoever researching the history of debates here for schools, you would realize that these issues have been hashed, re-hashed, re-re-hashed, re-gurgitated, re-envigorated, served up for breakfast and then re-defecated for months upon months upon months. Most of us have repeated again and again and again what our reasons are to the point of absolute and frustrated ad-nauseum. Many deletionists feel exactly the same way and they don't bother to give their reasons on each and every vote. There *is* an ongoing battle on Wikipedia for the future of school articles and attempts to convince or achieve a true concensus are long exhausted and dead. Those of us that believe that schools are inherently notable have no choice but to continue to marshall our forces to defeat AfD nominations on schools, and to utilize the 5-day waiting period to clean up and expand school articles to appeal to moderate and fence-sitting voters (which I might add, has the added benefit of actually improving and expanding the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia - imagine that!). If anything is obvious from the last 2-3 years of this ongoing struggle, it is that no permanent concensus will ever be reached irrespective of how many editors post their reasons for voting. Want my current reasons for voting to keep this school? How about, "because the deletionists want to remove it" or "because the school has four walls and a roof" or "because you asked". My point is that the argument itself no longer matters - the only tool we have to work through this is the AfD process - discussion and debate has failed. Most of us are not interested in a complete re-ignition of the debate all-around despite last-ditch efforts by deletionists to try to get a "merge" position to remove school articles, or the latest effort to attack the AfD process itself. To re-state, there isn't and will not be a concensus on the status of school articles.--Nicodemus75 12:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Soltak put together User:Soltak/Views#Schools, and simply linked to that. Is that so hard, to put together a coherant explanation and link to it, instead of giving hostility to anyone who disagrees with you? You aren't even trying to gain consensus or give a reason that someone new to the subject might be convinced by.--Prosfilaes 16:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Good for Soltak. I am not him. Perhaps my initial repsonse was too caustic. However, the facts still remain. There have been attempts to build concensus on this issue for years, and all of these efforts have failed. Many, many well-intentioned people have tried unsuccessfully to build a concensus on this matter - but the reality of the debate (despite the fact that some "moderates" would like to claim that there is some strange, subjective, floating middle-ground, is all about whether or not schools are inherently notable. Those who try to re-state the debate in some other terms, are either trying to sidestep this issue, or are simply in denial. Those who do not believe that a school is inherently notable are engaged in a constant effort to nominate school stub articles which are not yet expanded and developed as quickly as possible in order to hopefully get the articles deleted before those of us that want school articles included can marshall the necessary resources to re-write the articles to demonstrate to enough of those who hold a middle position on schools, or voters who do not regularily follow these debates to vote to keep the articles. This is evidenced by the fact that many (not all) VfD/AfD nominations for schools are made by the same group of editors. In a way, there is a bizarre form of "concensus" being reached through this entire process, that is, as Tony Sidaway has pointed out elsewhere, the number of new school articles is growing at an exponential rate which is rapidly outstripping the ability of the AfD process to delete them. The inevitability of this reality (coupled with the constant re-writing of school articles once the AfD process is started) is defacto, creating a Wikipedia-wide "concensus" that school articles will survive and flourish. The sad and unfortunate truth, is those editors that do not believe that a school is worthy of an article simply by virtue of it's being a school, cannot be reconciled with those of us that believe that schools are inherently notable, knowledge-worthy and important enough to create and maintain articles at Wikipedia. It truly is an impasse.--Nicodemus75 08:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
          • So you define your position as completely intolerant to compromise so you don't have to try one. Vanity biographies are popping up at an exponetial rate; does that mean we should give up trying to delete them? I can't believe that someone like Anuschka Tischer who's actually done something the rest of the world might care about (as well as 4000 of her fellow historians) is deletable, but a school that most of the people in its city, much less out of its city, don't care about isn't. --Prosfilaes 17:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
            • For the record, I voted keep on her also. I am sure that surprises no one.--Nicodemus75 06:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps he picked one of the 4,000 reasons mentioned above. —RaD Man (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • What 4000 reasons? Most of those 4000 have nothing to do with the school besides slowing down for the speedzone. I really feel this is crap; that these things are being held to a totally different standard than anything else, that WP:Music calls for bands to be notable on a national level, and these schools aren't even notable on the level of a medium-size city. And AfD is not a place for battles; it should be a place for consensus.--Prosfilaes 05:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this fine school stub. Unfocused 05:20, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete We delete band vanity and personal vanity, why should school vanity be kept? Pilatus 11:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pilatus and Soltak. --Idont Havaname 14:26, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this stub for a non-notable elementary school. Jonathunder 02:54, 2005 September 10 (UTC)
• Delete: pointless. CDThieme 03:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, relevant to education in Bryant Pond, Maine. --Vsion 04:50, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, good stub, valuable and verifiable information, which aids in understanding both the topic and life in its area and is thus part of the sum of human knowledge which wikipedia promises. Kappa 05:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Where does it promise that? --TimPope 10:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • wikimedia:Fundraising. I suppose technically that's wikiMedia not wikiPedia but since this is an encyclopedia article it doesn't belong in any other of the other projects. Kappa 12:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Well wikipedia has a policy "Wikipedia is not an indscriminate collection of information" so it doesn't belong here, there would be a 80% keep consensus if it did. --TimPope 13:34, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
        • So although it forms part of the sum of human knowledge wikipedia promises, you want to delete it anyway? Kappa 13:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
          • You established in your previous comment wikipedia promises no such thing --TimPope 13:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia promises that between the various projects I will get the sum of human knowledge. Which other project does this belong in? Kappa 14:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
              • I have no idea because I am only voting on its inclusion in wikipedia. The only other wikiproject to which I have contributed is wikiquote, and doesn't belong there. Maybe you could ask the Wikimedia Foundation to start a new wiki to fulfil its stated aim. --TimPope 14:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
                • It's not nice to take money from people and then not give them what you promised. Kappa 14:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is not a war and the lack of consensus is clearly not a reason to keep everything. If anything, the lack of concensus should be acceptance of the fact that creating an article like this is going to fuel long discussions that will not do anywhere. Vegaswikian 05:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • As a matter of policy, in fact, lack of consensus is a reason to keep. And my recent work on cataloging the rate of creation of new school articles shows that the AfD process isn't really controlling any perceived problem. We're currently seeing more than three times as many school articles created (and not speedied) in eight days than have been deleted due to AfD in eight months of discussion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:29, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • May I add that the amount of contents in school articles have also increased. At least for those in my watchlist, many school articles started out as a stub and gradually became full articles. It takes time, but a nice stub notice provides the encouragement to keep it going. Hardly any of these full articles are nominated for AfD, which suggest that it's just an issue of expanding, not notability. --Vsion 06:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This sort of thing makes it really hard for those of us who try to decide, in good faith, the merits of each article without reflexively voting to keep or delete. This article has three sentences. It tells us where the building is located, that it has just 100 students (99 white), and that there are 8 teachers. That's it. There is not even one independent reference for the article. I guess I almost don't know what to say. It's honestly difficult to understand how this qualifies to be in an encyclopedia, but clearly quite a few people think it does. Well, I'm sure it will be kept anyway, so it hardly matters, no? Regards—encephalonέγκέφαλος  08:02:21, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
  • The article is a whole month old, give it half a chance for editors to expand it.--Nicodemus75 09:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi Nicodemus75. I can really understand that point of view (although I do disagree with it). I hope you will understand, for your part, the view of those who feel that WP is best when its articles are well-referenced, excellently composed pieces— and if they aren't (for example, if they are stubs), that it is patently clear they have the potential to be such pieces. The problem for many "moderates", and perhaps this is not realized often enough, is that school stubs are not like a stub on, say, Erwin Schrodinger. Schrodinger was an immensely important physicist, and there are a huge number of works that have been written about him and his work. If I were to come across a stub on Schrodinger, I'd be willing to keep it even if it was abysmally written and referenced at that time because I know its potential— in fact, I'd probably simply expand it right then; it would be so easy to do because of the availability of good sources. But here we're being asked to keep a stub on something that most people in the world, and a significant number of WPns, cannot see the notability of; far more importantly, it is doubtful that there are any independent, reputable sources focused on the school that may be used to write an encyclopedia article. In such situations, it's fair to ask that the usual standards be applied, and that the article be judged for what is on the page. With very best wishes—encephalonέγκέφαλος  22:43:59, 2005-09-10 (UTC)
      • The whole begging of the question here is really a red herring by everyone that uses it in the first place. Non-notability simply is not a legitimate criteria for deleting schools (only for deleting persons). It is merely unfortunate that deletionists use notability as a criteria for other deletions improperly. For those of us who hold that schools are inherently notable, it doesn't really matter a fig if some other editors "feel" that an article on a school has to be "notable" or "well-referenced, excellently composed". All school articles will eventually be, since all schools are notable. --Nicodemus75 14:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Proof by assertion comes a few steps below proof by authority and way below any valid form of argumentation. Non-notability has been held to be a valid criteria to delete any article, including by long established precedent bands. Does non-notability really not apply grocery stores or churches? Other editors don't "feel"; they reason from analogy. If Lichenstein's (hypothetical) greatest rock band that has been drawing crowds of hundreds of Lichensteinians for decades doesn't qualify, why do all of the probably dozen schools in Lichenstein qualify?--Prosfilaes 18:51, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
          • With all due respect, that is just more horse manure. "Non-notability has been held to be a valid criteria" - by whom, exactly? It is not a valid criteria for deletion of schools, per Wikipedia policy - PERIOD. I couldn't give a fig if it is "held to be a valid criteria" by you, which is exactly what your proof of assertion is, and nothing more. The reason this debate exists in the first place, is because those of us that believe schools should have articles do not agree or have any concensus with people who believe as you do. As to bands in Lichenstein, who cares? We are talking about schools here - to somehow bring in some totally false analogy about musical bands is yet another way of trying to confuse the issue at hand. Apart from your assertion that because notability may apply to musical bands as a valid criteria an thusly should apply to schools, there is no relationship between schools and musical bands as you are trying to construct, except in your own opinion. In any case, all schools are inherently notable, and in summary, non-notability is not a criteria for deletion of schools articles, as per Wikipedia policy. Any "[holding] notability as a valid criteria" for deletion of schools, is merely an invention of yourself, and other deletionists. --Nicodemus75 20:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
            • Link to the policy, if it's per Wikipedia policy. What things, besides schools, are inherantly notable? You're stating things to be fact, but you provide no evidence. You aren't even trying to reason here.--Prosfilaes 02:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
              • WP:DEL Lack of Notability is a not a criteria for deletion, nor is being obscure, nor is being "unimportant". As far as the position that all schools are inherently notable maybe you haven't been following along at all - this is obviously not Policy, this is what I (and others) believe. Lots of things are inherently notable, elected officials, towns and cities, battleships, countries, monarchs, sports teams, great literary works, etc. etc. etc. etc. Do I really need to go on? --Nicodemus75 04:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
                • Great literary works are notable because they are notable; that's what great means. Elected officials aren't inherantly notable; they're less common and notable than the average college professor. Sports teams aren't inherantly notable; note that WoW clans get deleted all the time, and I'm sure kids T-Ball teams would get deleted just as fast. Professional teams are notable because people know about them country-wide.
                • As for the rest of them, countries are inherantly notable, because there's circa 200 of them in the world, and a soverign government has a lot of power. There's probably less than 200 monarchs in the world, and they make news across the world. The lists of battleships of the major powers are each listed on one page; I'm guessing at most 1000 ships. The only one of the above that's not likely to be completely covered by a standard encyclopedia, that is at all comparable to schools, is towns and cities. Most towns have at least one elementary school; Alva, at 4000 people, has 3 and bigger towns have hundreds or thousands. By sheer numbers alone, towns and cities are more notable than elementary schools. Morever, I have never seen the elementary school someone went to listed in a encyclopedia-sized biography, but the town they grew up in is frequently mentioned. --Prosfilaes 04:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Why does Aba, Okayama qualify to be in an encyclopedia? It has no references at all... Kappa 12:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • A more relevant question is why the probably two or three schools in Aba, Okayama qualify to be in an encyclopedia.--Prosfilaes 18:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Please try to follow the discussion. Kappa 22:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I can look up Aba in an atlas; I can find good sources on Aba without problem. Where's your justification for including the schools of Aba, which being pushed as inherantly notable? If you can even begin to wonder why Aba, Okayama qualifies to be in an encyclopedia, how can you justify including multiple specialized subunits of the Aba government?--Prosfilaes 22:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I have no problem with Aba being in wikipedia, I'm just try to follow encphalon's logic. Actually Haddersfield, Jamaica is a better comparison. I think my understanding of Aba would be greatly enhanced if its schools had articles which were as informative as the one under discussion, and I'm pretty bitter that you wouldn't want to share that with me. Kappa 23:57, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Why would the schools greatly enhance your knowledge? And why not its shrines or its garage bands?--Prosfilaes 01:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for gods sake how many more years are we going to be fighting over school articles.  ALKIVAR™ 05:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per encephalon. Alkivar and friends: why not create a project page called something like "Schools of the world project" in which you explain, not why teachers and schools are important (we all know that; this is not the issue), but why the world needs a Wikipedia on every preschool, grade school, middle school, high school, two-year college, and every building in every four-year college everywhere in the world? Or, if that is not your goal, what on earth is? If this is a long standing argument, you guys must have some rationale, but you must see that puzzled readers need to be pointed to a single page explaining what it is you are trying to do, because this is not obvious. If you can convince me, I'll change my vote on these VfDs.---CH (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Well lets see: Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools Jimbo Wales' "solution for rampant deletionism"... AKA his pro school keep argument I think that comprises most of our inclusionist reasoning.  ALKIVAR™ 03:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Lazy thinker's school vanity by the looks of it. --redstucco 08:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - duplicate of Mark W. Slipp and not a redirect candidate. -- RHaworth 21:04:44, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

[edit] Slipp

not notable, vanity? Aleph4 20:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --PhilipO 20:20, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Mark W. Slipp, depending on the deletion decision on that page. — Nowhither 20:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tolerance of religions

non-encyclopedic, no sources WCFrancis 20:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. POV magnet. Proper information exists on other articles. David | Talk 20:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More of a rant than an encyclopedia article. This topic can be & is addressed elsewhere. — Nowhither 20:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure pointless POV. Bunchofgrapes 23:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although it did give me a giggle! Jezze 01:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Not an encyclopedia article, extreme POV content. (And by the way, the Old Testament - if it is even remotely factually correct - can hardly be considered an example of religious tolerance.) Delete and redirect to Religious toleration. - Mike Rosoft 14:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark W. Slipp

not notable, vanity? See also Slipp Aleph4 20:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Article creator is also link spamming. --PhilipO 20:19, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Aleph4. Reads like resume. --WCFrancis 20:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 00:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity article on nonnotable person who is linkspamming the encyclopedia. DreamGuy 05:06, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable vanity article (possibly related to adspam).---CH (talk) 00:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 19:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James W. Norwood Jr.

very minor artist with no allmusic page, and about 33 google hits. No assertion of notability. (One appearance in a game soundtrack could be compared to being featured in a single track on another artist's album, and so would fail WP:MUSIC. Icelight 20:26, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn ---CH (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki and delete. Thue | talk 19:34, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jiggy

jiggy was nominated for deletion on 2004-09-12. For the deletion discussion, see Talk:jiggy.

The article is not written in a style suitable for an encyclopedia, and is really not useful. Pictwe 20:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Moving to Wiktionary would be OK too. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• transwiktionary but I'm sure there is plenty there already... Roodog2k (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blaž jež

Delete. Appears to be a hoax/vanity page. Google gets 3 unique hits, two of which are Wikipedia pages. Icelight 20:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Inventor of the phrase "Let's have another small drink!"? No way, that was me!! delete (at least as long there is no Slovenian version of that page). --Aleph4 20:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Introvert ^talk 08:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pinnacle Dental, Plano, Texas

Ad. Delete. JFW | T@lk 20:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Horrendous. Looks like the kind of client-generated claptrap I sometimes see slithering across my desk here at work. Yes, turn to Wikipedia for all of your delete needs! Our caring, professional staff is waiting to press the history eraser button!! - Lucky 6.9 21:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete drill this article --TimPope 21:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, ha! Let the punning begin! - Lucky 6.9 22:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Adcruft --Isotope23 00:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Extract Er Delete. Plano residents looking for a dentist wouldn't look in an encyclopedia to find one and there is little in this article indicating that it is of interest to anyone outside Plano, Texas. Capitalistroadster 01:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Can we speedy advertisements? Otherwise, delete Proto t c 09:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete blatant ad. Speedy delete if possible --Nv8200p (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, and I'll make sure to never visit this place. Beltz 22:30, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pinebrook

Article has information that is not useful except on a "micro" level (local); nothing distinguishes this private club from countless others in the United States and worldwide Delete Bumm13 20:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Many Pinebrooks on Google but not this one. Andrew pmk | Talk 22:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Club vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the above comments --redstucco 08:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] K-MeleonCCF

• Delete - Refers to an unofficial/independent build of the K-Meleon web browser. Not notable. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 10:16, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - NN --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 10:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• This nom was malformed and never added to a main VfD page. Fixing now. Redirect. JYolkowski // talk 20:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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 Merge and redirect Thue | talk 19:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] K-Ninja

Delete - Refers to an unofficial/independent build of the K-Meleon web browser. Not notable. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 09:22, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Other - Merge to K-Meleon and redirect - Although this is a version of K-Meleon, it has a different name (so it would not easily be found within Wikipedia if no redirect were provided), and it's interface is different from K-Meleon (it's modified so that the "chrome" or frame around the web page takes less space on the screen, which, in turn means modifying the menus and context menus). The changes are "notable" within the Mozilla community, both for the resulting practicality in use of the browser; and structurally: (1)because the "skins" or themes for it must be modified from K-Meleon "skins" (and are not easily interchanged), (2)because the menus (and the macros upon which they are based) must also be modified (K-Meleon's menus are insufficient for K-Ninja, K-Ninja's versions may be excessive for K-Meleon), and (3)because the "Prefs" script must also be modified to make the visual changes. ----Vincent(original author of K-Ninja stub)

• This nom was malformed and never added to a main VfD page. Fixing now. Redirect as above. JYolkowski // talk 20:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Will make it a redir since it is a duplicate. Woohookitty 09:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KPPP

KPPP was nominated for deletion on 2004-02-24. For the deletion discussion, see Talk:KPPP.

Delete this article. Duplicate of Kppp. --Anthony Ivanoff 10:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Same reason as Anthony. -- Daverocks 10:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• This nom was malformed and never added to a main VfD page. Fixing now. Seems like an obvious case for a redirect. JYolkowski // talk 20:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:duplicate articles is the solution for duplicate articles where the titles differ solely in case, not AFD. Uncle G 21:17:35, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] K3DSurf : Math for Fun

• Please, don't say stupiditys like "Blatant advertising". I know that you'r more interested in talking about your city, but here we are talking about science and math...Let us make something relevant with this beautiful web sitevirtualmeet

Delete Blatant advertising Stephenb 21:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• This nom was malformed and never added to a main VfD page. Fixing now. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 20:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:01, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 08:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katherine Beck

"doesn't seem very notable" Ben-w 00:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. She writes for the New Yorker. Zoe 00:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, writing for a paper doesn't do it for me, and her academic role is an adjunct teaching position so she probably fails WP:PROF. -Splash 00:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The New Yorker is a national literary magazine, well-known for years. It's a major publication. Zoe 01:04, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - It is not verifiable she contributes regularly to The New Yorker[17][18]. In a Google test the only notable author found is K. K. Beck aka "Katherine Kristine Beck Marris"[19] who is an unrelated author, sometimes just called "Katherine Beck", who deserves has an article. Another "Katherine Beck" who is probably a different person, is a non-notable photographer and and writer for the student paper Daily Trojan in Southern California. --rob 21:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• This nom never seems to have been added to a main page, at least not that I can see. Adding now. Keep. JYolkowski // talk 20:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough. Delete -- appears to be alternately unverifiable and false in all respects. Good research guys. Sdedeo 21:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Splash.Roodog2k (talk) 22:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article namedrops some famous people, but the subject isn't quite notable enough yet. Gamaliel 23:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• WP:Bio specifies that we may include biographies of "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." Ms Beck appears to meet this criteria so this article should be kept. However, given that there is another Katherine Beck who meets the same criteria, this article should be moved to Katherine Beck (poet) and a disambiguation article created in this space referring to her and to the novellist. I therefore vote to Keep, move and disambiguate. Delete as per user Rob until her existence is verified.

Capitalistroadster 01:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I now beleive this article is a complete fake. Please see Talk:Katherine Beck. --rob 23:38, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Rob, delete unless verified. Pilatus 13:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Good work nosing this one out. FWIW, I read the NY and cannot ever recall haveing seen her name. Delete per rob.Dottore So 22:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Thivierr is being an asshole, therefore I am changing my vote back to keep. Yes, I know, WP:POINT. So shoot me. Zoe 04:23, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply: Nobody should take comments about their edits personally. Insults and personal attacks are not appropriate. --rob 06:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Then I suggest you withdraw your attack on me on the page indicated. Zoe 07:05, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • You're confusing honest criticism of voting with a personal attack. You've voted here based on something wholely unrelated to the article, which you know is wrong. You even cited the guideline that says your action is wrong. If you choose to leave your personal insult against me, then it won't be my reputation that is the one truly harmed. --rob 07:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 for now whilst it is translated since that is the correct course of action in the first place. -Splash^talk 22:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kerim Tekin

I don't know Turkish - but this doesn't look like a proper entry a_conz 22:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Completing VfD nom never added to a daily page. No vote. JYolkowski // talk 20:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Turkish language version of Wikipedia. --Isotope23 00:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Pause — I went ahead and added a notenglish template. I vote to hold off on the VfD for two weeks to see if it gets translated. — RJH 15:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. There is a duplicate article for this. Woohookitty 09:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khalid Bin Mahfouz

Seems like another autobiography, nothing spectacular. -- Eagle^amn 09:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• This nom was never added to a main VfD page. Fixing now. No vote for now. JYolkowski // talk 20:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Non-notable --Isotope23 00:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Certainly notable (251st richest person in the world in 1999 according to Forbes[20], accused of al-Qaida connections...). Please do a minimal amount of research before judging something "vanity" or "non-notable". This page is however a copyvio from [21], and we already have another article on him. Delete and redirect to already existing article at Khalid bin Mahfouz. Uppland 06:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Who called it Vanity? I'm aware he is the on the list Forbes billionaires, but at least to me, being 251st is not notable in and of itself. That sets the bar for notability much too low in my opinion. --Isotope23 12:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The nominator implied that the article is what is usually termed "vanity" around here, you just called him non-notable. If you really think he is non-notable, I think you should nominate the real article, Khalid bin Mahfouz, for deletion. Uppland 13:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 09:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kheeber-al-Tar

Zany (cut n paste?) babble from hardcore vandal User:200.11.242.33, all of whose vandalisms are being patiently reverted by Wikipedians. --Wetman 22:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• This nom was malformed and never added to a main VfD page. Weak delete, some of the article might conceivably be saying something sensible but most of it is just babbling. JYolkowski // talk 21:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A shared mythology between the Hindus, Navajo, and ancient Scots? Whatever, dude. Nonsense/hoax, no Google hits besides WP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:44, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Not much debate here, but the concerns of the nominator presumably stand, there is no reasoning at all given for the (weak) keep and nothing to suggest that the oft-used two-thirds guideline is not useful here. -Splash^talk 19:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Khier

I nominate this article for deletion. All we know is that it is a big family in Algeria. No one has explained the notability or significance of the family. This could be a vanity article. The article has had a {{cleanup-importance}} notice posted for over two weeks and no one has expanded the article. — DanMS 19:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• This nom was malformed and never added to a daily VfD page. Fixing both problems now. Weak keep. JYolkowski // talk 20:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't state why the family is notable. Thue | talk 19:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 22:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Payne (umpire)

An umpire that has officiated only one match, in 1885? Certainly not notable if nothing special is added to the article. -- Elisson • Talk 21:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I support retaining the article. By himself, perhaps he was not especially notable. However he is one of a select number of people to have umpired a Test cricket match between two cricketing nations. As such he - along with many others who umpired only one or two matches - deserves his place in a list of umpires in order to provide a complete record. MulgaBill 21:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Then if there's a list of umpires, his name could be on it. The number of umpires over the years is not that select, and this guy is not deserving of his own article. Delete Proto t c 09:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • If any of the content is kept, we cannot delete the article a per the GFDL. So you are saying that this material is not suitable for Wikipedia in any form?! Guettarda 21:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into the big list of umpires. Dunc|☺ 13:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He meets my threshold of notability. There aren't that many Test match umpires, and it seems reasonable to give them a page each in order to make the collection complete. Stephen Turner 21:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • And your threshold of notability is? There aren't very many international floorball referees either, but that won't make it reasonable to give all of them an article. -- Elisson • Talk 22:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • But are floorball referees well known figures in themselves? International cricket umpires are, to the extent of being better recognised than many international players - an even fairly dedicated cricket fan will recognise their names to an extent unusual in most other sports. Loganberry (Talk) 00:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Floorball? Is this whole nom a joke? Cricket is the #2 sport in the world...second only to football (soccer). Find an appropriate comparison please. Guettarda 02:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly merge eventually, if nothing else can be added to the article. - You seem to be asking the question as to whether anything more can be added. "I don't know if enough can be added" is not grounds for deletion, AFAIK. This seems to be "delete on the grounds that this is a stub". Are you sure that he had not other contriutions to the sporting, cultural, civic or commercial life of Australia? One test match is not the same as one match. It's like saying that someone who ref'd one World Cup match is not notable because he only ref'd one match. Guettarda 21:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • No, my reason for this AfD is that I believe that we should not have articles on every umpire/judge/referee that has officiated an international match, be it in cricket, football (soccer) or ice hockey. If John Payne did not make himself noted in any other way than being an umpire in one game, then I believe he is not notable enough to have his own article. And I don't know what a world cup has to do with a regular international match. -- Elisson • Talk 22:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Because test cricket is not a "regular international match". Regular international matches are first class cricket, or maybe One Day Internationals. Test cricket is the highest form of the sport. It is far more comparable to a World Cup match than a simple international match. Guettarda 23:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable? Yes. Expandable? Certainly. I see no reason why this should be deleted. [[smoddy]] 21:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • One word: notability. Is he notable? For what? Is it really notable to have officiated one test match? -- Elisson • Talk 22:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
    • One word: verifiability. If a subject is independantly verifiable (as in, not written by the author himself or complete guesswork), then it is notable, in my opinion. I can't see why we should delete anything that can be shown to be true. It's not as if the disks are full. As to whether he fills any completely arbitrary notability criterion, yes, I think he is notable. I hope, in time, to have articles on all the umpires and players we possibly can. I see no reason to delete this. [[smoddy]] 22:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Umpiring any first-class cricket match makes someone notable enough for a WP article (for which the threshold is admittedly small). Umpiring in a Test is particularly notable, jguk 22:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep without a doubt. To illustrate the point: WP:MUSIC suggests that a top-100 record in any significant market is notable enough. Cricket is a major sport in much of the English-speaking world, and a Test match umpire (even one from the 19th century) is therefore more relevant to the English Wikipedia than a singer who reached number 97 in Italy in 1974 with a song no-one outside that country has ever heard of. Loganberry (Talk) 00:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A Test cricket umpire is plenty notable. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Test cricket players/umpires are notable. As I've said before elsewhere, we're less likely to get more information on people dating back to long forgotten eras. User:Nichalp/sg 04:38, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There's not many people who have officiated at the highest level. Easy keep, see Loganberry's argument. --Peripatetic 09:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• General comment I see I am going to "lose" this AfD, but I would like to make a few comments none the less:
  1) There have been statements that there aren't that many test umpires and that all of them thus should be included. Is that really true? Just the Australian Test Cricket Umpires lists 85 umpires, and I doubt that the (comming?) lists for England, India, and so on would have less than that, right? 85 umpires just from Australia, and every single one of them is notable enough to be on Wikipedia? As a comparison, Sweden has had a total of eight football referees that has referred over 20 international matches (as opposed to Australia's 11 umpires that have officiated 20 or more test matches), and I don't even believe that more than two or three, maybe four of them deserve their own articles. Definitely not all of them. Do you? If no, what is the difference?
  2) Guettarda wants to compare a test cricket match to a World Cup match (I guess he means football). Very far from the truth... The List of test umpires has a lot of umpires with more than 25 test matches. I'd like to see someone find a few football refs that has that many World Cup matches. The probably most know referee today, Pierluigi Collina, has something around 40 international matches in total, whereof 11 are World Cup or EURO internationals. Is the test cricket match <-> World Cup match still a fair comparison?
  3) Loganberry compares to a "notability" test of an artist. Well, I don't agree with that WikiProject's test. I am fairly certain that an artist from Italy that held the 97th position in 1974 would be deleted at once. At least I'd vote delete. Thus the comparison does not make any sense to me.
  It is also interresting to note that the only voter that is not part of the WikiProject Cricket voted merge. Too bad there aren't any other votes from outsiders that are not being as biased as the voters so far. -- Elisson • Talk 16:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • WP:AGF! --Ngb ^?!? 16:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I am assuming good faith. I won't protest the decision of this AfD, I would just have liked to see a less biased group of voters, and I do believe I have the right to point out fallacies in some of the arguments used to support a keep. -- Elisson • Talk 17:03, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Accusing other voters of bias is certainly not within my definition of assuming good faith. --Ngb ^?!? 17:10, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
        • Being member of the WikiProject on cricket of course makes you more interrested in keeping cricket-related articles than the regular Wikipedia user? In the same way as I would be more interrested in keeping football-related articles, a Frenchman in keeping France-related articles or a biologist in keeping biology-related articles. I am only noting that this vote could have had a completely different outcome if a different group of people would have voted. Also remember that "Yelling 'Assume Good Faith' at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions". There has been very few arguments for keeping the article, some of them being completely wrong (se the test match <-> World Cup match comparison for example), others being simply "Test match umpires are notable", without explaining why they all are notable. -- Elisson • Talk 17:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
          • The fact that you choose to speculate about the motives of other voters says more about you than it does about them. Secondly, the corrolary of your expectation that we should 'explain our actions' is that yelling 'not notable!' isn't of itself a sufficient criterion for deletion: Wikipedia is not paper and you've yet to provide a convincing argument (to my mind) for why this article should be deleted. Finally, I think the comparison between Test matches and World Cup Football matches is a fair one -- Test matches happen more often than the World Cup, but they are at a comparable level within the two sports: the highest pinnacle of international competition. --Ngb ^?!? 17:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Yep, all those areas of Wikipedia should have people arguing to keep stuff. Why should we delete something that is factually true and can be demonstrated to be true? What is gained by deleting? What is gained by not deleting? If anything is verifiable reasonably, it can be kept. [[smoddy]] 17:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
            • I don't feel like arguing with the whole WikiProject Cricket, but I'll answer these last comments. One good reason? Out of everything, let's for example have a look at the (sometimes subjective) Google test of the article. "John Payne" cricket umpire gave 118 hits, of which the majority does not deal with "our" John Payne. Any sportsman worthy of inclusion should have at least a couple of hundred hits, IMHO, even if this particular umpire lived a long time ago. My opinion is also that if test matches were so uncommon that the top umpires of the world would have only 10 or 20 games, one game would be notable. However, as there are many umpires with over 10 officiated games, officiating one game would not be enough. Comparing World Cup with test matches is really out of control. Come on, I've found no football referee with even close to 20 World Cup games, and as said earlier, umpires with over 20 test matches are pretty common. I don't even know if I consider football referees with 1 World Cup game as notable enough to be included. I also feel this discussion is leading nowhere. You seem to be inclusionists, I am not. Nothing to do about it. -- Elisson • Talk 18:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
              • You seem to be inclusionists, I am not. I think you've put your finger on it. as it happens, we are actually debating within the WikiProject right now whether and how we should set out inclusion criteria along the lines of WP:MUSIC, and it's fair to say that the balance of opinion so far has been heavily inclusionist. And for what it's worth, so am I. Loganberry (Talk) 23:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

* Comment. With all respect, the Google test is not a lodestone. I think the argument over disambiguating Bill O'Reilly was a good demonstration of that, although I agree John Payne isn't in the same league as Tiger O'Reilly. But the Google test is strongly biased and quite inadequate.

• Keep per Loganberry. --Ngb ^?!? 16:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there is too much good information in the article for a list entry. Why do people try and get good information deleted, they should use their energies at Active Wiki Fixup Projects instead?--Commander Keane 16:21, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Dunc. If there is an article for the test series in which he officiated then merge there as well, as the article focuses more on the test than it does the umpire himself. Oldelpaso 12:46, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or combine with other historical umpires --redstucco 09:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 22:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The SaneSense Project

"Status:Work in progress". WP:ISNOT a crystal ball. DS 21:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity page for a (not-yet-completed) university project. Bunchofgrapes 22:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Bunchofgrapes and DS.---CH (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 the rewrite. -Splash^talk 22:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, of course, it's a no consensus, but considering the rewrite this would really need to have a fresh AfD if someone wanted it deleted, so we're keeping the rewrite for the time being. -Splash^talk 22:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Delete Advertisement PhilipO 21:25, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, if de-spammed. 52,600 google hits - pretty weighty for a law firm, and this one apparently does have many big-name tech clients. -- BD2412 ^talk 22:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for cleanup-tone. This is the corporate law firm of Silicon Valley. Gazpacho 23:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising and/or copyvio. Gamaliel 23:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• This article is a copyvio of [22] so I will report it. It is however notable enough to warrant an original article itself. Delete as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 COPYVIO, as the final editor points out. Will take to CP. -Splash^talk 22:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pele (band)

Delete Band vanity? [23] [24] PhilipO 21:24, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Not written by a member of the band just a fan... 212.23.31.216
• Comment Fair enough. Still don't see evidence that they are notable enough for inclusion. Still Delete. --PhilipO 21:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Not from the North West of England then? boggits 21:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • User's 5th comment from account created today [25]. --PhilipO 21:39, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Remember that you are writing for a worldwide readership. Your article must be verifiable by people other than just those who are involved with the subject matter first-hand. Editors generally require that articles on bands satisfy our Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines, too. Uncle G 22:52:20, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
• Delete nn. Dottore So 22:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment According to this site: [26] the band's singles made the TOP 75 or something; i dont know if that's enough to establish notability.--Carabinieri 22:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • That's the band's own web site. Can the chart position of the single be verified from a source other than the sole say-so of the band itself? Uncle G 22:52:20, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
• Having a number 1 single in South Africa would satisfy the WP:MUSIC criteria, as would the three albums if M&G Records counted as a major label. However, the only source for the statement that there was a number 1 single is the web site of the band itself, and M&G Records does not appear, from this article alone, to have been major. If an independent source is cited to verify the single's chart position, or if it is demonstrated that M&G Records is a major label, Keep. If, on the other hand, no sources are provided, that are independent of the band itself, for verifying that the criteria are satisfied, as is currently the case, Delete. Uncle G 22:52:20, 2005-09-06 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't find them on allmusic.com. Gamaliel 23:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless it can be verified from the Guiness Book of British Hit Singles or similar that they have indeed had a top 100 hit.--Grcampbell 23:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a scan on their home page from the book (see faq); are you suggesting it's a hoax? assume good faith... —brighterorange ^(talk) 23:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Assuming good faith applies to Wikipedia editors, not to sources. Indeed, to sources such as this one, where the subject is providing the information about itself, exactly the opposite applies. Autobiographies, be they people writing about themselves or bands writing about themselves, are not to be accepted unquestioningly. Please read our verifiability policy. We most definitely are not in the business of taking people's own unsupported words for things. Good journalism involves having multiple independent reliable sources, and good encyclopaedism does too. Grcampbell is quite right. In light of how easy it is to do photo manipulation, the Guinness book itself should be consulted directly, or a source similarly independent of the band found. Uncle G 00:44:29, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
      • I have read the policy, of course. In this case, the page web cites a reliable source—which could be trivially incorporated into the article—and even provides a scan from the book. It's a verifiable reference. All I'm saying is, we should assume that a verifiable reference is not a hoax until we have good reason to believe otherwise. I believe this is implied by assume good faith. Are you suggesting that we adopt, or already have, a delete-until-proven-true policy? — brighterorange (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• comment Note, it may be a copyvio from the band home page linked [27], if those weren't both written by the same person. The claims on the table seem to pass WP:MUSIC, but it's not clear if they are true or not. Also, there is another band called Pele from the US that is, at least in my musical circles, what people mean when they say Pele (see AMG). A mess, truly. —brighterorange ^(talk) 23:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All their claims to notability are lies. Proto t c 09:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)