Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 9 November 11 >

Purge server cache

November 10[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1449 URB[edit]

Non-notable university radio station. I'd merge with University of Bath, but I want to check first re the recent re-creation of previously-deleted Bath impact, the university newspaper, that I'm doing the right thing. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response From Members Of Bath University1449 URB
PLEASE DON'T DELETE
We think that it is valid to have a small link to wiki pages for University of Bath Media pages impact and urb, it is as least as valid as a page for the universities football team.
1449 URB has a long and historic career as one of the first and longest running student radio stations in this country.
It has produced many mainstream famous dj's including annie nightingale and dr fox so please do not delete it, if you don't care about impact or urb then just don't click the link, it is the start of the articel, and we will contiue to develop it to include more of the history of urb and student radio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmadhatter (talk • contribs)
  • Weak Delete - It claims to have produced notable DJs but I can't verify this. Does this make it notable anyway? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say not (of course) on the grounds that it is perfectly normal for DJs (and others) to start out in completely anonymous student stations / papers / whatever before moving on. The one-time editor of my old University students union newspaper (which was as navel-gazing as any) later went on to the Sport and then the Sun. That doesn't make the Wessex News any less of a rag. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 18:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a little bit with University of Bath I suppose. But in general delete this article. Individual buildings/programs/clubs/etc. of colleges generally aren't notable, radio stations have to be widely listened to. And producing a few non-notable DJs isn't notable. Sorry guys. --W.marsh 16:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, self-promoting. I researched its claim of being one of the oldest college radio stations and found it falls several decades short. I'd vote in favor if this were somehow exceptional in its field, perhaps a co-founder of National Public Radio or the first venue of acts that later changed popular music. It claims to have launched two careers that are themselves not notable enough for encyclopedia entries. To the students: I know any college radio station is hard work and I wish you well but it doesn't help to say that you throw good parties. Durova 16:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um... just so you know, this radio station is in England. Which may have something to do with why it wasn't involved in founding an American network. ^_^ — Haeleth Talk
      • Point conceded. What important journalism originated from this radio station? You'd have a real case for inclusion if you could say something like, "Brent Bigley's 1982 stories first aired on our station, which led to new British automobile emission standards and contributed to the 16% nationwide gains for the Labour party in the following election." Durova 18:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds like a cool station, but still non-notable. If merged, cleanup the POV. Jasmol 17:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable student radio station. — Haeleth Talk 18:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn per above. Dottore So 00:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to University of Bath. It's notable enough within that context. Bryan 01:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess wikipedia is fairly pointless as far as encyclopdiea's go then, not much point having an encyclopedia of everything if new people can't add their own pages. the page was one link from the university of bath wikipage, hardly damaging to anyone, and lets face it you'll only click on it if you're interested. But I guess there are a lot of people on here who like removing small articles they aren't interested in, i mean that would be ok if wikipeida was pushed for space on it's servers, but i hardly think it is.

  • Merge Merits mention, but not an article to it's self Astaroth5 20:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED as per authors request. JeremyA (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aarskog sryndrome[edit]

I wrote this article without realizing there already was one. I merged the information into the established article.--Jfurr1981 03:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 deleted by User:Charles Matthews as patent nonsense. Robert T | @ | C 02:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah's Inequality[edit]

There is no such inequality, and the article appears to be some sort of vanity by the article's creator. Delete unless someone can cite this inequality somewhere. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing on mathworld. There is one more article on Abdullah's Inequality that there are inequalities named Abdullah's Inequality — this is Abdullah's Inequality. I can think of a way to fix that, though. Delete --DavidConrad 07:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably a hoax or someone's private invention. A1kmm 09:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very close to patent nonsense. JPD (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You can leave out that 'very close'. This makes as much sense as a mathematical inequality as a<2<b. - Andre Engels 14:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 ambiguous. I count 3 clear "deletes", one "delete or merge", one straight "merge", one "keep or merge" and only one "keep as is" (the unsigned edit discounted). While the general concensus seems to be leaning toward a decision that the article should not remain independent, I am going to call this as a "no consensus" decision. My own opinion is that he probably does not meet the recommended criteria WP:BIO. I can't find anything in WP:CORP that would sway the decision, either.

What notability he has appears to be entirely derivative of his founding of the company. As an ordinary editor, I am going to merge and redirect this article to Squaw Valley Ski Resort, the company he founded. That article has plenty of room for expansion. I recommend that Cushing not be broken out into a separate article until the ski resort article gets very large. Rossami (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Cushing[edit]

Seems like one of several million businesmen on the planet. Vanity? Wouldn't be surprised. -R. fiend 05:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • NN, D. ComCat 05:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable, e.g. [1]
  • Keep. Notable, founded Squaw Valley. Herostratus
  • Delete. This can be briefly mentioned in Squaw Valley if necessary. Gamaliel 19:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Squaw Valley. NN. Google gets 255 hits on "Alexander Cushing", but the hits are not all about him, so approx. 200 'real' hits. - Dalbury (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to Squaw Valley encephalon 20:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if this can be expanded, otherwise merge and redirect to Squaw Valley. Hall Monitor 00:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 deleted by User:Charles Matthews as patent nonsense. Robert T | @ | C 02:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almariah's Inequality[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah's Inequality; the same thing is going on here. Still not speedyable, but if it's deleted, make sure to hit the redirect that was just a dupe of this article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 08:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete probably hoax. A1kmm 09:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What's n anyway? - Andre Engels 14:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Duck[edit]

Apparent vanity, non-notable bio. Google shows some references to the subject (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Andrew+Duck%22) but mostly from his own campaign & supporters and Andrew "Duck" McDonald comes as high up the rankings as the subject, as do various other Andrew Ducks. This really does not look notable. The quotes are also POV. What does the panel think? Notable by virtue of running for office perhaps? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(the following unsigned comments added by author, anonymous user:65.150.252.45): He has been covered extensively in The Frederick News-Post [www.fredericknewspost.com]. He has a national interview lined up on Air America Radio, see link in Exteneral Links. His opponent, incumbent Roscoe Bartlett, has a Wiki page. Other such challengers have Wiki pages, see Paul Babbitt.

This is notable because he is one of only a half-dozen Iraq War Veterans running for public office in America. See: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/us_house/articles/2005/10/05/6_iraq_war_veterans_running_for_congress/

Another national article in Mother Jones magazine discussing Andrew Duck: http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2005/10/iraq_vets_running_for_congress.html

  • Comment: there hasn't even been a primary right? So this guy may be one of several Democrats running for the office. If that's the case, I'd say delete until he at least wins the primary, if not until he wins the election. -- Kjkolb 20:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In regards to the primary line of argument, I'd point everyone to Paul Hackett. Wikipedia has a very long profile on Mr. Hackett even though he's never been elected. He lost a Congressional race and is now running for the U.S. Senate in a Democratic primary. His claim to fame is that he's an Iraq War Veteran running for political office.

I also reference again Paul Babbitt. Mr. Babbitt lost his congressional election over a year ago, yet his profile still remains on Wikipedia.

Also, most comparable to Andrew Duck is David Ashe. Wiki has not flagged Mr. Ashe's entry for deletion even though his credentials are identical to Mr. Duck's. Both are Iraq War Veterans running for Congress.

I think that the Andrew Duck entry must be judged on its merits - and the merit here is that he's one of a very select group of Iraq War Veterans running for political office. That's good enough for Wiki to keep Paul Hackett's and David Ashe's profiles, it should be good enough for Andrew Duck.

  • Note: Roscoe Bartlett has an article per WP:BIO as a serving member of a national legislature. Most of the others named have now been AfDd (by me) for exactly the same reason. One caveat: if someone wants to discuss the issue of war veterans running for political office in time of war (which might well have some interesting parallels with Vietnam) then brief summaries of these guys might form part of that discussion. Substantial media coverage does not make for significance - every candidate in every election goes out to garner as much media coverage as possible, and in any case that's just a version of the ad populum fallacy. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I believe that this page should stay, simply because it's docutmenting a series of current events in the realm of American politics during a very volatile year. I think the page should be deleted if this guy doesn't get elected, in which case it would certainly be just a vanity page about a guy with an opinion. But it seems like the historical signifigance (the fact that he's an Iraq war veteran) of his political race, gives it the necessary stuff to remain a wiki. Especially if the wiki is updated with unslanted factual stuff about the race that he's in, and not just personal bio trivia. As the race develops, so should this page, and it's possible that others might have some very good stuff to post here, but it's too soon to tell. Let's keep an eye on it, but in the mean time I would not delete it.

-frequent wiki reader

  • Comment: I still say delete. The man has not, as yet, established a single notable achievement (he's not even on the ticket yet, as per above comments). The existence of other people not yet flagged for AfD is not an argument for keeping this one (that's the "two wrongs" logical fallacy). - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 09:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Just zis Guy, as per KJKolb. Marcus22 10:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "Iraq war veterans running for office" angle might be worthy of an inclusive article in which Mr. Duck is mentioned. I don't think it's worthy of including an article on every possible candidate with military experience in the Gulf region. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 12:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major publications mention him. People might come to wikipedia for more information. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hipocrite. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not won the primary yet? In that case I retract my keep vote, and abstain. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Paul Hackett achieved front page attention on major newspapers. Apparently this candidate has yet to win his own party's nomination. Durova 20:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a voter's guide. He hasn't even won the primary yet. -- Kjkolb 20:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Just zis Guy and Extreme Unction. Merely getting his name in an article or two isn't quite enough for me; I'd want to see a couple of articles about him before I'd call him notable. --William Pietri 21:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hipocrite's inadvertent point, viz WP is not a repository of indiscriminate information for webcrawlers. Dottore So 00:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Who are you to decide the significance of other people's interests? "WP is not a repository of indiscriminate information..." I think there might be a bit of confusion in regards to the difference between assessment and assumption here. This entry was obviously not created by Andrew Duck. It's more likely the effort of an individual documenting their own local history as it's happening. Assuming the intention of this entry's creator is not what this forum is for. It's for assessing the merit of the entry itself. And Indiscriminate? There are tens of thousands of entries that are utterly useless, if not indiscriminate. Half of WP would have to be deleted if we followed that line of logic. For an interested party this page could be immensely significant. So let's lay off the elitist banter. This isn't about you and me. This is a notable entry. (I'm so glad that I stumbled onto this nonsense. Now I know what to look forward to if I ever want to create an entry. Jeez.)

-frequent wiki reader

    • I think the general point being made is that the number of interested parties, at this point in time, is likely to be negligible. Is that not assessing the merit of the entry itself? On your second point, any article you find "utterly useless" you can nominate for deletion. If the consensus of opinion is that you are right, those "utterly useless" entries will also be deleted. Seems a fair process to me! Marcus22 10:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a blatant advertisement (which is fixable) about a minor unsuccessful candidate (which is not). - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable candidate. Xoloz 16:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG and EU.  RasputinAXP  T C 19:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xoloz. *drew 01:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Keep (6/1). Nom was withdrawn anyways. Shreshth91 14:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arvest Bank[edit]

Non-notable regional bank, reads like an advertisement Jasmol 19:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

  • Weak Keep. I killed the advertising language and made a stub out of it. Might be notable enough. -- Marcika 20:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given the criteria on company inclusion guidelines, the only test I could see it passing was "The company has more than one million customers." Couldn't find that info on the website. The marketing-language cleanup helps a lot, though. Jasmol 20:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many, perhaps most, of the articles about companies don't meet those guidelines. They are more a deletionist fantasy about how high the bar might be set in a deletionists ideal world than a reflection of actual practice and consensus. But as they are having little effect, I can't be bothered to try to change them. CalJW 00:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be bothered to do a lot of things. I'm trying to be nice, so I won't give you a list. Denni☯ 04:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A bank with several dozen branches. There are many articles about smaller companies. CalJW 00:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has been cleaned up into a proper article. Bryan 00:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the global scheme of things, an infinitesmally small player. Denni☯ 04:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A bank with branches in three states is large enough in my opinion. - Andre Engels 08:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable bank whose CEO is Jim Walton. Could be important given recent news of possible emergence of Bank of Wal-Mart. --Howrealisreal 15:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rescinded my nomnication for afd. Looks good after cleanup. Jasmol 22:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Mom[edit]

Despite what the article claims, the term just means a mom who's Asian. The article is a fleshing out of a common stereotype and hardly encylopedic. Its only linking article is Patreesha, which has been on AfD for a few days as it is. Dyfsunctional 17:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete racist crap. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. PJM 19:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this article were better documented I'd consider keeping it as a description of a mild ethnic slur. As it is, it comes too close to appearing to participate in the stereotype it describes. Fails to establish its case for noteworthiness. Durova 19:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful into model minority. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A close relative is the kyoiku mama ja:教育ママ, a Japanese mother who takes an excessive interest in her child's education. This stereotype within Japan is directed at other Japanese and is not an ethnic or racial stereotype. Fg2 04:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Askphilosophers.org[edit]

Advertising. Not notable (started last month). ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 16:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Astro budism[edit]

A nonsensical vanity "philosophy" that just "materialized" recently... Also, shouldn't that be "Buddhism"? CDC (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It doesn't even mention what the heck it IS. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research/neologism, no claim to notability, no references or indeed verifiability, no explanation as to what it actually is... Sliggy 00:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Sliggy. Cnwb 01:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 15:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nonsensical attack page.

Ayaz Kishtwari[edit]

Unverifiable. No related google results for this guys name, none of his alleged hit songs get any results either. If they were moderate hits in the UK as claimed he'd be notable, but since that claim can't be verified... seems like a hoax probably. W.marsh 01:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. No help via Google. PJM 02:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and PJM.
  • Delete. Apparent vandalism or vanity. Poorly written, too, so even if it were real, it needs some work and we don't have any sources. splintax (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Pretty much a vandal page: attack one's school chums. Geogre 13:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted as vandalism/attack page. - Lucky 6.9 20:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  08:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AyuScience - A 5000 years old science of life for longivity.[edit]

Obvious quackery, probable advertisement. However, the term AyuScience gets just 149 results on Google (despite claims that 500,000 doctors practice it). Seems like just an advert for a non-notable product or whatever. W.marsh 01:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ayurveda is a traditional form of Indian medicine. I found an NPOV article comparing it to Western medicine in Indian health care policy. [2] The subject is encyclopedic but this article falls so far short that there's nothing to salvage. Durova 04:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this thinly desguised ad. Ayurveda is encyclopedic (if it's not in Wikipedia, I'll create it now) but this isn't it. Ifnord 04:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, adcruft. ComCat 05:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems to be copied from a forum post, and at least should be renamed even if it were encyclopaedic. splintax (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ayurveda already exists and is a fine article, Thank you --Gurubrahma 17:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ad, vanity.-Dakota t e 17:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. No sources cited which is always important but is essential to verifiability in the case of unorthodox science, medicine. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Edwardian 00:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. jni 08:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Azeru[edit]

Character from a video game that doesn't have an article on WP to merge to. Non-notable. W.marsh 02:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Durova 04:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A character from a tank fighting game? Wow. Far too granular and insignificant. Geogre 13:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Panzer Dragoon is a series of games about dragon-riding soldiers in the future, and isn't a fighting game and doesn't involve tanks. Anyway, this is a character from the game Panzer Dragoon Saga, which is currently covered in the Panzer Dragoon article. As there's no content here that could possibly add to any article about the game, redirect this article to Panzer Dragoon. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as something is factual, it should stay on WP. As Jake says: "Wikipedia is going backward".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Remington and the Rattlesnakes (talk • contribs)
  • Delete cuz he said keep, and like, I said the opposite--Etyheryery 04:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per A_Man_In_Black. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 23:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BA-92[edit]

Counterstrike clan with 5 members and no claim to notability other than being a CS Clan. Forum has 7 posts from 4 members. W.marsh 02:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Completely unnoteworthy. —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • De'leet' clan vanity page, not really noteworthy, who will care in 2 years? --Sirimiri 05:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme prejudiced delete without mercy all MMORPG clans. — JIP | Talk 10:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all gaming clans. (don't forget the images). - Mgm|(talk) 12:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. --Syrthiss 13:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. --Edcolins 20:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some clans and teams are probably notable, not this one.-LtNOWIS 04:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it of course. *drew 00:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Babine barricade treaty 1906[edit]

"The history is yet to be recovered..." probably explains why this is unverifiable. Probable hoax or joke. W.marsh 17:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back up jackson[edit]

Fleshed-out article but still fails WP:Music... 4 releases that seem to be either self-released or on a very minor label (the only mentioned label, "Warm Attic Records", gets 9 google results). Non-notable. W.marsh 17:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nothing on major labels, last release apaprently self-published. Yet another band vanity to send the way of all such cruft. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 22:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xoloz 16:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as vanity. No "Bacon Brady" exists in the Marvel universe.

Bacon Brady[edit]

Claims to be a Marvel Comics title... so no nn-bio speedy. But as far as I can tell there is no title by that name, and no Bacon Brady character, and that's just a joke. Take that away and it's just a boring vanity article "During his free time Bacon Brady is often found playing basketball, listening to Final Fantasy music, and sleeping." W.marsh 20:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • He wishes he was a Marvel hero.  :) Bye, Bacon. - Lucky 6.9 20:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Badmouth[edit]

Website here.[3]. Pretty normal band vanity, has an EP or two but no evidence of a label, self-released. References a known producer but I don't see how that makes the band notable, I get the impression he just owns/works in the studio where they bought time. W.marsh 21:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe one day they'll pass WP:MUSIC but they don't do so now as far as I can see. I wish them the best. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 15:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If smoething is non-notable, it should still be on WP. Don't you want to progress forward?

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 00:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bagurk[edit]

Somewhat lengthy writeup for a non-notable neologism. 1,400 results on google [4] apparently none of which really verify term, nothing on Urban Dictionary. [5] W.marsh 23:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete May be a hoax. Google finds a lot of hits on message-board postings by bagurk "the noise a chicken makes". - Dalbury (talk) 01:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is Wikipedia not a dictionary, but a phrase that is 'not in regular use, except among some small communities or groups of friends or peers.' (quote from the page itself) does not even belong in Wiktionary. - Andre Engels 08:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Andre Engels, who speaks my mind on this issue. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 12:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 15:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki In retrospect, Wiktionary is indeed the better place for this article. I would point out that all words have their origin somewhere; and also that just because it isn't in Urban Dictionary doesn't mean it's not in use. In regard to Dalbury's comment - bagurk (or, at least one of them, though most of them are probably one and the same) is the Lawrence mentioned in the article (see [6]). I attend UQ and can vouch for its usage amoung people there. If usage of the expression continues to spread (I have witnessed this, hence my motivation for creating the article), it may very well end up in Wiktionary sooner or later anyway. Fraser Tweedale 10:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BCADA[edit]

Joke article pretty much. Claims to be some drinking club or something related to a frat... not particularly notable even if this could be verified. Claims in the article of recognition (by NAMBLA among others, what an honor) are almost certainly jokes. W.marsh 03:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Durova 04:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not-notable. A1kmm 10:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vandalism: run of the mill boredom of the brainless. Geogre 13:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy if possible. This is a kind of group that would be made speediable under my proposed Expansion of CSD A7. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 00:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beerdick[edit]

Neologism. A google search turned up a few instances, mostly nicks and handles. A single frat defines it with a rather different definition. Even if it meant this, and even if the usage were popular, I can't see it ever being more than a dicdef. Demi T/C 07:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (initial vote as nominator) Demi T/C 07:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: neologism, NN, dicdef; take your pick. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I call this fratcruft. (btw this term isn't even on Urban Dictionary)--W.marsh 07:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Vue (Band)[edit]

A one-sentence substub on a band, explaining the origin of the band's name. The linked BBC article indicates that they're an up-and-coming Manchester band -- but gives no indication that they're known outside that city. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC on all counts. --Carnildo 18:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No valid matches via allmusic.com or Google, as far as I can see. NN. PJM 18:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy if possible. This is a kind of group that would be made speediable under my proposed Expansion of CSD A7. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Spearhead 15:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 keep (I added a {{cleanup}} tag to it as well). Robert T | @ | C 02:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Nathanson[edit]

Article has no references whatsoever to support its claims is highly POV and of a contentious nature; I see no reason for it to be kept. Bumm13 05:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve. Dr. Bernard Nathanson is a prominent figure in the U.S. abortion policy debate. He co-founded the National Abortion Rights Action League, then had a change of heart and created several books and films for the other side. NARAL remains a leading pro-choice advocate while his anti-abortion film The Silent Scream got widespread attention in the 1980s. Like him or not, he is noteworthy. Durova 06:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see merging him anywhere and maintaining NPOV. He's been prominent on both sides of the issue. Durova 07:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into NARAL, which is what he's notable for. -- Kjkolb 07:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Merging with NARAL might be okay but he may be notable enough on his own. Swegner 07:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup, verify and expand. After helping to found NARAL, he moved to the anti-abortion side of the debate by writing books and producing the well-known Silent Scream video. "Bernard Nathanson" gets 45,400 Google hits see [7] while a merge with NARAL would be inappropriate given that he is better known these days as a staunch opponent of abortion. His quote about a "silent scream" in the New York Times made a Book of Quotations published in 1988 see [8]. Capitalistroadster 08:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that users might legitimately want to seek this, and that the article needs scope to improve. A1kmm 10:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. Deserves an article, but this one is not it. - Andre Engels 14:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with obvious cleanup. Figure is a notable example of America's quixotic abortion wars. Dottore So 23:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup. I think this is very relevant information, but the article in which it is presented requires an overhaul.
  • Keep He is a noteworthy guy and several pages link to this one. Although I'd agree with cleanup, better sourcing, and assuring balance.--T. Anthony 05:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B.G. Knock Out[edit]

Poorly edited, I also did a google search got some hits for lyrics to B.G. but nothing at all close to this article Delete KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 01:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, reads almost like patent nonsense. Ifnord 04:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not patent nonsense, but a biography of an actual rap music artist with an Allmusic entry. Apparently he only recorded one album, which hit #128 on Billboard magazine's main album chart but #15 on the R&B/Hip Hop album chart. So far, he appears to be borderline in terms of whether he satisfies any WP:MUSIC criteria, but I am open to further information. Unfortunately, this article is not of encyclopedic quality; it even misspells the artist's name, which should be "BG Knocc Out". Delete based on current content, but if someone turns this into a quality article before the AfD is out, I will change my vote. --Metropolitan90 07:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Extreme 3D Cleanup with Sprinkles. I'm open to the existence of an article on this subject based on Metropolitan90's searches, but this article isn't it without a metric ton of cleanup. --Syrthiss 13:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even if it were cleaned up, it would be under a new title and therefore a different article. Geogre 13:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 23:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bl. Anthony Fantosat[edit]

This is "complete bollocks," a term first seen by me in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poffenberger.WAvegetarian 23:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black and Cracker[edit]

Dictionary definition, and original research. —Cleared as filed. 12:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NN slang. PJM 13:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spurious neologism; no real evidence that this usage has any currency (so no transwiki). Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 13:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 00:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bloghi[edit]

non-notable website. under 1000 users. advertising cruft. this article was created and modified by only one user, and that user has only edited this article. probable vanity. 12.22.157.254 16:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nomination 12.22.157.254 16:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete alexa rank 32,157. Doesn't really seem to be an active enough community to warrant an encyclopedia article. No other claims to notability. --W.marsh 16:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 17:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam. But wait! It advertises blogspam prevention! Perhaps the admins could buy that and keep the blogspam off WP? Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bordeaux motion pictures[edit]

Non notable: films not on IMDB, no Google results for "Bordeaux Motion Pictures" Ze miguel 14:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles profanity[edit]

Delete. A hopelessly incomplete list of 'profanities' with no scholarly or encyclopaedic analysis. Listcruft, slang, dicdefs...be gone! Eddie.willers 00:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, like Finnish profanity. Alternatively, categorize by splitting into separate articles for each word. Kappa 00:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. but Finnish profanity discusses the usage and some history of each word, while this article is just a list of taboo words and euphemisms with no context. - Dalbury (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... but clean it up! Jamie 00:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please we have other profanities like this Yuckfoo 01:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not convinced "British Isles" is a very good delineation, but I'll have to lean towards keep in the hope that it can be cleaned up into something at least marginally similar to the Finnish profanity page mentioned above. Turnstep 02:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but possibly move to a better title per Turnstep. --Quasipalm 03:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not encyclopedic. Pintele Yid 06:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People keep writing articles about various individual profanity words, such a list provides a suitable merge target. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is bordering on nonsense. Assuming the article is kept, lets make sure we keep an eye on it and resubmit as an AfD should the list not be soon improved. Marcus22 10:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to something like "British profanity" or "Commonwealth profanity", and get rid of all the empty sections. — JIP | Talk 10:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to British profanity to stay in line with classification by language and not geographical area (Finnish profanity). Only make separate articles for the words that can be discussed beyond dicdeffism. - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "British" isn't a language, and this list apparently intends to discuss profanity in all the languages of the British Isles - so if you want it classified by language and not geographical area, you're voting to split the article, not to rename it. — Haeleth Talk 17:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I thought at first that the string of "keep"'s above must be sock puppets. We already have profanities well covered in Profanity and category:Profanity. Surely all the words listed so far are universal throughout the English-swearing world. I do not think there are many regional variations worth noting and this article fails to note them anyway. -- RHaworth 11:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with User:RHaworth - Dalbury (talk) 12:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Replication of material covered in several places. We have "List of" X profanity, "British" by another name profanity, etc. Please, kiddies looking for "shit" in the dictionary is one thing, but cross-indexing "shit" to twelve different locations is another. Geogre 13:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete silly schoolboy toilet humour page. This is just a bit of sniggering nonsense and has no encyclopaedic merit at all. It makes no attempt to discuss the origins or distinct usages of those words characteristic of British usage, and it is, in short, complete bollocks. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RHaworth --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more listcruft... besides, there is absolutely nothing of value here that could not be added to Profanity.--Isotope23 17:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously. Dottore So 17:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this is supposed to be a bloody encyclopedia, not a list of useless lists. — Haeleth Talk 17:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --hydnjo talk 20:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic, and duplicates existing articles like profanity. A list of words does not an encyclopedia article make. CDC (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, simple. Melchoir 23:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Cdc said, a list of words, even a list of words with definitions, does not an encyclopedia article make. The Literate Engineer 00:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because if it were "complete" and contained "encyclopedic analysis" then it would be worthy of inclusion. Wikipedia is a work in progress, articles shouldn't be deleted just because they're rough. Bryan 00:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Not only is this a list of words and their definitions (WP is not a dictionary), whose only possible expansion is the addition of etymology (WP is STILL not a dictionary), it's a DUPLICATE of other lists elsewhere. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In principle, a good topic for an article, especially the differences between British and North American usage. However, this article is profoundly incomplete and badly formed. Best to start from scratch. Denni☯ 02:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per others, and because it's useless, unencyclopaedic, listcruft, and refers to a linguistic question by a very wide geographical area composing two very distinct countries rather than by a language variety or linguistically cohesive region as would be more logical. Palmiro | Talk 20:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unverified --redstucco 09:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RHaworth and geogre. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Certainly clean up. Certainly don't delete. And the ideal thing for this article, in its cleanup, is that it become more than just a list. It should even be more than just a glossary. It should have not only definitions and etymology, but comments on the social context, including in which regions terms are used, at what times they have been considered more, and less, objectionable, whether they are more common in certain social groups, when they began to be carried in mainstream media (TV, radio, newspapers, &c.), when they were and weren't printed by mainstream publishing houses, equivalents in foreign languages, how they have spread to English in other parts of the world, how their definitions have changed in different places or even in the same places, &c. Profanity is an integral part of most languages; British profanity is a fascinating part of English. The topic deserves a good Wikipedia article. The article in its present state is a messy list. The list needs serious work; and the result of the serious work needs to stay on Wikipedia, not be thrown out. When your hands are messy, you wash them; you don't cut them off and consider maybe getting some new ones in the future. President Lethe 16:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unorganised article, unencyclopedic. *drew 22:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, non-notable person. Thue | talk 23:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Callum harries[edit]

Not notable Dangherous 21:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CFO Forum[edit]

Website advertising spam; not notable; makes no attempt to establish importance; should be deleted. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as spam. Durova 08:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can establish more notability, I don't think it's spam though. A meeting of influential businesspeople, that could have some notable consequences. Or not. 2 results on Google News [9] so I'm leaning towards not.

--W.marsh 08:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: WHOIS shows registered recently(Date registered: 04-05-2004), Google PageRank is "2". A1kmm 09:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: (I am the author of the stub.) This article is not spam. I wrote the stub and included the link because the article Embedded value had a missing reference to it and I wanted to give a hint to the correct web site. CFO Forum is referred to in publications on recent developments in the insurance industry from Price Waterhouse Coopers and Towers Perrin and UK actuaries with reference to European Embedded Value. Unfortunately none of these papers contain links to the "official" CFO Forum site. This why it does not appear to be important on Google. Dbroenni 15:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Major European insurance companies are probably notable. Their CFOs are possibly notable. A working group of theirs is not notable merely for existing. Get yourselves an article or two in The Economist and resubmit. --William Pietri 21:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing of note here. Dottore So 23:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Ingoolemo talk 05:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheapskating[edit]

Little used slang term. Supposedly from Motley Fool, but googling cheapskating "Motley Fool" returns nothing aside from this stub. Text implies it is synonymous with frugal living, but Google results show little currency for this use. Dforest 13:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Like tightwaddery, cheapskating is a pejorative term, but frugality is a virtue. The current text states it is "often incorrectly confused with cheapness or miserliness". So I don't think it appropriate to redirect there. We have cheapskate, which IMO should probably be redirected to miser. Dforest 08:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am relisting this AFD in hopes it might accrue further comment. Regards encephalon 03:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  08:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate skunk[edit]

Nonsensical neologism, just barely above CSD Ashibaka (tock) 00:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Practically patent nonsense. Turnstep 01:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quite a stinky neo, isn't it. PJM 02:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it could have been speedied, so Delete, sans doute. --DavidConrad 05:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - someone told me on the village pump that nonsense articles can be speedy deleted by administrators. If that's true, can't an administrator simply delete this one? Pintele Yid 06:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's not patent nonsense, but it is a neologism--I couldn't find any evidence the term is actually used this way, except for one reference. Demi T/C 07:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dic def. Can you share the reference you found. All I found was related to modelled chocolate. Yummy! - Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure: here it is. It sounds like the article was taken from the website or maybe it's the same guy. Didn't spend a whole lot of time pondering. Demi T/C 06:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom., dicdef. - Dalbury (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. Ze miguel 13:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism with no evidence of significant currency Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Terrible. 10:52, 10 November 2005 (EST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cobb's Curve[edit]

This appears to be original research, and entering the article name into Google only returns two hits.  Denelson83  04:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Concur with Denelson83. The two hits he mentions aren't about the article topic, either. Article says it's not in medical dictionaries yet, but it seems like the kind of thing that would be discussed on line somewhere. Okay, groups.google.com did come up with one hit for the relevant meaning. Anyway, seems like a neologism. FreplySpang (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:NOR and WP:V. No verifiable evidence of these claims let alone from a vaguely credible source. Capitalistroadster 05:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR/per nom --Rogerd 05:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 00:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 keep (I added a {{cleanup}} tag, though). Robert T | @ | C 02:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in Mumbai[edit]

POV rant. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. legitimate topic. Should move to Corruption in Mumbai --Vsion 05:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Legitimate topic, extremely POV, looks like original research. Sadly, this may be the work of an earnest person on a crusade for the greater good. I hope the press picks up the issue. Better suited for a private website. Durova 05:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rant at present but needs some editing to get more matter of fact and neutral. That will take some time as i collect my thoughts and get time to edit the page. Anyway even if it is deleted, just let me know so that i save it somewhere else. Thanks.
  • You should save a copy now. When it is deleted, it will be too late. --Vsion 06:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page may be relevant for tourists and foreign institutional investors. Unless these issues begin to be addressed, the increasing misgovernance will cause problems for future investors in the long run as crime and instability increase.User:Hiphop2 10 Nov 2005
    • Comment As a major contributor to the article, you should mention that connection when commenting here. - Dalbury (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is highly POV but it only needs someone with knowledge in that area to fix it. A1kmm 10:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree. The article requires encyclopedic 'touch'. --Bhadani 13:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I think that this article proves to me one of the few measures to compile and distribute information on corruption amongst other Indians in general and thus remains as a trivial process in the eradication of it. I feel that the article shows what is done and the problems with it so that future generations can improve in the process. The article provides vital information to many people who, though they have a high loyalty to the Tiranga, are illiterate in this particular subject. Thus, I strongly state that this article should be kept at any and all costs. If, however, you do decide to remove this article, please contact me so that I can save a copy of it somewhere else. -- Koyla 20:55, 10 November 2005
  • Moved article to correct capitalization -- no vote on delete/keep. --Quasipalm 15:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it could really do with a clean up and some wikification. --Apyule 09:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Presson II[edit]

Highly POV article about a member of a band up for AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War Machine (band)) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark age[edit]

Resolving a conflict over whether the dark age page should exist. I agree it's not the best-written article, but if we have a speculative End of civilization article we should also try to build an article dealing with a civilization at its nadir. The Dark Ages page is specific to the 4th to 10th century. Timvasquez 18:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Redirects to the disambiguation page. Bjelleklang - talk 18:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Appears to be fixed now. -Timvasquez 19:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect -- this page has always been a redirect to Dark Ages (disambiguation). "Dark Age" means a lot of things, thats why we have a disambiguation page. There is no such thing as "civilization at its nadir called dark age", pure nonesense and original research by Timvasquez. I challenge him to provide academic citations that prove such a concept exists, we allready have articles for the few "dark ages" that are commonly recognized, but there is no general term that corosponds to "civilization at its nadir". In any case the article is a simplistic summary of whats allready contained in other articles, it's a repeat, we allready have articles, its a fork in an attempt to create a new concept. "Dark Age" is an ambigious term that is handled on the disambigutation page. Stbalbach 20:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Timvasquez is "resolving a conflict" by using the VfD process. Obviously, "Dark Age" should not be deleted, it's a question of redirect. This is a disingenuous VfD. Stbalbach 20:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The above Stbalbach is the individual who deleted the article; he is party to the dispute. I am abstaining. -Timvasquez 21:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the original Redirect page as it existed prior to Timvasquez mucking about with it. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 20:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and moderate the apparent dispute. The article deserves some sort of flag. It's a legitimate historical concept that refers to the lack of primary source documents for periods following a civilization's collapse. The era following the fall of Rome is only the most famous example. Any attempt to link this with POV original research about hypothetical end-of-the-world scenarios looks highly inappropriate. Durova 20:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Several long private messages came to me following this vote. To clarify: I agree the article needs cleanup. Advocates for deletion seem to proceed from the assumption that the centuries in Europe following the collapse of Rome are historically unique. Other dark ages, most notably the era in Greece following the fall of Mycenae, meet their strict interpretation of Petrarch's use of the term. My challenge to demonstrate a difference met obfuscation. I am therefore changing my vote to strong keep with the conclusion that the drive to delete is POV.
  • Keep for now, but move, so the redirect can be replaced. I suggest a name like Dark age (history) or Dark age (civilization).
  • Comment, delete, and redirect. What dispute? The article in question has been a redirect for the past year or so, until Timvasquez created an article, which should be deleted as there already exists an article. Delete this, and restore the redirect to the disambiguation page!. Bjelleklang - talk 23:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a reasonable subject to have an article on and if it's under a different title then a redirect will be valuable. Bryan 00:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Until something better comes along, this will do. There is absolutely no doubt of the validity of the term; what is necessary here is scholarly expansion. Denni☯ 04:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See Dark Ages and Dark Ages (disambiguation). There are only a few specific periods were the term is applied by scholars, and they allready have articles. For Wikipedians to apply it universally, to other periods, is original research and is not supportable. Stbalbach 05:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—and muchly expand, so that it's more useful. President Lethe 21:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Elman Induction[edit]

Script and how to for hypnosis sessions. Wikipedia is not an how to guide. -- RHaworth 12:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the script is probably a copyvio. If it can be confirmed this technique is as powerful as claimed, Dave Elman could be expanded a little. - Mgm|(talk) 10:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Ashe[edit]

Minor politician, not yet elected, fails WP:BIO - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, major party candidate for national office. Kappa 12:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are 435 congressional districts within the United States. These seats come up for re-election every two years. Having a seperate article for every candidate who runs in each of these 435 districts every two years will provide us with a raft of articles of people who are notable solely for their failure to win a Congressional election. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 13:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that people interested in US politics might find this article useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sjakkalle. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC) - note - individual mentioned in major national publications. People may come to wikipedia for more info after reading about him. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Extreme Unction. - Andre Engels 14:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sjakkalle. Wikipedia is not paper, and major party candidates for national offices strike me as inherently notable even if they are not elected. Smerdis of Tlön 15:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have hundreds of articles on Canadian candidates, and I see no reason why American ones should be treated differently. - SimonP 15:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sure looks like promotion to me. Delete. If he wins and a useful article can be written about him, I have no prejudice against recreation. Friday (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because losing in one of over four hundred races every two years for the last few hundred is not notable. And yes, we should probably chainsaw articles on Canadian politicians who have never won, too. Lord Bob 17:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If people think candidates for major office are inherently notable, why is that not listed as a criterion for inclusion per WP:BIO? It's pretty explicit: you have to be elected to a major office. Some of these guys are not even on the ticket yet! - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 18:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Extreme Unction. -- Kjkolb 20:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just zis Guy, you know?'s point is well-taken. Also, someone should vet the above-referenced list of canadian candidate cruft (per Lord Bob) and put the losers into a single AfD so we can get rid of them as well. Dottore So 00:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Unction and Bob. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It boggles my mind that people would want to delete an article on a current major-party congressional candidate. People are going to want to know about the candidates running for office. According to JzGyk's reasoning, H. Ross Perot wouldn't qualify for an article as a politician. -- Mwalcoff 04:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean, the founder of one of the few significant third parties in American politics in the last 50 years? Sounds like a claim of notability to me, even if we categorically disqualified failing in an election as a claim to notability. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, the Perot comparison is informative. Perot founded EDS (WP:CORP), put up the capital for NeXT, and was probably the most-publicised third-party candidate in a US election in recent times (although Ralph Nader is also a contender for that). Even if Perot had never run for office, he would still be notable. And if he were not notable independently, his running twice for the office of President of the US against both major parties might arguably qualify him. Ashe is a hopeful for a much less important office, and completely lacks the other claims to notability. I urge the keep voters to read WP:BIO and cite which criteria Ashe meets. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Extreme Unction. Xoloz 16:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to point out that congressional candidates now meet WP:BIO. Two weeks ago, I suggested on the talk page that congressional and legislative candidates should be considered automatically notable. The only objection was that it should be limited to credible candidates. I went ahead and made the change before reading AfD Thursday. Anyway, it seems to that BIO lists people who should gain automatic recognition but does not claim that anyone not on the list should be deleted. -- Mwalcoff 22:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. *drew 01:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Pollicutt[edit]

NN. I found no meaningful matches via Google. Delete. PJM 13:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • NN? There's a claim to notability in there, and it's a good one (author of a book, he was featured heavily in news coverage, etc.). However, Google and amazon.com both swear he doesn't exist, which seems odd for someone with his profile. So delete as a hoax. PJM, please try to expend a bit more effort into your nominations. By saying "nn" when nominating someone who'd be clearly notable by anyone's standards (if he were verifiable) you just look foolish, and it's not good to have non-fools looking foolish. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your constructive advice and insight on using the NN term. I used NN only because of the result of my search, which basically made me disregard the claims of notability made in the article. PJM 14:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If what the article says is true, he should be easily findable through Google, but I cannot find him through his name, nor those of his books, nor as a boyfriend of Kimberley Walsh. Apparently the article is simply incorrect. - Andre Engels 14:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unbelievable and even if it was, non-notable. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Mark and Andre's reasoning.--PTSE 00:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax or at best unverifiable, per fuddlemark and Andre Engels. --Metropolitan90 05:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. *drew 01:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depo[edit]

Non-notable neologism needs nixing. The only clear reference I can find is to urbandictionary, and I hope that's not sufficient grounds for keeping it! —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Durova 08:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the article even admits it is an a "secret code word" used by a small group of people.

It's a fairly large group — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.115 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete per nominator. *drew 01:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Doc glasgow. Robert T | @ | C 02:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Graf[edit]

nn-bio BeteNoir 10:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • SpeedyDelete grafitti/vandalism BeteNoir 10:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -R. fiend 23:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Hinch[edit]

Delete: Abusive Nonsense. Hu 18:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Shreshth91 14:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Saliba[edit]

Seems like a contact-ad Huldra 10:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditch pudding[edit]

This appears to be a neologism. Most google results are copies of a list of alternate plant names, if you exclude pennyroyal from the search you get 7 results [10] none of which are relevant. Indium 10:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dow Chemical Company/Locations[edit]

Though the company is notable, but the a list of unexplained locations that show no notability doesn't really belong here. Also, this list exists on the company page. Fallsend 00:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per Nomination. Fallsend 00:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anyone searching for such information would check our article where it is already listed. I doubt that many people would search for an article under such a name in any case. Capitalistroadster 00:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but link from main page. Perhaps the creator was trying to move it off of the main DOW page. This seems like a good idea, as the list now accounts for half of the article's (vertical) length. Long lists in general should have their own page, and it would significantly shorten and cleanup the DOW page. Turnstep 21:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Would support delete if a link to an external page with the same info was linked to. Turnstep 01:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • UE, D. ComCat 05:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems to be a typo or something in above attempt to vote? Dlyons493 Talk 02:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This could go on the company page. Pintele Yid 06:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It already is there. They used the subpage for transclusion which muddles the editability of the page. Merge back into the article and decide if it's worth to keep there. Doesn't the official site have a list of locations for easy reference. It would safe a lot of space in teh article if we referred to that. - Mgm|(talk) 11:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - duplicate info. Ze miguel 13:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary, and in any case, per Mgm, maintenance of the list can safely be left to Dow's webmasters, who have a page which already does that. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename something like List of Locations of Dow Chemical Company. Remove from article and link to list. Fg2 04:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Mgm. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Duplicate info. *drew 22:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 userfied to User:Allen Dudnikoff/genealogy, give the guy a break... --Titoxd(?!?) 06:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dudnikoff[edit]

Appears to be geneology, doesn't appear to be noteable, and has a faint whiff of vanity about it. Page was created by Allen Dudnikoff, who has no other contributions to his name. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 21:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The AfD notification has already been removed once by someone. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 21:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Less than 100 google results for Dudnikoff, about half of the English ones are about Allen, the creator of the article. Indium 22:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm a bit torn. It doesn't look like much but it could just possibly be encyclopedic material. Can we give it a bit more time, ask the author to cite sources and see if anything turns up? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Okay, here is the story... I've been going around and asking my realitives about my family history.. this is the information I've gotten along with some info about a Former Soviet Village called Dudnika, I put this artical together... there is a beter history somewhere I don't know where based on the fact that there are really just 10 Dudnikoffs in the world living I'll possibly never know it. I've tried research and asking my realitives in Moscow, they tell me the same stories... I geuss it possibly wrong.. but it could have fact there also.
    • Okay, glad you've found your way here. If you want the article to be kept you've got to cite some published books or other verifiable sources for the information. They don't have to be in English. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem you run into there is that you've done original geneological research. And Wikipedia has a no original research policy. Just sayin'. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 22:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless any of this can be sourced it qualifies as OR. --JJay 22:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to User:Allen Dudnikoff howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research not verified by any references. u p p l a n d 07:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Epstein[edit]

Looks like a vanity biography. The two ostensibly important external links are in fact worthless. Delete User:Ethanepstein's autobiography.

  • Delete under WP:VAIN and WP:BIO. Most of Epstein's publications appeared in his college newspaper; he also had a couple of letters to the editor published in The Nation and a Korean newspaper. This is not enough to qualify a person for a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 07:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity and much of this is unverifiable in any case. Gamaliel 07:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I just read what qualifies as a 'vanity entry.' Sorry guys; put it outs of its misery. -Ethan
  • Userfy to User:Ethanepstein. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity bio. *drew 00:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Etheism[edit]

I looked around but found little evidence of any widespread currency for this term other than the author's own website and promotion thereof. I'd say it's a neologism, a failed WP:WEB, reeks of original research, and probably some other things too. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say you're right. Delete as per nom. Lord Bob 17:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 17:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 00:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-promotion, nn. *drew 01:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EvolvingArt[edit]

Someone trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for an art project (if I understand the article correctly) -- Ferkelparade π 10:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep after nomination withdrawn. Xoloz 17:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

False Doppler[edit]

A term invented by some wikipedia contributor--as it says in the article. This page is a borderline vanity page, and it is definitely a neologism. As such, it deserves to be deleted. Wikipedia is a reference page. There should only be articles that refer to objects, people and concepts that exist outside of wikipedia. 86.138.6.46 22:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)I had no idea that this article actually had a good version once. I just saw the current revision and totally flipped at how awful it was. I change my vote to revert.[reply]

Note: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False Doppler for first round of AFD.
  • Delete. WP:NOR. There's a place for this kind of essay and that's Eric Baird's own web site, NOT Wikipedia. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Man, I got taken for a sucker. Strong keep per ExtremeUnction. I think I have a bridge to go buy... --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sweet hopping Jeebus. This is ugly.
For anyone who wants to vote on this entry, here are some salient facts:
Fact 1: The article was created on July 9th, 2005. From the creation of the article up until October 3rd, the article appeared to be a normal scientific wikipedia article. Interested readers are cordially invited to examine the early drafts of the article.
Fact 2: The article was nominated for deletion on September 24th, and was ruled as a "Keep" on October 2nd. On October 3rd, the article was edited by an unsigned user, and, for the first time, the article makes the claim that the term was invented by the article's original author. Prior to the AfD vote (and subsequent "keep" ruling), the article mentioned that the effect was described by Oliver Lodge, a 19th century scientist. Since that time, the article has been systematically altered by a series of anonymous users to make the article appear as unprofessional (and as AfD-worthy) as possible.
Fact 3: The talk page of the article is instructive. It is filled with shrill accusations and chest-beating, levelled at the original author. The original author of the article cites his sources and generally makes a credible argument for his position. The person levelling the accusation...does not.
Fact 4: Googling on the phrase "False Doppler" turns up 314 hits. Examining the various webpages which turn up indicates a common theme: The "false doppler" effect involves motion perpendicular to a stationary observer. That is, moving neither towards nor away from the stationary observer, but rather moving "transversely," as a car, on the road, driving past you, on the sidewalk. Which is what the original "false doppler" article was also about.
Conclusion: I smell a crank. And it's not the original author of the article. If the person who put this article up for nomination isn't the same person nominated it previously, and then took a steaming dump all over the article and its associated talk page after the original AfD failed, I'll eat my hat.
And I have a BIG hat.
So. Keep the article, restore it to its 17:34, September 5, 2005 revision, and block the crank that's using Wikipedia to harass someone who knows how to cite a source. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 01:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert per Extreme Unction. Saberwyn 03:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and revert per Extreme Unction. I'm giving the original author a Barnstar. Someone please report the vandal. Durova 03:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I've reverted all the vandalism out of the article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 move to Fire and Ice (documentary) and clean up. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and ice[edit]

Advertising, but listed here because it might clean-up into something... but then might become just non-notable. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as spam. There appears to be a possibly notable animation of this name, but this is not it. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move or delete. No opinion on whether the content is salvageable, but this title should be redirected to Fire and Ice afterwards. —Cryptic (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as the film is probably worthy of an article, but needs to be cleaned up to remove advertising copy. It also needs to be renamed so it isn't the same as the disambiguation page and isn't confused with the Frank Frazetta animated film, which is undeniably notable. 23skidoo 22:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Winter War where a "Media" section can be added with a brief summary of this documentary. — RJH 15:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and clean-up. Bowever, it must be moved into "Fire and ice (documentary)" or something, because Fire and Ice is already a disambig page. If it is kept, it should be mentioned there. If it is not kept, it should be made into a redirect to Fire and Ice. — JIP | Talk 19:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 merge and redirect. Rossami (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffy Friendly Federation[edit]

Normally I would WP:Be bold and merge this into the main article on the Kindom of Lovely but here I am perplexed. I could defend a merge and redirect with some ease, but I am wondering whether Lovely (micronation) should be here at all. So, what does the panel think? Merge and redirect? Or should I be more ambitious and merge Lovely (micronation) into the author's own article? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fudge riot[edit]

original research, seems like cruft --Phil 03:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Hoax. The bandleader gets zero hits on Google. Seven unrelated returns for the supposed band name. This makes absurd claims for multiplatinum punk rock singles a decade before the genre existed. Durova 04:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable. Being a suspected hoax isn't a criteria for a speedy. --W.marsh 07:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Syrthiss 13:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Being vandalism and being an attack page are both criteria, and the "I suck iguana tail records" sure seems like a kiddie attack. The rest of it seems like the knowingly untrue statements necessary for vandalism. All of which is not to say that folks should be too fast on the trigger or button, nor to criticize W.marsh's preference of VfD to CSD, but these sorts of articles are routine and fairly clear. Having been listed here and having multiple eyeballs look at it, moving it to CSD later seems reasonable in the absence of any defenders. Geogre 13:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Geogre. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 00:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, nonsense. Thue | talk 22:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabilondo[edit]

No meaningful content Budgiekiller 17:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete nonsense. Jasmol 18:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, db-nonsense. PJM 19:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as it meets the narrow criteria in WP:PN. Have tagged as such encephalon 20:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Global it[edit]

Company self-promotion. Fails WP:CORP. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Jamie 00:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the horrible misspellings only emphasize its nonimportance. A real company would make a better effort. Turnstep 01:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Quasipalm 03:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity. Pintele Yid 06:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 already speedied. — brighterorange (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Lamb[edit]

nn-bio grafitti vandalism BeteNoir 10:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hadriel[edit]

Poorly written entry for a minor video game character. It's possible that this character warrants a mention somewhere (possibly in the Diablo II article), but I don't think it warrants a complete article on its own. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 16:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree...most main characters probably belong in main article as well (with short summaries), except maybe for exceptionally popular or notable games. Jasmol 17:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe merge if anyone can be bothered. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not even worthy of a merge with the DiabloII article, which currently does not have a minor character list. PJM 19:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a minor game character. *drew 01:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Half-gays[edit]

A theory that there are two portions of an individual that are "mutated" when they are gay. Original research, and fairly bigoted research at that. Meelar (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete. POV original research, absurd and bigoted. Durova 06:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an idea and i do not see how it is bigoted. I am doing this to get my idea out because I do not have the capabilites nor the knowledge of how to aquire data proving my theory. There is nothing wrong with presenting mere ideas to people (when i said "I believe").

  • Delete per Wikipedia:No Original Research. NatusRoma 06:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nice example of why the Wikipedia:No Original Research policy is a good idea for an encyclopedia. --W.marsh 07:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Edwardian 08:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR A1kmm 09:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I believe..."? Delete; this isn't even research. --Zetawoof 09:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. "I believe". Yeah, right. As if encyclopedia articles "believed" anything. — JIP | Talk 10:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the place to announce non-researched original ideas either. As far as I know there's not even consensus about the effects of genetics on sexuality. - Mgm|(talk) 12:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "I do not have the capabilites nor the knowledge of how to aquire data proving my theory." If you don't have the knowledge, don't post it on an encyclopedia. 11:12, 10 November 2005 (EST)
  • Delete per above. --Syrthiss 20:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Baseless speculation is never encyclopedic. Jtmichcock 05:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Small, small chance that this idea could be added to a page listing theories about origins/causes of homosexuality. But the piece itself is way below Wikipedia standards. President Lethe 16:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, original research. *drew 01:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 already speedied. — brighterorange (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harper Sibley, Jr[edit]

no claim to notability, or anything really identifyingDavidrowe 10:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 already speedied. — brighterorange (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HCFSM[edit]

HCFSM appears to not be notable [11] and in its current state is a barely-comprehensible article. If it is indeed signficant, it needs to be rewritten, but as it stands I can't see anything useful from Google. splintax (talk) 10:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus (10 keep, 8 delete, 3 merge). Robert T | @ | C 01:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Highland hills middle school moved to Highland Hills Middle School[edit]

While I'm usually OK with school articles, this particular instance gives no particular reason why the school is in any way notable. I see no reason why it should remain in Wikipedia Bluap 17:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — I'm all for keeping high school and up, but I tend to think middle schools need to be notable in some manner. Of course the article could be merged into a school district page, which would work just as well. — RJH 18:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-famous schools below the high-school level. Particularly schools with no history whatsoever (this one only opened in 2004!) — Haeleth Talk 18:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have entered into a voting pact at [[12]]. You should join in the discussion there. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 20:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stub creation on legitimate topics should not be discouraged. CalJW 23:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Creating one-two sentence stubs should be highly discouraged or and such info should be merged until such time as someone wants to take the time to create a halfway decent article per continuing discussions at WP:SCH.Gateman1997 01:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Input in the ongoing discussion at WP:SCH would be appreciated. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. Dottore So 00:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a work in progress, unless there's some evidence presented as for why it's particularly non-notable I see no reason to assume it. Bryan 01:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into appropriate school district per developing consensus at WP:SCH.Gateman1997 01:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please contribute to ongoing discussion at WP:SCH and help end this fractitious debate. Denni☯ 04:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Georgetown, Floyd County, Indiana, short article on another mundane middle school, see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It would be inconsistent to be selectively inclusive with these schools while we are not equally selective regarding television shows and other fictional material. Yamaguchi先生 08:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fictional material is easily verifiable and has a much bigger audience. - Mgm|(talk) 11:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Sjakkalle. Nothing that warrants a separate article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and continue to encourage stub creation on legitimate topics. This article is informative regarding the structure of education in the community as well as the internal structure of the school. Kappa 15:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. This is just as verifiable as a fictional work, and the claim that fictional works have a larger audience is both ambiguous and irrelevant. Silensor 22:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. --Vsion 04:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See my reasons here. Xoloz 16:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the fight [personal attacks removed]. The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of an article. Kurt Weber 23:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense. It is neither Wikipedia's mandate nor is it possible to create an article for every bug fart on this planet. And before you talk about deletionist vandalism, I would urge you take a look at one day's worth of articles and educate yourself on the amount of nonsense, vanity, vandalism, and misinformation that arrives on our doorstep. If there was no way to get rid of garbage, I doubt you'd be hanging around here. Denni☯ 01:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn Middle school --JAranda | watz sup 23:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources quoted --redstucco 10:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete makes no claim of notability Pete.Hurd 00:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this schools is notable and important too Yuckfoo 00:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 redirect to clock face. I personally did not see anything worth merging but if someone else does, please recover it from the page history. Rossami (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hour hand[edit]

Extremely trivial information. I don't see anything that can be merged into clock face. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • A merge to clock face wouldn't be advisable as there is little content of worth in this article. However, a Redirect to that article would be useful. Capitalistroadster 00:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per User:Capitalistroadster. It might be interesting to have a few factoids about speed if some of the content is merged, but as it is now, it's not worth anything: too many assumptions about clock sizes and such. —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - why not? It could be expanded. Pintele Yid 06:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and do not merge. The facts are about one particular part of one particular size of hour hand. JPD (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete. Why should I be interested in how many obsolete Merkin redneck units the hour hand moves in which time? — JIP | Talk 10:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite-- customary details aside, horology is a often a study of minutiae and split seconds-- it could probably use more entries, maybe even a time-keeping or horology stub tag.Davidrowe 11:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Clock face. It makes too many assumptions about the clock used and thus amounts to a mere factoid which should be covered elsewhere. - Mgm|(talk) 12:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't even see a need for a redirect - who's going to hit hour hand instead of clock face? Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies my criterion of being more notable than Koga (Pokémon). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-10 14:24
  • Keep. Give it a chance to be expanded. (note to self: must nominate Koga for AfD one of these days...) :) Turnstep 14:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup. There is in fact much more to be written on the hour hand as a feature of a clock, relating to the history of clocks; and I cannot say that this bit of trivia would be out of place in a better article. Smerdis of Tlön 15:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Clock face. PJM 18:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Clock face. If information on the hour hand grows to dominate the clock face article, it can be broken out then. FreplySpang (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup with a chainsaw. What's here is useless trivia, but I feel that an encyclopedic article could be written on the subject. If nobody does so before the AFD is closed, then merge this and tag it with that "redirects with possibilities" template. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Melchoir 23:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Certainly doesn't merit it's own article, should be part of clock face. Jasmol 02:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, no metric equivalents are given, and since only the US and Libya (or is it Yemen? I forget) have yet to move into the 21st century in this regard, that's important. And I have way better things to do than make these conversions. Second, this topic is subtrivial, and I cannot imagine that anyone would want to know how long it takes an hour hand to move a mile for anything more portentious than winning a bar bet. Denni☯ 03:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFAIK the US is the only country in the world not only to still use obsolete units, but also to not use metric units officially. — JIP | Talk 17:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the US has been officially metric for over a hundred years, and requires prices to be marked in both systems. What it has failed to do, however, is regulate how big the prices have to be marked, so you get imperial prices in 200point and metric prices in 10 point. The US has, as I'm sure you're aware, done absolutely nothing to encourage the use of the metric system, choosing not even to conduct its own business in metric (except, oddly enough, for the military. go figure.) BTW, I like "Merkin redneck units". I'll be borrowing that one. D[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font style="color:green">'''''e'''''</font>]][[User:Denni|nni]][[User_talk:Denni|<font color=#228822>&#9775;</font>]] 02:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - why not? You can't really have a clock without an hour hand, so I think it's pretty important. XYaAsehShalomX 14:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The part about speed should be deleted, or at least completely redone, no matter what happens to the article. It isn't just useless trivia, it is garbage. The units are the smallest problem, after all it says it's only talking about the most common American size of clock. But that's wrong - the speed depends on the size of the hour hand, not the size of the clock. Also, the whole hand doesn't move at the same speed - I assume it's talking about the speed of the end of the hand - after all the part of the hand in the centre of the clock doesn't move at all! JPD (talk) 11:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Redirect or whatever it's called. There's useful information here—which should be put into a cool article about the history, design, present state, &c., of clock faces in different regions. So all the info could go into an article on Clocks or Clockfaces or whatever. I usually don't mind letting things that are smaller components of bigger things have their own articles (if we didn't do that, there'd just be one, gigantic article); but this would so neatly fit into a larger article, and probably be more useful with surrounding context about other aspects of clock design. President Lethe 16:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to clock face. *drew 22:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

You have decideed in merging it with clock face. It just means that you hae no real understanding in horlogy. Whatwever. Somedaxy ithe article is going to pup up again in its own right, just as any other major par of a watch.

claude (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Robert T | @ | C 02:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Yaffe[edit]

A college kid who wants to be in wikipedia because he volunteered at a soup kitchen. Non-notable. --Quasipalm 03:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --Quasipalm 03:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity? Sorry, Ian. --Sirimiri 05:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject of the article is not yet notable, despite his good deeds. (I restored the AfD notice, which had been removed. (Note to nominator: please use {{subst:afd}} rather than {{afd}}.)) --DavidConrad 05:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable [13].
  • Delete. --Edcolins 21:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Fact of the matter is, having known Ian personally and attended school with him (and knowing he didn't write this article) he is an influential individual within the Washington DC community... you may refer to him as a college kid but he is much more... In his years not only is he on the board of directors of the largest food kitchen in DC, but he is also a local hero for his work as a firefighter and other charitable contributions. Wikipedia chronicles Hitler, Stalin, Tojo and many others, but a good guy who strives to use his position in society to help others is "not notable" and BTW he lives in DC not Australia, idiot

  • Delete ∾ I lived in the Washington DC suburbs for 9 years. Never heard of the guy. So he's not even that notable or influential within DC. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You lived in the suburbs... as in Potomac where your idea of charity and good deeds is a 10,000 dollar check, and the only people you know go to your country club?

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 22:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Innotown[edit]

If this is anything other than spam I'd be very much surprised. Heavily promoted on the web, but I see little evidence of verifiable significance, and the article as written is an advert plain and simple. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless author rewrites objectively and can demonstrate signficance outside of the "Innovator Community" Jasmol 15:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article has been expanded to try to demonstrate notability, but a list of guest speakers doesn't cut it for me (you hire them by the hour, after all). Can anyone in the industry confirm whether this really is a significant event, as evidence to date suggests not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 speedily redirected. Xoloz 17:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ISO-8601[edit]

Subsumed by ISO 8601. GregorB 19:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree per nom. Jasmol 20:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is Articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Duplicate articles is along the hall, three doors down. Uncle G 20:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect No need to bring this to AFD. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. This nomination is not appropriate for AfD. Bryan 00:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. ISOs are commonly spelled using dashes. No need to delete. - Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, non-notable person. Thue | talk 22:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Somani[edit]

Vanity page by 14 year old. jfg284 17:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non notablejfg284 17:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Budgiekiller 17:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio and repost Hitchhiker89 18:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Jasmol 18:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, nn-bio. PJM 19:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for meeting A7. Note also that this article has been deleted for the same reason in the past. encephalon 20:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Monroe Grimes[edit]

Google has not heard of this person or his ministry. The referenced website indicates it has had 152 visitors. --Tabor 05:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not-notable. A1kmm 10:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 19:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Dalbury (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7 howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. *drew 00:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Rankin[edit]

non-notable biography Xenn 08:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. A1kmm 09:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SpeedyDelete "Born in Idaho, the unfortunate love child of a goat called Morris and an Antelope called Agnes." Indium 10:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted under WP:CSD A7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Nadas[edit]

someone's resume. Doesn't sound very notable. Randwicked 08:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable biography/resume. Edwardian 08:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't feel I need to give reasons for this one. - Andre Engels 14:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Syrthiss 21:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Certainly sounds like a resume.ERcheck 06:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, self-promotional resume. -- Mgm|(talk) 10:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. *drew 01:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Merrell Cook[edit]

High school football players are not inherently notable. Thue | talk 23:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems like vanity. Didn't play college/pro ball, I don't even see why he was so great in HS football really. 0 results in Google either for whatever that's worth. --W.marsh 23:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete Texas High School football is among the most intense of all sports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.231.157 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete nn-bio howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:BIO. Hasn't played in professional league nor college football. Hey, I played football at high school. Doesn't mean I was any good. Capitalistroadster 23:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this fails to meet any of the inclusion criteria set forth by WP:BIO. Hall Monitor 00:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Bachrach44 03:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only the "high schools are inherently notable" crowd could vote keep on this one. Denni☯ 04:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ∾ Sports "intensity" is not a sufficient criteria for Wikipedia inclusion. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 12:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it Having lived in Texas since I graduated from college a few years ago, I can appreciate the shear dominance that this young man demonstrated during his high school career. I grew up in Utah and we've never seen this type of player or this type of football played there.--Gordon Monson, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jung-Suk Ryu[edit]

Mr Ryu is an unsuccessful candidate in the 2004 municipal council elections in Edmonton, Canada achieving 3,817 votes or 5% of the vote. While this is relatively impressive for a teenager, it doesn't meet WP:BIO which states that "Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office" are notable enough for articles. Nor does a Google search for "Jung-Suk Ryu" indicate that he is notable enough for achievements in other fields to deserve an article see [14].Capitalistroadster 02:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the nominator votes they should do so inside the nomination. That said, delete as a non-notable biography. Not a speedy, not a resumé, but doesn't meet WP:BIO either. Alphax τεχ 05:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you think the nominator should only vote within the nomination, I suggest you get the guidelines for deletion changed, since they currently clearly state that the nominator should make a separate vote. — Haeleth Talk
  • Comment There was quite a bit more to this article than what it is now showing. An anon user 199.126.210.155 was removing quite a bit of information, and it of course looked like vandalism, but the anon user left me a msg on my talk page saying why he was removing large portions of the article. His comments were polite and civil so I've left it alone due to the fact he seemed to know a lot more about this article than me. Maybe if someone who knows more about Jung-Suk Ryu could go back and check, to see if the information the anon user was removing could make the article meet WP:BIO. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 06:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I listed this page because a gentleman raised concerns about the neutrality of the article on the helpdesk list. I checked out the article and considered that notability was a real concern of the article. If someone can deliver verifiable evidence that Mr Ryu meets our biography notability guidelines, I would withdraw this nomination. However, I couldn't find anything in my searches to indicate notability. Capitalistroadster 08:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - "weak" since there's a possibility that the guy's more notable than he seems, but "delete" since I personally can't find any evidence that he meets WP:BIO. — Haeleth Talk 18:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dottore So 23:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. WP:BIO says "This list (of eligible people) is not all-inclusive." Someone who finished sixth (see here for official results) in a city-council race is really pushing it. But this guy is likely to run for office again, and people might be interested in who he is. -- Mwalcoff 04:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xoloz 16:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with the delete side; city council candidates just aren't that notable. The Alberta Centennial Medal stuff gave me pause, until I read the article — it doesn't make him part of a particularly exclusive and notable class of people, either, as there are 8,000 recipients. Bearcat 07:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As previously stated on the articles talk page, I am an acquaintance of JSR. I have chatted with him about this article, and am quite sure that the anonymous user deleting things was him, seeking to remove the heavy negative bias the article had. Although his achievements go beyond being a city council candidate, they are still relatively local in scope and are perhaps not significant enough to warrant an article. Combine that with the fact that edit wars would probably just continue between JSR and those who have a negative view of him. I believe someday there will be enough content for this article, when his run for city council can get just a brief mention.--LucidGA 19:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 23:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 speedied by Ingoolemo. Ingoolemo talk 18:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaptain[edit]

Not notable in any way. Budgiekiller 19:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete NNN (non notable nonsense). Jasmol 19:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Jasmol. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 20:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Borderline A1 --JJay 20:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, triviality. Thue | talk 18:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save, informative to those with interaction of subject --JHrdy 18.45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 18:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karl lilje[edit]

"Non-notable apparent vanity.

  • The article asserts that he is an author: Amazon has never heard of him. Of the small number of Google hits on his name (excluding his own site and Wiki mirrors) several seem unrelated. On the other hand there is some evidence he has written some minor software. I do not think this person is notable, and I think some claims are hard to substantiate, but others may disagree so I've brought it for a vote. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keiran[edit]

I was unable to find a reference to this. The Google test is not the best way of figuring out if something like this actually exists, but as the article itself is very vague and I was not able to find a single hit that appeared relevant, I'm inclined to think that this is a hoax or something similarly unwelcome. If someone can show that this is not the case, I'll obviously be happy to withdraw the nomination. -- Captain Disdain 09:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 09:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless convinced otherwise. Seems to be vanity, or from the poor English, possibly a mispelling of something else. Indium 10:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. A1 - no context. JPD (talk) 10:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, well, I realize that it probably could be speedily deleted. But my primary concern is to ascertain whether this really is just random crap someone made up or merely a very, very vague write-up of a historically relevant figure -- y'know, give someone the chance to pipe up here. Speedy deletion isn't gonna do a whole lot for that -- Captain Disdain 10:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was going to suggest redirecting to Kieran as a common mis-spelling, but we don't have an article (or even a disambig) at that name, which surprises me slightly. Grutness...wha? 10:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable and almost certainly a hoax. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, borderline patent nonsense, and impossible: nobody understands humans. Smerdis of Tlön 15:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. No offense to nom. --JJay 19:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverified. *drew 01:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 merge into Rebel Alliance. - Mailer Diablo 07:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Killik Twilight[edit]

Fiction, unencyclopaedic (and duplicates http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Killik_Twilight) - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Rebel Alliance where it can be discussed in context. Duplicating other wikis is not a reason to delete when part of our goals overlap (like in this case). Also, fiction can be entirely encyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 14:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not enough response: relisting. Physchim62 (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Topics such as this one make sense only in the context of the fictional world they inhabit. Durova 19:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into relevant artcle. Bryan 01:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. *drew 01:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 userfied to User:Vulcanmax. Clearly inappropriate for article space. Friday (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Killing_Service_INC.[edit]

I don't know if this should be deleted or just cleaned up a lot, but I want to bring it to more experienced users' attentions

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 02:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Koika[edit]

No claim of notability apart of "porn star that got signed up by some well-known studio" (and Google isn't helpful, gives plenty of hits but the first few pages seem fairly... inconclusive and also hint that other unrelated people use this same pseudonym). Referenced website doesn't help much. And the article is more about the company deal anyway. Delete, I say. Wwwwolf 14:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and hope the author gets a girlfriend some time soon. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)'[reply]
  • Delete Reeks of marketing. Jasmol 15:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lonelyguycruft (sorry, couldn't resist). Non-notable model. --W.marsh 16:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xoloz 16:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencylopedic. *drew 01:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  08:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Cyr[edit]

Unverifiable, delete. ComCat 05:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. 216.36.182.2 who created the article appears to be a malicious troll. Every recent edit by this person appears to be vandalism. Durova 07:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very sloppy, silly article to begin with, which someone tried to cleanup, but still devoid of any real information and unverifiable. Unfortunately, it's already a week old, so no speedy delete. - Dalbury (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator, possible hoax. Hall Monitor 00:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kubba[edit]

Just a family name, no claim of notability on the page. Also doubts about the correctness: A message on the helpdesk referred to http://home.freeuk.net/kubba/ to show that the Kubba family is of Iraqese origin, or at least has been in Iraq before the early 1900s. Andre Engels 07:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Durova 08:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Syrthiss 20:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Widespread family names are way more worthy of space here than schools. Denni☯ 03:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DEelete, more appropriate for Wiktionary. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lamester[edit]

Neologism, defined entirely with POV commentary. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 21:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not even included in UrbanDictionary. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article reeks of POV. --JJay 22:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR --Rogerd 15:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (16 keep, 18 delete, 2 merge, 1 redirect). Robert T | @ | C 01:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Mountain Elementary School[edit]

I dont think a elementary school should be in wikipedia. Its non-notable --64.12.116.10 04:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia should have articles on some elementary schools. Summerhill, for example. I think we should have an article about Froebel's original kindergarten, and very likely the other historical kindergartens mentioned in the kindergarten article. I don't know where the oldest operating Montessori school in the United States is but it should have an article. We need something more discriminating than "keep all schools" or "delete all elementary schools." We should keep the ones that are encyclopedic and delete the ones that are not. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please come contribute to ongoing conversation at WP:SCH. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unencyclopedic; delete. ComCat 05:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per usual reasons per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Vsion 05:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons Vsion cited. --DavidConrad 05:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Round Rock Independent School District per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Merge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well, duh, it's a school. Hello? — JIP | Talk 10:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could write an article on my elementary school and say "Elementary school X is located in Y." This would be a school, but do you really want such contextless entries? Please rate articles on their content and not the fact they are about a school. - Mgm|(talk) 12:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, but I still stand by my keep vote. There is a reasonable amount of information in this article. It says where the school is located, how it is administered, and includes a performance record and a link to the school's website. — JIP | Talk 13:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point was that while this school may be worth keeping, you voted keep for the wrong reason. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could write an article on your elementary school and be sure 20 people will spend a great deal of time getting it deleted.--Pypex 17:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did. I don't see any people getting it deleted. — JIP | Talk 20:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the awards in their performance record, but I'd really like to see who awards them and how often for what achievements. - Mgm|(talk) 12:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, informative article and per wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 12:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete all articles that contain summaries of reasoning. Reason out your vote for this particular ARTICLE and not "all schools, ever, everywhere, at all times, no matter what." If your vote shows no indication that you've even read this article, how can you be expected to be taken seriously as a deliberator on it? In my case, I do not think we are in the business of replicating the Yellow Pages, and the information in this ARTICLE is virtually nil. If a mention of the school, with basic information, were put into a school district article, that would be fine, but it is a primary school with no information presented on it. Geogre 13:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • have you read the article because it has a lot of notable awards and distinguishments erasing this does not even make sense Yuckfoo 18:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone nominated a small country, it wouldn't be necessary to read the article to justify a keep vote. If one believes that schools should be kept, there is no difference. CalJW 23:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, one would need to read it, because we are not discussing possible articles but actual articles, here. I.e. the deliberation is not on the topic but on the actual performance. This is not Requests for Comment on content issues. An article that said, "Fiji is an island country" would be and should be deleted, even though the topic of Fiji should get full coverage. That's why "school watch" and all other voter busing projects must stop. Read the article (which got rapidly filled in by voters), and assess it per the deletion guidelines. Does the article advertise? Is it a copyvio? Is it a dictdef? Only then do you get to "Is the subject encyclopedic?" All the blather about schools addresses the strawman of "notability," but that isn't sufficient nor comprehensive in voting. (As for awards, it's a mug's game to base anything on awards. "World's Greatest Grandpa" doesn't get an article.) Geogre 01:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • So if "Fiji is an island country" would and should be deleted, an article which says "Coombe is a settlement in the county of Hampshire, UK." would also be deletable, perhaps even if it gave the grid reference? Kappa 01:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why should anyone ever do a thing like that? If someone intends to assemble a decent paragraph, they should assemble it in user space or offline and create the article when there is something worthwhile there. If, on the other hand, someone does not really intend to do even ten minutes' work but merely wants to remind people that we need an article on that topic, they should make an article request. See the perfect stub. An article that says "Coombe is a settlement in the county of Hampshire, UK" is not a good stub. People shouldn't just type "Chapter One" at the top of a blank piece of paper and feel they've made a useful start at writing a novel. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Stubs like Coombe, Hampshire are incredibly useful, I wish we had at least that much for every settlement. They answer the question "where the heck is Coombe?" which is pretty much the most important thing about a place. Also they let me link there and categorize it, and provide a ready-made base for someone who knows about it to expand. Kappa 13:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sounds like an appropriate entry for a gazetteer, not an encyclopedia. Is WIkipedia a gazetteer? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • It also sounds like a good entry for an encyclopedia which is providing the best service it can for its users. Kappa 15:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all schools, ever, everywhere, at all times, no matter what.--Nicodemus75 13:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "No matter what" is pretty broad. Would that include copyvios, unverifiable information, and hoax articles? Or would you care to qualify that a bit? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Deletion, properly understood, is an issue of the worthiness of the subject for inclusion in the encyclopedia, not on the content of the particular article. Thus, copyvios and unveriable info are reasons to revise the article, but not to devise. And if it's a hoax article, then its subject isn't a real school, is it? Kurt Weber 23:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • My comment was a direct quote from Geogre's rant above. Please try to keep up.--Nicodemus75 20:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per N75. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thousands and thousands of people will attend a gradeschool throughout its existance -- this alone makes it notable enough for inclusion. Besides, there are lots of other elementry school articles... We even have gradeschool categories for some states. --Quasipalm 15:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thousands and thousands of people have driven down the road outside my house throughout its existence, but that sure doesn't make it notable for inclusion. If we have other elementary school articles, they should be deleted too. — Haeleth Talk
      • Thousands and thousands of people will eat at a McDonald's. It vends routine food. Elementary schools impart routine knowledge. How is this one special? Durova 15:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, schools are not inherently tyhsjhfguuitruh. Sorry, I just passed out from boredom in having to try, in vain, once again to get an ordinary building filled with ordinary people deleted. Lord Bob 16:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this losing of consciousness becomes a serious problem, might I suggest you stop trying to get a school deleted?--Nicodemus75 16:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this article please it is notable and interesting Yuckfoo 17:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Elementary schools have no inherent notability, and there is nothing in exclusively notable about this particular school.--Isotope23 17:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all schools below the high-school level. — Haeleth Talk 18:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Round Rock Independent School District. (Generic school < High School) => non-notable. — RJH 18:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
where does it say that less than a high school is not notable Yuckfoo 18:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, right above in RJH's vote.--Isotope23 02:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete NN school stub Pete.Hurd 18:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the HR passed, otherwise, Merge with the appropriate district per developing consensus at WP:SCH.Gateman1997 19:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to the link, the clerk of the house certified "that H.R. No. 999 was adopted by the House on May 9, 2003, by a non-record vote." Now, the question is, what's a non-record vote? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. encephalon 20:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete elementary schools are not inherently notable. Durova 21:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and important. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even primary schools are more important than plenty of things that are kept with less controversy. CalJW 23:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. No reasons have been given that convince me that this particular article about this particular school is encyclopedic, and I do not share the opinion that "it is a school" constitutes such a reason. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. Dottore So 00:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre. Edwardian 00:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please contribute to ongoing discussion at WP:SCH and help end this fractitious debate. Denni☯ 03:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this appears to be an award-winning school of sorts. Yamaguchi先生 03:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. --Metropolitan90 05:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep  ALKIVAR™ 10:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For my arguments, see User:Xoloz/Schools. Xoloz 19:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 22:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn elementary school --JAranda | watz sup 05:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the awards are particularly noteworthy, e.g. the Greater Austin Quality Significant Merit Award is a 3/4 rating giving out to dozens and dozens of institutions. This isn't encyclopedic information. Gimmeahighfive 05:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are few things that are less notable than this school...  Grue  22:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the fight [personal attack removed]. The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of an article. Kurt Weber 23:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sufficiently verifiable to exist somewhere on wikipedia --redstucco 09:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic topic for the reasons given by deletion votes above. --Aquillion 17:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete from Wikipedia with a strong recommendation that it be offered to Comixpedia. Not being a sister project under WikiMedia, we can not perform a straight transwiki.

I see that Comixpedia is also licensed under GFDL so a transfer is allowable. However, not being a member of their site and being completely unfamiliar with their codes, formats, styles, etc., I am unwilling to attempt to add the article there myself. If anyone wants to carry out the transfer, please contact me (or any admin) and we can recover the article in order to submit it to Comixpedia. Please remember to also have the Talk page transferred at the same time because it documents the author's release of certain content to GFDL. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LeveL (webcomic)[edit]

Non notable obscure webcomic, found here, it's 40 member forum can be found here. Looking through one of their sparse forum threads, I know plenty of effort has been put into this, but I just don't think that the website is notable enough for wikipedia. Can I introduce you guys to comixPedia? Where every webcomic under the sun can get their article there? - Hahnchen 23:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:COMIC. Saberwyn 00:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw delete vote. This is NOT the webcomic I thought it was. Saberwyn 04:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Nifboy 02:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Comixpedia, the place for most of these unknown webcomics jnothman talk 02:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the archive appears reasonably extensive [15] and I see no evidence presented above by the delete votes. When you say an article fails such and such a guideline, please explain how to verify this assertion. Bryan 04:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alexa rank of 2 million (very bad), and longevity criteria are being left out of the new guidelines being drafted. The best I could find on Google was the artists' LJ and a link on Ponju. Nifboy 05:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - Alexa rank really isn't the best measure of notability. Consider:
        • Pete Ashdown's US Senate campaign site has an Alexa rank of 2,530,023. Steve Urquhart's rank is 2,910,251. Nobody's suggesting deleting them -- especially if one of them actually manages to beat Orrin Hatch in next year's election (please, please, please). Orrin's site, BTW, ranks 1,490,351.
          • Those people are known for their political activity outside the internet. webcomics only have their internet presence to show. If that can't be verified through Google, Alexa or any other means, that means it doesn't have that presence. - Mgm|(talk) 11:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • And I would add that Pete Ashdown and Orrin Hatch's websites don't have their own wikipedia article...--Isotope23 21:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • On a more webcomic-related note, it appears that all Keenspace comics get a single ranking of 5,395. That means that a comic like [Saturnalia], that never had a very large reader base and that hasn't updated in a year and a half, ranks more than twice as high as Megatokyo (13,920) or User Friendly (12,251). (Nothing against Saturnalia, BTW: Space Coyote is a great artist and the story was good, too. After this long, though, it's pretty well dead.)
        • Also on webcomics, even Penny Arcade, one of the originals, only ranks 404,199.
        • Alexa does list a few other sites that link to leveL. The best I found there was Megatokyo.--12.160.33.128 15:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, only four pages link there. MegaTokyo was in the list of sites visitors of LeveL also visit. - Mgm|(talk) 11:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - The forum has 40 members. Longevity does not equal notability. There has been no press reviews/commentary. - Hahnchen 14:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Well, can also be transwikied; I have no objection to that at all, but my primary thought is that I'd like to remove this from Wikipedia.) Doesn't appear to be notable; frankly, any webcomic where a Google search for "<webcomic's name> <creator's name>" returns ~50 hits is non-notable in the grand scale of things, and possibly also in the webcomics scale of things. That said, I'm sure they'd find a very comfy home at Comixpedia. -- Captain Disdain 07:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Comixpedia per Jnothman and Captain Disdain. WP:NOT a place to list every Web comic ever created. FCYTravis 22:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. Dragonfiend 02:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See aforementioned arguments for dubiousness of Alexa. Site has roughly 600 visitors a day [16]. Notability aside from immediate popularity should also be considered. -Flare- 18:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Flare made a post on this webcomic's official forums asking the forum members to create a Wikipedia article about it. [17] Ashibaka (tock) 02:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bryan and Flare. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Bryan and Flare. ♠PMC♠ 20:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This nominationt was closed here. It was then discussed here and here.

To date, there are three clean deletes + nominator + one withdrawn, two transwikis, three clean keep + two with very low contributions (-Flare- (talk · contribs), 12.160.33.128 (talk · contribs)). As this is far from a clear consensus, and not even a clear "no consesus", per discussions with the closer it is being re-listed extended for another five days to draw wider community input. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain, but counsel editors to consult discussions at proposed guideline WP:WEB. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as suggested. This fails WP:WEB proposed guidelines for a webcomic as far as I can tell. 600 visits a day really isn't much.. and about consistant with the Alexa rank. Millions of sites get 600 visits a day. 40 posters to the forum... I just don't see what makes this webcomic notable. --W.marsh 23:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki I like to keep webcomic articles, I really do, but this is far from notable. Ashibaka (tock) 00:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to correct the earlier assertion that the Penny Arcade webcomic has an Alexa ranking of 404,199; it's ranking is in fact 4,520[18]. Further comparing the Alexa ranking of webcomics (which are by definition read primarily on the web) to those of Senators (who relay their information through mainstream news media coverage, talk shows, etc.) is a bit of apples to oranges. My vote (above) remains delete because there is no evidence that this comic is even notable inside the webcomics community, let alone outside of it. Dragonfiend 00:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dragonfiend's persuasive comment. Ifnord 04:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pintele Yid 06:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is intended to be a discussion, so it's helpful if you provide some reasoning. For instance, are you contending that notability is not an issue, or that this webcomic is notable? Thanks. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Uhm, three points: 1. Don't bite the newbies. 2. No one has to give an reason on why they vote. 3. In fact, Wikipedia is inherently inclusionist, so you should be more likely to ask for a reason for DELETING an article rather than keeping it. -- Grev -- Talk 07:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If that came across as a bite, I apologise, that wasn't my intent.
  2. It says at Wikipedia:Guide_to_Articles_for_deletion#Discussion "Always explain your reasoning," because it's not a vote.
  3. I dont see how WP:AGF applys. Don't you assume good faith when someone wants to delete?
brenneman(t)(c) 07:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Captain Disdain's arguments. - Andre Engels 08:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Web comics lists several possible criteria for webcomic notablility. This doesn't meet any of them. I'd also point out that User:12.160.33.128's understanding of the Alexa ranking system is limited. For example, Penny arcade ranks in at 4500, not 400,000. This comic ranks at 2 million, which even taking into account Alexa's margin for error, is pretty bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.34.168 (talk • contribs)
  • Neutral, long-running and extensive archive, I just can't find its audience. - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Wikipedia is not a web directory. - Dalbury (talk) 12:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Bryan and Flare in the first run of this. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 12:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I don't understand this "Bryan and Flare" thing. What point did Bryan make that you agree with? Was it (1) that the article was extensive and all long articles are notable or (2) that you don't understand why people are voting Delete? What argument of Flare are you agreeing with? Do you agree that (3) any website with 600 visitors/day is notable or (4) notability may be asserted in ways that do not need to be described? I await your comments. Ashibaka (tock) 02:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The point of me mentioning the visits a day was to show that it is obviously known aside from the 40 people in the forum, since some of the voters for deletion used 'forum has 40 members, noone reads this thing' as an argument. It's not like this site DOESN'T generate tens of thousands of visitors a month. I was also referencing the guy that brought up points against Alexa rating, but he didn't have a user name, so it was probably easier to refer back to me. As for the ways that need not be described, it's obvious I'm a reader of the comic and thus have a bias, which is why mentioning any points about the actual quality of the comic over the quantity of activity around it would be putting myself on display to be torn apart. When I looked at WP:WEB before suggesting the article, it still had the alternate proposal that included longevity, a certain number of existant strips/pages and some other things that I can't remember right now but that were all met. Now that it's pretty much popularity only, any such argument has become void- I can't argue against the fact that it doesn't have an audience of millions. -Flare- 13:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am probably going to hate myself for saying this, but I'm all for frankness: This is still only a proposed guideline. It's referred to as a pointer for what the current suggested direction for this guideline is according to those who have taken part, but that is it. Don't let it deter you from making a pitch for its inclusion based upon longevity or something else. And anyone who's wavering in ther recomendation, don't be swayed by the pseudo-official nature of WP:WEB which I've had lots to do with shaping. Feel free to make your own decision, but please be ready to state your reasoning clearly. Thanks.
          brenneman(t)(c) 13:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails every guideline we've ever had for "notability," and the fervor of its fans in voting is not any argument against that. For those who wish a "reason why" it shouldn't be here, even though there is no reason why it should be here, I'll simply say that encyclopedias cover that which is referred to in alien context and which needs explanation and contextualizing. This forum/comic/game is known by its fans and referred to by none else. Those who wish to know, know. Those who do not know, will not hear of it and need to know. Since Wikipedia is not a place to satisfy the fan's obsession nor a place for people to advertise, the article should be deleted. Geogre 13:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Geogre. It's old, but unremarkably so. People read it, but not very many. It is, in short, an utterly and completely average webcomic, and Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for the utterly and completely average. (Of course, if Comixpedia wants it, they can have it) Lord Bob 16:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre--Isotope23 17:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. nn, webcomic. Dottore So 17:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; try advertising the comic more in places that accept advertising, and then come back to WP when you have the readers you deserve. — Haeleth Talk 17:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, can we be a little more [[WP:CIV}civil]], please? I know that sometimes it's easy to let our frustrations out, but we should assume thatthis article wasn't made for that reason. - brenneman(t)(c) 18:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was the original nominator, so please don't count my vote twice. I wasn't too happy with the no-consensus of the first vote. I did not have a chance to reply to the erronomous and misleading comments above. Dragonfiend has already established that a popular webcomic like Penny Arcade has a respectable Alexa rank. The comparisons to Orrin Hatch and Pete Ashdown are totally irrelevent, these are people who have had major press attention, something which this comic lacks, even in the webcomic community. I would however, either redirect an article on Orrin Hatch's website to Orrin Hatch, or even move to delete. Just because a site links to it, does not mean it is notable. Heck, some blogs even link to my wikipedia page. This comic has no assertion of notability, a low readership and almost empty forums. Other arguments above, saying that "keep - long archive", I just don't agree with. One of my main points against the no defunct original WP:COMIC was the, longevity = notability" clause. Would you keep an article for a person who's only claim to notability was living up to retirement age? - Hahnchen 18:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --JJay 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just in case previous votes aren't being re-counted (I voted before). Why is this being re-listed? If the result wasn't a consensus, then it was "no consensus". Bryan 00:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that it's not actually been "re-listed", I mispoke before and have corrected it. It has been extended as is common for AfD discussions that do not reach a clear consensus. For example, a 50/50 split with strong arguments presented by each side is a "no consensus" and thus no action is taken. In this example, neither the numbers nor the arguments clearly indicated the "will of the people", and extendind the discussion appears to have made things clear. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this is a comic with no evidence of popularity, significance, or impact beyond its small fanbase. (Of course, this should be transwiked over to Comixpedia, but you can do that with anything that meets their goals.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Based on the discussion, I am reinstating my delete vote. Even though it is not the webcomic I originally thought it was, this webcomic appears to miserably fail the proposed guidelines at WP:WEB and WP:COMIC. Also, to those who try to justify keeping articles based on the argument "Article X is on Wikipedia. This article is in this way better to Article X, so therefore it should be on Wikipedia too", please don't. Each article should be kept or deleted on it's own merits, and it's own merits alone (as the various article policies allow). I will support a transwiki to Comixpedia, but will shed no tears of this does not happen. Saberwyn 02:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A Man in Black. Xoloz 16:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't think of a good reason to delete this article. Moreover it was subject to a perfectly valid no consensus close, an re-opened as part of an evident campaign of deletion. --Tony Sidawayt 09:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three deletes, two transwiki, and one non-sock close is a clear delete close. (A transwiki ends with a delete.) The decision made to extend this AFD erred (rightly) on the side of inclusion. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 09:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki as per jnothman and others. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Comixpedia. *drew 22:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 01:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of baseball jargon[edit]

Violates WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide" and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary" Frühstücksdienst 03:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as useful reference as decided three months ago. Capitalistroadster 04:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A useful and well established article. PJM 04:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - And maybe the guideline should be changed for eminently notable exceptions. Cyde Weys 04:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As I said before, likely nominated by someone who hates baseball. Wahkeenah 04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That one user, with the German name which roughly translates as "Breakfast service", has marked several of the Jargon pages the same way, so evidently he wants to make toast of these pages. In fact, since August he/she/it has contributed nothing [19] except requests for deletion. Wahkeenah 12:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I mainly edit under another name, since I don't want to get into deletion wars. Frühstücksdienst 14:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I reckon you deserve some points for admitting to being a sockpuppet. Wahkeenah 15:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for violation. This should be a CATEGORY, not an article in and of itself. Travislangley 06:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously useful glossary. Change the policy. Bhoeble 11:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep An essential part of Wikipedia's coverage of baseball, or of any other sport with lots of terminology (which is probably all of them). ReeseM 12:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think people are voting for keep for this because they like the article but it violates at least two Wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is useful or essential should not be kept if it violates established policy! Frühstücksdienst 14:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I say you are picking on these things for personal reasons. Wahkeenah 15:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. Transwiki to wikisource and link to baseball if anyone is interested in keeping this content (and I think it is useful content; just not encyclopedic article material).--Isotope23 15:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Who says what is an encyclopedia? I say this is a valuable part of encyclopedic coverage of baseball. Golfcam 23:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful for people like me who don't know about baseball. squell 01:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Transwiki Baseball Slang should be added to the list, but the whole thing is better suited to be a Wiktionary *

appendix. --Karnesky 06:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the others. Who uses Wiktionary? Not me. I wouldn't know this was there. Calsicol 13:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I responded on another AfD, we can make interwiki links. Any wikipedia article which referenced this would still point to the article on Wiktionary. It would be just as useful there, and may be a better fit with the intent and policies of that wiki than this one. --Karnesky 17:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, honestly, the information is useful, encyclopeadic, and better done as a collection that as individual articles. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 11:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article 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. Shreshth91 15:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

List of baseball jargon[edit]

Nomination on the grounds that this is a slang or usage guide, in violation of WP:NOT. While an article about baseball jargon as a whole is acceptable, this is a list of jargon terms, not an article about the jargon as a whole. Note that the exceptions in WP:NOT 1.2.3 only apply to clarifying meaning when jargon is used in an article about something else (not the case here) or "special cases" about "an essential piece of slang" (not the case here) don't protect it. Informative and interesting, certainly (at least to some people), but that is not enough to excuse the fact that this is a list of definitions, not an article. The Literate Engineer 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Seems like a spiteful nomination (or at least done purely out of principal), as I cited this basball article article as an example in another AfD discussion. Sorry baseball fans... I had no idea it would get this reaction. As for why to keep this article... it falls clearly under WP:NOT 1.5.2 which allows for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. This provides extensive commentary and more importantly links to many baseball articles, and it cleraly helps to organize them. I guess I'll stop citing articles I actually care about as examples... --W.marsh 00:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I accept that this wasn't done out of spite thanks to communication from the nom. --W.marsh 01:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see that communication anywhere here. How's about posting it so we can see what this wiki-nanny's reasoning was, and why he thinks this is less encyclopedic than lists of Penthouse Pets? Wahkeenah
      • It's on my talk page and his. But please don't make personal attacks... The Literate Engineer just happens to have a different opinion than me (and apparently you). --W.marsh 02:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, he personally attacked this page, so he has it coming. I'd like to know why he thinks this page is any less worthy than the others I've mentioned. But I don't expect an explanation, because their type also deems the rest of us to be part of the Great Unwashed. Wahkeenah 02:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It's got to be a nomination by someone who hates baseball or regards it as unworthy. Why pick on baseball and not attack lists of Playboy Playmates and other such "encyclopedic" data??? Wahkeenah 00:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. An excellent article. Durova 01:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like a useful article to me. --Bachrach44 03:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. WP:NOT 1.2.3 is in my opinion to stop articles on singular slang terms, not for lists like did. - Andre Engels 08:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andre Engels. Useful list. It helps writing baseball articles considerably easier because now some terms can be used without repeatedly explaining them. - Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments Herostratus 02:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep useful to baseball fans and those who want to understand them --Rogerd 15:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_commonly_mistitled_songs[edit]

The page has very little information, is unencyclopedic, and is unverifiable (aside from the Weird Al songs). It also could constitute as original research. There is no real way of determining all the names a song may be listed under in a P2P network. THollan 17:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a pointless and wholly subjective celebration of musical illiteracy. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above arguments. Non-encyclopedic. Punkmorten 22:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy —Wahoofive (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unencylopedic violation of WP:NOR and WP:NOT 1.7.2 The Literate Engineer 00:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOR. We shouldn't encourage people who won't spell song titles properly either. - Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Eh?? Also a "List of songs that are not titled after the first few words of lyrics, or the words that are repeat severaĺ times in the chorus". The exclusion criteria almost forces this. This might get pointless really fast if we let this grow. (And also who's the first to say "WP:NOT in the business of helping people accept and tolerate their own lack of everyday research" or "WP:NOT in existence to make ed2k network a little bit less interesting place to live in"? =) --Wwwwolf 22:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Literate Engineer. Xoloz 16:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 keep. Robert T | @ | C 01:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in the Tayside region of Scotland[edit]

Tayside has been defunct for over 9 years. 3 modern local authorities cover the former Tayside Region: Delete and Split into List of places in Perth and Kinross, List of places in Dundee, and List of places in Angus. Mais oui! 07:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without splitting. I would suggest making sure each town listed in the article has the appropriate category noted within [Category:Unitary authorities of Scotland] rather than making three more lists. I added [Category:Towns in Tayside] to all the towns listed for those who wish to recall which were previously in Tayside. Edwardian 08:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or failing that Merge, on the grounds that historical place names are still encyclopaedic.
  • Keep, on the grounds that (as clearly stated in the Tayside article, "Tayside continues to have a joint police service, fire service, and electoral, valuation, and health boards." --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wikipedia is timeless. Kappa 12:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per OpenToppedBus and whoever forgot to sign their keep vote above. - Mgm|(talk) 12:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its interesting historical info. Though it could be merged into Tayside - its not a very long list, and all of the current unitary authority articles have a list of places within them. There's already a list of places in Perth in Kinross within the Perth and Kinross article (and the same within Angus and City of Dundee). Vclaw 17:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Keep and Cleanup. As a number of voters pointed out, this article needs to be trimmed down per WP:NOT I: 2.3 . The list should only include the more notable, varifiable, terms(such as those used in popular culture movies/books). The complete list, which is what this page mostly is now(although some terms may be bogus), can go on Wiktionary. Also, this was AFD'd to soon after the last AFD.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 23:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual slang[edit]

List of sexual slang was nominated for deletion on 2005-10-18. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slang/2005-10-18.

This is an 89KB list of slang terms, making it not merely a violation of Section 1.2.3 of WP:NOT, "Wikipedia articles are not a usage guide or a slang and idiom guide", but one of sickeningly gargantuan proportions. The first three paragraphs, the introduction, is the only segment that begins to approach meeting the definition of an encyclopedia article; the remainder, whether it's useful or not (which is irrelevant), is just a list of terms. A list of terms does not belong on Wikipedia. This is not the first nomination. The Literate Engineer 22:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. It is informative, descriptive by comparisons/groupings, and it is extensive (which indeed has its strong and weak points). Further, there is a competing section of WP:NOT, namely 1.5.2, which allows for "structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles". Since many of the terms on the page indeed have their own articles, it is useful for encyclopedic purposes to group and compare them, and this indeed assists with the organization of articles. Also, just because it is long is not an excuse to delete an article, but rather should be an impetus to break it up into separate articles. There's no denying that neologisms and cruft have crept into this article, but that fact demands that more contributors participate in handling verification of such terms. Last, I have to protest this "nomination bombardment", where a consensus wasn't arrived at the first time, so the argument losers try again. This also happened with Body parts slang, and its deletion resulted in a very informative article being wiped off with a slight majority that could not have been reasonably construed as a consensus. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 22:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per The Literate Engineer. -- Kjkolb 23:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why is no reason given for re-nomination? It was voted on like 2 weeks ago with a quite high ratio of keeps. Anyway like it or not there are lots of lists of jargon/slang/technical terms on Wikipedia, for example List of baseball jargon. As long as they're well organized and useful, I don't see the problem. It's just when the subject is sex or something controversial that people start to look for excuses to delete such lists. Until consensus is to delete all slang/jargon/terms lists changes, I can't see deleting just certain ones for subjective personal reasons, under the thin excuse of arguably breaking WP:NOT. --W.marsh 23:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being useful is a necessary but insufficient criterion for an entry. For starters, it needs to be an actual article, which means prose.The Literate Engineer 23:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep encyclopedic, just because something is in "poor taste" does not mean it should be deleted. -Skrewler 00:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is not poor taste, but that this is a thesaurus, mis-placed in the encyclopaedia in contravention of our clear Wikipedia is not a dictionary official policy. Uncle G 00:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Freakofnurture had exactly the right idea in the last AFD discussion. The article should be trimmed, with the large home-grown and mis-placed thesaurus entries replaced with links to WikiSaurus (which, unlike Wikipedia, is a thesaurus — and a multilingual one, at that), and renamed back to sexual slang, where it used to be. This does not require the article to be deleted, but it does require some resolve, and support (in terms of keeping the thesaurus entries from growing again once excised) from the various editors who have expressed their agreement with this. Uncle G 00:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per previous AfD result. Bryan 00:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. When it says "Wikipedia articles are not a usage guide or a slang and idiom guide", I think it means that we shouldn't devote an entire article to each and every one of these slang terms. And rightly so. I think having them all quarantined on one page will suffice. I also think that after weeding out a lot of the obviously obscure (and bogus) slang terms, the page should be capped and not strive to become a neverending all-inclusive list of every ridiculous dirty phrase ever conceived. - Wikipediatrix 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Previous AFD isn't even a month old and the vote was to keep. That's enough for me right there. 23skidoo 01:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am one of the few editors who ever tries to maintain this list, by removning the most obvious vandalism and nonsense. It is unmaintainable and unverifiable because there are no sources (except "South Park", apparently). Anyone voting to "keep" should be prepared to do participate in the trimming that everyone calls for. (That said, this is an irregelular AfD). -Willmcw 07:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up – Trim greatly per my previous vote and per Uncle G. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per last nomination, if you want to renominate something which yielded a clear "keep", you must have a very good reason for doing so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep — as I understand it, the "slang guide" was intended to address how slang is used, not the slang itself. But yes, I'm not sure what useful encyclopedic purpose this list provides, other than perhaps as a future reference. — RJH 15:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redirect, and then delete — I was the originator of what is now stored as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sexual slang/2005-10-18, where my rationalle was WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary (#3 A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide), WP:V, WP:NOR. I apologize for the length of my comment; however, I feel it is necessary to address the various issues involved in this renomination. My original nomination was timed specifically to coincide with discussion then ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Body parts slang 2; in reference accusations of nomination bombardment, I feel that it is appropriate that similar nominations be made concurrently, both to focus the attention of those having opinions on the issue, and to forestall, in some measure, the inevitable claims that the existance of one policy violation supports the existance of another (i.e., if Body parts slang exists, then List of sexual slang should also exist, and vice versa) as were proffered this time by W.marsh. Given the number of people who would agree with the statement "'List of' considered harmful," real nomination bombardment would be stuffing an AFD day with every "List of" article on the site - and that would be harmful, IMHO. Further, the circular logic of using one policy violation to support another at best puts precedent over policy, an idea I think would seriously degrade Wikipedia over time. After all, there's precedent for vanity pages too, and we AFD them, even though at any given time there are plenty of others continuing to exist. That said, I have to agree in part with Stevie is the man! when he claims that Body Parts may not have had proper consensus; if he feels that strongly about it, I would direct him to Deletion Review. Similarly, I am disappointed that this nomination was made so soon, as this diminishes the odds that it will ever be removed - we can't simply renominate every three weeks until we "win," and apparant out-of-process nominations will garner more Keep votes, as exemplified by 23skidoo. Nevertheless, in the end, this article has numerous problems that speak in favor of, at worst, deletion and, at best, Merge as appropriate (the text of the intro and significant, verified terms to Sexual slang per Uncle G, the remaining verifiable terms to WikiSaurus), and I suppose that is constructively my vote here, even if it means my Disciplined Deletionist credentials are revoked. I wish I could spend more time policing the article; OTOH, I would also like to keep my job, and spending time on that particular page is not likely to help me there. FWIW, I think a move to Sexual slang should, at a minimum, keep the neologisms and protologisms to a comparative minimum. One thing I'm sure of: if we decide again to keep this article, we need many more people looking at it to ensure that it does not suck; to do otherwise will serve only to undermine the credibility of the project as a whole, and of Wikipedia policy in general. Keeping it under the present title creates the appearance of condoning, if not encouraging, the addition of, well, anything that makes a schoolboy snicker. Finally, I would also point out that, aside from the fact that this particular subject field has more than its fair share of attraction to vandals, my nomination and comments have never had anything to do with its contents per se, because Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, nor should it be. --Kgf0 23:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would note that this article has some verifiable content in the begininng, although the list(which violates NOR) drifts off into unencyclopedic nonsense again. The Body Parts Slang article was nothing but a nonesensical list. This really should be categorized into links to Wiktionary, instead of having the list here.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 00:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its a great flytrap for vandals - keeps them away from serious articles. --Ezeu 04:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep due to the fact that recent AfD discussion on this article resulted in a consensus to keep.  Grue  08:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games considered the worst ever[edit]

While interesting to read, the topic is inherently biased, and clearly does not belong on the WikiPedia. DarrenBaker 06:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - for reason above. --DarrenBaker 06:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article simply cannot be made NPOV, unless it is split into two articles - one referring to video games that have received harsh criticism from verifiable sources, say 'List of controversial video games', and another referring to video games that were a commercial failure. You cannot combine the two concepts, it becomes completely subjective. --DarrenBaker
  • Keep. These are games for which there is broad consensus that they were just terrible; I don't think there's much debate about any of them. It's verifiable in the sense that there are plenty of magazine and web articles discussing how just how terrible they are. I am not a fan of pointless listcruft, and I see your point about NPOV, but this is very interesting reading and a good addition to WP. bikeable (talk) 07:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment: this page has been up for deletion at least twice before; last time the vote was 14-5. Just fyi; I'm not saying that that should drive this discussion.) bikeable (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Live From The Haunted Candle Shop[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 11:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Donahue[edit]

Non-notable blogger; autobiography. Sorry Logan, Delete. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete NN Vanity Jasmol 17:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn vanity. You gotta love the "trivia" section - like the article contains anything else! Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non Notable, Vanity in the purest sense.-Dakota t e 19:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


(Delete) Acknowledgement and acceptance of terms, I always say. I, the author, recognize why this article is being deleted, and do not contest it. Delete it. -- Logan (Oh, additionally, believe you me, I'm not vain. I added the "American legend" line to represent my ambitious nature.)


Thanks for pointing that out JiFish. I found this particular excerpt rather interesting, however:

"An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional."

While I don't intend to be snide about this, I don't believe anything written was promotional. You proposed 'autobiography' as a reason for deletion, as well as 'non-notable', both of which appear to be insignificant points for deletion. After further investigation, however, I learned that autobiographies are frowned upon and typically result in a mark for deletion, but does not necessarily mean they will. I'm sure you're all well aware of these policies and guidelines, this edition is more of a Wikipedia policy exploration for me. All said and done, the way I see it, my autobiography would be fine assuming it included more than a short, incoherent biography and a few quotes (and useless trivia as has already been brought up). Deletion is still the most plausible course of action, but technically, a rewrite and revision would be suitable, as well, I think. Regardless, seeing as though it's been contested as much as it has already, I'll wait until I'm worth writing about. Gee, sorry, that was a lot longer response than I imagined. -- Logan (PS: I had my own Wiki set-up at one point, and was aware of many automatic codes, but now I'm rather inept; anyone care to point me to a page detailing special codes, like date?)

Try ~~~, which generates your signature alone (Metropolitan90); ~~~~, which generates your signature and the date/time (Metropolitan90 05:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)); or ~~~~~, which generates the date/time alone (05:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)).[reply]
    • Logan, I don't care if this is an autobiography or not. Writing a blog and playing computer games doesn't make you noteworthy. Take a look at WP:BIO.--JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the author/subject is involved in this discussion, I will advise Logan to userfy the content (put the more worthwhile information on his user page). The current article does not appear to contain a claim to notability; writing a blog "detailing insignificant events and general rants" which appears to have only existed for a week so far does not constitute such a claim. Therefore, the content should be deleted from the main namespace. --Metropolitan90 05:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-bio ERcheck 06:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity bio. *drew 01:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (1 keep, 3 delete, 3 merge). Note that this doesn't preclude anybody from being bold and doing a merge and redirect themselves. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luxord[edit]

character in a video game that hasn't been released yet. crystal ballcruft, speculation. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No deletion. The article doesn't appear to be speculating, for the most part it's just listing sources where what little information is known about the character has appeared and describing it. Bryan 04:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mentions several sources, but doesn't cite them. Even if everything in the article were true, this is a minor character in an unreleased video game. Not encyclopedic. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge any salvageable content with the Kingdom Hearts II article. --DavidConrad 05:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect verifiable info to XIII Order (which lists all members of his organization) until such time it contains enough info for a separate article. - Mgm|(talk) 12:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The future is unwritten, and articles on the future should have the same state. Geogre 13:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge with Kingdom Hearts II. That article has enough problems. Simply redirect to XIII Order. There's no information that can't be found there. --Apostrophe 19:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macco's Sledgehammer[edit]

Delete - Neologism. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 23:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well I was just trying to AfD this :) so delete. Rd232 talk 23:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Dalbury (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism invented on Nov 9 (according to the site linked to from the wiki page). If it catched on in a few years then it'll be worthy of a page, but for now, no. --Bachrach44 03:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 15:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Madison email gang[edit]

I don't know what this is but it 't belong here. Interactii 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Speedy for no context, perhaps? Hitchhiker89 19:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nudge nudge wink wink! Inside joke. Jasmol 19:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Nonsense.. ERcheck 06:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 speedied as a copyvio. Ingoolemo talk 05:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hallahan[edit]

NN, D. ComCat 05:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is substantially a copyvio of the biography on his webpage [20]. Delete. I will take this through the copyvio process. Capitalistroadster 05:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft .Net Sockets[edit]

WP:ISNOT an instruction manual, especially a POV one. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. not that an article on this topic couldn't exist, but this one has little or nothing worth keeping, even the intro is technical and manualish.Dsol 02:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Syrthiss 13:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Howard and Dsol. A real article on this topic should only tell what makes these sockets different from sockets in general and then point to relevant stuff on the web or on paper. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 02:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey guys, give me a break. There are entries on berkeley sockets and Windows sockets that give most of the API away, or have stubs for API to be added. The windows sockets article is largely obsolete as it is being replaced by the topic of this article. This article even directs people to the other sockets SDK API and MFC. I don't have a problem with folks jumping all over this thing and re-writing it, but I don't see how deleting it outright is going to improve things. If this thing were the size of a textbook, I'd understand, but it's no bigger than the other sockets articles. Please rewrite or improve it, don't delete it.User:wiarthurhu 14 Nov 2005, I'm the original author and I'm teaching a class in .NET sockets.
  • Delete per nom. *drew 22:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, non-notable person. Thue | talk 22:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin ellahi[edit]

Nonsense page Budgiekiller 18:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A6 -- have tagged as such. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Tintin 22:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism in Russia[edit]

  • Strong delete. There is as much Nazism in the country that destroyed Hitler as there is anti-Semitism in Israel. Another option is redirect to Fascism in Russia, which should be listed for deletion in its turn. --Ghirlandajo 09:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the grounds that the name incorrectly, implies that the original Nazism involved Russia, and on the grounds of redundancy. A1kmm 09:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am personally for Merge to Fascism in Russia, although the name is indeed ambigous, it is not clear from the name is it refer to Nazi occupation of Russia durin world war II or to the National-Socialist movements in modern Russia. It happens to be the second abakharev 09:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not much of the salvagable content IMHO, but the redirect might be useful abakharev 23:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge With Fascism in Russia, an interesting subject about Russian political climate.--Molobo 11:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Robert T | @ | C 01:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oblique shock[edit]

THis article does not make any sense.

  • Yep, with the program now. However: Shock wave appears already to cover this area, and the term used elsewhere is "oblique shock wave". Plus this is a partial; duplicate of Oblique shocks (in the same - er - style). Shock wave is not big enough to need this to be split out, IMO. Maybe it's delete this, merge and redirect Oblique shocks? What say you? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 18:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oblique shocks doesn't follow the naming conventions. It needs to be Oblique shock (singular). - Mgm|(talk) 10:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC
  • Keep or Redirect I just removed everything that didn't make sense (all of it) and replaced it with a functional stub. However material here is a copy from shock wave which I've just done a major rewrite of. Thus redirect is probably most appropriate.AKAF 14:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 deleted as recreation of previously deleted material. - Mgm|(talk) 12:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OGZA[edit]

Vanity cruft. Should be a CSD but tragically isn't. Delete. — Phil Welch 05:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I first suggested to Delete. Somebody put a lot of work into it, but Wikipedia is not the appropriate home for it. It is an orphan page with no wiki links in or out and appears to be of no significance. Hu 05:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "failed" is confusing me. The original AfD seems to have succeeded because there was a unanimous vote to delete. Then it was supposedly deleted according to the page. Now it has reappeared. The vote was late October. But the article history shows the new one with title in all caps was created in September. Kill this zombie sucker and make it stay dead. Hu 05:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I see it as failing the vote if everyone votes to delete... I guess it's semantics. I'm not really sure what it means that this was voted to be deleted under a very similar name... if nothing else it sets a good precedent to vote Delete (again). --W.marsh 06:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I would argue that the content of the article, not simply the title, has already failed an AfD... thus it is a CSD. Edwardian 08:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOT
  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material. (I was the one who deleted it.) — JIP | Talk 10:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Olliver Kirby[edit]

Looks to be a poorly written hoax. Please verify.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OUR Records[edit]

vanity page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.154.113 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. NN record label that has yet to do anything except exist in the creator's imagination. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 15:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 23:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (11 keep, 11 delete, 4 merge). Robert T | @ | C 01:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overstone Combined School[edit]

UE, D. ComCat 05:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Please come and comment in ongoing discussion at WP:SCH. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Vsion 05:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me say this and make myself very clear: 1) Articles for Deletion is not some little separate fiefdom of Wikipedia. Using shorthand that others may not be able to interpret ("AfD-speak", etc.) is not acceptable. If you are going to take the time to comment here, use real words and phrases that everyone can understand. 2) Wikipedia is not a government or bureaucracy. Bloc voting and the misuse of prior discussions as reasons to keep all articles of a particular type is invalid and fails to deal with the peculiarities of individual situations that each article may have. Recommendations to delete something based solely on legalistic "precedent" is nonsensical and may be ignored by those who eventually close particular AfD discussions. Thanks Bumm13 06:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Please note that this user has a history of disruptive nominations, please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ComCat for details. Silensor 06:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's an elementary school. Durova 06:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Wing, Buckinghamshire, this is a tiny stub. Note that writing "UE, D" to nominate things is not at all better than "NN, D". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme Inclusionist Bloc Cabal Lesbian Bicycle "Inherent Notability" KEEP on this clearly notable foundation school serving a rural community in Buckinghamshire.--Nicodemus75 08:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Wing, Buckinghamshire. Edwardian 08:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Wing, Buckinghamshire. I can't see anything that warrants a separate entry. - Mgm|(talk) 12:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, preferably separately to allow for organic growth, maintain membership of Category:Primary Schools in Buckinghamshire, and keep the external links off the page for Wing. Kappa 12:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article doesn't have to be on a separate page to allow for organic growth as long as it's properly redirected after being merged so people can find it. - Mgm|(talk) 10:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all schools. Please note that this user has a history of disruptive nominations, please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ComCat for details. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there's something about this school that makes it worthy of an article, it hasn't been mentioned in the article yet. - Andre Engels 14:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Few schools matter/For our Wikipedia/They're not notable. There. Now that I've expressed my belief in haiku, who could disagree with me? Lord Bob 16:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per schools debate, comcat please respond to RFC.--Pypex 17:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete primary schools have no inherent notability.--Isotope23 17:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. Dottore So 17:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all non-famous schools below the high-school level. — Haeleth Talk 18:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Pre-16 age range too young to make it notable without some other qualifying factor, IMO. This has none. — RJH 18:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this school is important and verifiable also Yuckfoo 18:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Redirect, and Merge with Wing, Buckinghamshire. Per developing consensus at WP:SCH.Gateman1997 19:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete NN anklebiter school Pete.Hurd 19:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Sorry, but, neither article nor subsequent discussion demonstrates notability. --William Pietri 20:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm withdrawing my votes on schools until I understand the issue better. --William Pietri 05:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep...E. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Incomprehensible nomination by a problem user. Even primary schools are more notable than many other items which are kept with less controversy. CalJW 23:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please contribute to ongoing discussion at WP:SCH and help end this fractitious debate. Denni☯ 03:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Voting merge is the same as voting Keep on a school. Vegaswikian 06:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no harm in allowing these sort of articles, especially after considering the amount of fictitious minutiae that is documented elsewhere on Wikipedia. Yamaguchi先生 07:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is harm in allowing very short school articles. It ensures constant bickering about how much of them to include. Anyway, that's not a proper inclusion guideline. One should consider if it improves Wikipedia rather than not harming it. - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what Jimbo says: [22].--Nicodemus75 16:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Point? Jimbo was also a porn producer? So his opinion is relative if you ask me.Gateman1997 22:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Great, now you're insulting the founder of Wikipedia. Silensor 22:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • What's the insult? He did produce porn. This isn't an insult, it's FACT. And his opinion is relative, just like any other user.Gateman1997 22:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • What does this mean, how does being a porn producer change the relationship of his opinion? Yamaguchi先生 02:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm just saying he's a porn producer. Take it as you will. Gateman1997 19:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable school. Klonimus 08:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Setting aside for a moment whether a school needs to be particularly notable to be encyclopedic, do you feel that this is a particularly notable school, or that all schools are encyclopedic subjects? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it your intention to run around every editor who votes on a school nomination with the qualifier "this school is notable" and repeat the same question? Why aren't nominations that say "non-notable schools" or "NN, D." or "utterly devoid of content" challenged by you with the same frequency and veracity? Why do you blindly accept when a nominator claims "non-notable school" but when someone votes "keep" because he thinks the school is notable, there is suddenly a need to hall-monitor him?--Nicodemus75 09:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No harassment involved, and I wasn't planning on dragging him into a justification of his stance. I was just curious if he was saying that this was a notable school, or that all schools are encyclopedic. That's why I said that I was setting aside the issue of whether schools need to be notable to be encyclopedic. The only reason I singled out Klonimus is because I remember seeing his name multiple times, but couldn't remember how he felt. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the fight [personal attack removed]. The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of an article. Kurt Weber 23:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge verifiable --redstucco 09:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (8 keep, 5 delete). Robert T | @ | C 01:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Babbitt[edit]

Unsuccessful candidate in a single election. Minor political figure, fails WP:BIO - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. In addition to being a major party candidate in a congressional election, he was mayor of Flagstaff, Arizona, a city of more than 50,000 people. That seems notable enough to me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Which section of WP:BIO supports inclusion of unsuccessful candidates in a single election to a national office, or mayors? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BIO says "This list is not all-inclusive". :-) Seriously, by my standards a city of 50000 is quite large, and when this is coupled with him being a main party candidate in an election, I believe that the article may be of interest to those who want to read about American politics. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeeeees, but he was an unsuccessful main party in a single election - there are a hell of a lot of those! There is another model which would work well, and that's to cover the election itself (all the candidates and issues) as has been done for other races. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think we'll come to an agreement here, and I realize that the issue of the notability of such people can be disputed. I stand by my keep vote based on holding the top political position in a city of 50,000 and running for congress, and I will await the input from others. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, more notable than Tom Nipp. Kappa 12:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The mere fact of the existence of articles on other politicians who fail WP:BIO is not good grounds for keeping all such articles (that's the two wrongs fallacy). It's actually rather better grounds for deleting the others. Or perhaps merging them into an article on the town, in a section on the particular office. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bogus argument. Being more notable than a non-notable person does not, in itself, make someone notable. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 12:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wake me when he wins a major election. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 12:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mayors of Flagstaff are inherently notable.--Nicodemus75 13:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all mayors. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep large-city mayors. BD2412 T 20:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree whole-heartedly with this sentiment. However, Flagstaff is not a large city. There are several suburbs of Fort Worth and Dallas which each have a larger population than Flagstaff, Arizona. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 22:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until he wins a notable office. -- Kjkolb 22:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreeing with above. Dottore So 00:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure if Sjakkalle knows how many counties there are in the US alone with 50K people, and running for office and failing is not a claim to encyclopedic notability. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am quite aware that the US has in the order of about 1000 cities with a population of 50000, but Flagstaff is not merely a suburb, is the main population centre of the area. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Flagstaff is the major city of Northern Arizona, and Babbitt was a major-party candidate for Congress. Information on Babbitt is certainly of far more use to the public than info on Joe Quimby, whose town doesn't even really exist. -- Mwalcoff 04:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mayors of cities of 50,000 inhabitants or more. Suburbs are part of VERY large cities, which doesn't invalidate the fact that Flagstaff is a pretty large place itself. - Mgm|(talk) 10:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd like to point out that congressional candidates now meet WP:BIO. Two weeks ago, I suggested on the talk page that congressional and legislative candidates should be considered automatically notable. The only objection was that it should be limited to credible candidates. I went ahead and made the change before reading AfD Thursday. Anyway, it seems to that BIO lists people who should gain automatic recognition but does not claim that anyone not on the list should be deleted. -- Mwalcoff 22:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the UK we have an election every 3-5 years; at each election 600-odd seats are contested, every one meeting the old WP:BIO - now, there will be at least three candidates per constituency meeting WP:BIO, and often more (in Wales you might get Labour, Conservative, Lib-Dem, Plaid Cymru, maybe UKIP and sometimes a credible independent as well). And while the winner tends to stay for several terms, the defeated candidates usually disappear back to the day job and are never heard of again. This is going to result in an avalanche of gushing articles about people who, but for losing one election, would never be considered for a Wikipedia article - do they get dleeted afterwards because they are no longer running for office? Who's going to do that maintenance? In the mean time we have people on AfD who aren't even on the ticket yet. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 23:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion should take place on the talk page for BIO, not here. But I'd point out that even if every major-party 2006 U.S. and Candian legislative candidate gets an article, and we throw in every major-party candidate from the 2005 UK election, they would still make up only a tiny percetage of the 1 million plus articles Wikipedia will have by next year. Articles on losing candidates who don't go on to do anything special can just sit there until the candidate dies.
It's also worth noting that it's rare that you would get a complete non-notable person as a credible, major-party congressional candidate. Usually, congressional candidates have served as state legislators, mayors, county officials, etc. -- Mwalcoff 23:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But it would be hundreds (eventually thousands) of unexpandable, likely unmaintained stubs, most of which will be ignored after the election by both readers and editors. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would very much disagree that articles on losing congressional candidates would be unexpandable stubs. You can see how much was written on Paul Hackett, whose only prior political experience was as a village councilman. Imagine what we could write on Ann Womer Benjamin, a former Ohio House speaker who lost a congressional race in 2002. (Her article is just a stub now, but it doesn't even mention her pre-2002 career.) -- Mwalcoff 02:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And for every individual like that, you'll have literally dozens of other articles that will never be expanded beyond "This person was a nominee in such-and-such election, and didn't win. They're now selling insurance in Poughkeepsie." If the person is notable, the article will be created on its own and will survive an AfD. The notion that we must create an article on every person who might, someday, be notable under the proper confluence of circumstance is not a notion that will lead to a quality Wikipedia. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 02:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that there's not enough to be written on most congressional candidates, or that people won't bother? As I pointed out with Paul Hackett, detailed articles can be written even about "outsider" candidates with little political experience. I would guess that with so many Wikipedia editors interested in politics, we can expect to see full articles on many if not most major-party congressional candidates next year. But for AfD, the key is not whether people want to expand stubs but rather whether there is enough verifyable info out there to do so. With campaign websites, campaign-finance databases, newspaper stories, League of Women Voters guides, etc., there is more than enough available for any major-party candidate. -- Mwalcoff 05:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. I don't see any reason not to keep it. And the argument that, because a policy might ALLOW (not DEMAND) the creation, and keeping, of an article for any credible candidate in the offices mentioned above, there would be a huge load of articles is no reason to get rid of an article on a mayor of an important city and who additionally has run for Congress. Yes, the article is tiny at the moment; but who's to say it won't become bigger and have fascinating information and loads of cross-references to all kinds of other interesting Wiki stuff? One could already be writing an article on the Babbitt political family—for apparently this guy's brother was not only governor but also Secretary of the Interior. I don't know whether that's Arizona's interior or at the federal level; but, either way, this could be the start of Wiki pieces well worth keeping. President Lethe 21:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only participate in a single election. *drew 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Keep (17/3 approx) Shreshth91 12:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hackett[edit]

Minor politician, failed election in one congressional district, campaigning to be nominated for another election. Not elected to any major office per WP:BIO and the encyclopaedic content of the article is covered at Ohio Second Congressional District Election, 2005 in a much more balanced and comprehensive fashion. This reads like a fan page. There seems to be scope for an article on former members of the military running for political office, as an interesting facet of the current Gulf War debate in the US, but that's about it. This article is nearly twice the length of the one on Isaac Newton even though the guy's political career has essentially not progressed beyond a city council. And the list of references makes it look like original research. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are 435 congressional districts within the United States. These seats come up for re-election every two years. Having a seperate article for every candidate who runs in each of these 435 districts every two years will provide us with a raft of articles of people who are notable solely for their failure to win a Congressional election. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 13:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Durova below. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 11:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking at Google gives a whopping 313,000 hits. It appears that Hackett and the election has received major national press attention. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable. Possible senate candidate. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not possible Senate candidate, he is a candidate. He already announced. PedanticallySpeaking 17:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very well-known person. He's not typical of the losers in 435 districts, because he had an impact even in losing (receiving much public attention for making a close race in a strongly Republican district). He was featured on a recent CNN show about public attitudes toward the war. The article is less than half again as long as Isaac Newton, but even Britney Spears is longer than Isaac Newton, reflecting Wikipedia's bias toward the recent. JamesMLane 15:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was counting the reference lists. So we need two articles on this single election, do we, one vainglorious one loaded with POV and one comprehensive one? I'd say it's time for a "gulf war vets running for office" article and merge them all. Massive media coverage today does not equate to lasting notability. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 18:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, running and losing isn't a very strong case for notability... I'd be willing to support a keep if he actually runs for Senate, but right now that is in the future, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No real opinion on keep/delete right now, but article badly needs editing.--Isotope23 17:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although losing a congressional race normally isn't notable, achieving front page coverage on The New York Times, The Washington Post, and USA Today makes this an exception. The article itself is up to Wikipedia standards. Durova 20:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - first Gulf War II combat vet to run for office in the U.S. federal gov't. Ergo, notable. BD2412 T 20:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, failed or potential political candidates are rarely notable. Serious U.S. presidential candidates usually are, but not many others. -- Kjkolb 20:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I agree that failed candidates are rarely notable, 300,000 Google hits show that this guy is the exception that proves the rule. 373 Google News hits show that the interest is current and continuing with national and international media represented see [23]. Capitalistroadster 22:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. the above point about the candidate's media presence is interesting, but he is still a losing candidate. Dottore So 00:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Hall Monitor 00:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is insane. Hackett's performance in the special election has been one of the biggest political stories of the year in the U.S., or at least in Ohio. Lawmakers are more important than the zillions of musicians, actors and athletes we have on WP, and therefore, major-party candidates for important legislative positions are notable as well. Should we delete Martin Scorsese because he's never won an Oscar? -- Mwalcoff 04:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to national prominence. And because it's just a good article. NatusRoma 04:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Major political figure. This VfD nomination clearly has no merit. —Seselwa 06:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Paul Hackett is going to be a major man that will change the course of the U.S. November 11, 2005
  • Strong keep Paul Hackett is now running for the Senate and this page will serve as a strong source of information for those who live in Ohio, both for and against his candidacy.
  • Strong keep Paul Hackett is not your typical failed political candidate. Paul Hackett made history as the first Iraq War veteran to run for Congress. His near defeat, in a district extremely inhospitable to his own party, proves his crossover appeal and signals his importance in Ohio and national politics. Currently Hackett leads incumbent Senator Mike DeWine in two consecutive polls for the 2006 US Senate race; a race Hackett has recently declared his candidacy for. Paul Hackett is rising star in the Democratic party and the mere consideration of deletion of this article is ridiculous.
  • Strong keep He is very notable for his upcoming Senate run, as well as the coverage of his unexpectedly narrow defeat. --Benna 07:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I suspect the nomination was politically motivated. Laszlo Panaflex 07:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment ∾ The original nominator was born and raised in the UK, and continues to live there. I remain confident that his motivation for nominating this article for deletion has nothing to do with a desire to affect the outcome of an election which will never materially affect the quality of his life. Honestly, folks, can we do away with the conspiratorial speculation and the incredulous hyperbole, and stop taking it personally when a page you think doesn't deserve deletion is nominated for AfD? The default status for any page is "Keep". If there is consensus that the article should be deleted, then that's the community consensus. If there isn't a consensus, or, as in this case, the consensus is "keep," then the worst that happens to the article is that it spends 5 days or so with an AfD banner at the top of it. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 11:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the author of the page, I of course vote Keep. PedanticallySpeaking 17:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I didn't realize the Wikipedia servers were running out of room. Think of the poor Wikipedia salesman, going door to door selling encyclopedias, having to lug around all that extra data. Seriously, folks, there are freakin' book-length articles summarizing plot lines from Star Trek on here. If you are ready to delete those (and countless other fluff), then we can talk about deleting Paul Hackett's entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidNYC (talk • contribs) 21:49, November 14, 2005
    • Bogus argument. The existence of articles which may warrant deletion does not justify the existence of other articles which may warrant deletion. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah}10:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PAXANE[edit]

  • Band vanity, no relevant Google hits. - Lucky 6.9 20:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. PJM 20:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bandity. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 22:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity --Rogerd 15:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pbit sort[edit]

This article appears to be original research. Google can't find any references except the same paper linked in this article. Doradus 23:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I can't even find a definition of "pbit" that fits the context. - Dalbury (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. The paper doesn't look like something that has gotten through peer review, it looks more like the first version which you go over once more before submitting it for consideration. My first hunch is that someone has rediscovered radix sort, but I haven't checked the algorithm well enough to be sure that I'm not 100% off the mark. - Andre Engels 08:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 12:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It seems to be supported by a small amount of academic research, but it is not a widely known term. It was added by an anonymous editor, so that may be the author of the paper, making it OR, but we don't know. --Rogerd 15:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 02:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pimlico Special Music Course[edit]

Not notable, insufficent context to distingish it from music programs in general educaiton. Interactii 20:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 22:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Pimlico School article, though needs rewrite as it sounds like an ad. -- Perfecto Canada 05:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Rogerd 15:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  08:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Planetenergy[edit]

plus Image:S mech11.png

Blatant advertising for a new clean efficient alternative energy source. The article and the website to which it links are both very coy about what the source is - smacks of perpetual motion machines to me. -- RHaworth 11:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete speculation, advertising, fails WP:CORP and as per above apparently fails the laws of thermodynamics. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, any article that states the concept/device violates the laws of thermodynamics probably should only be included if it is extremely notable for some reason. -- Kjkolb 21:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without regard to the above. Article is utter nonsense. It contains multiple mispellings and failures of grammar combined with awkward phrasing apparently designed to conceal that it's not actually saying anything. I'd almost nominate it for BJAODN:
  • "Thermodynamics do not apply to us."
  • "Our technology does not rely on any inputs."
The article is just pure nonsense about a company that hasn't done anything yet. WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Stephen Deken 22:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. What could possibly be in accordance with known laws of physics where the first and second laws of thermodynamics do not apply? Durova 22:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, the "first and second thermodynamic law do not apply to this study." They must be really on to something new and important! I suppose it keeps them so busy that they don't have time to spell "physics" correctly, either. Of course, if it were a famous hoax it might be worthy of an article, but since it's not, strong delete. Bikeable 22:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete may be eligible for speedy deletion given the following message that was posted to the help e-mail list. We would like to delete the article Planetenergy, what we placed by October 10, 2005.We appreciated the opportunity to place articles, but we dislike the incompetent comments of users. How do we proceed?

Administration Planetenergy. It may be possible to speedy delete this under category G7. Capitalistroadster 23:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above comments Melchoir 23:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per request on helpdesk-l Alphax τεχ 04:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Durova. Xoloz 16:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've moved the large block of discussion to, appropriately enough, the talk page.  RasputinAXP  T C 20:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 merge with PlanetSide. - Mailer Diablo 14:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merger has been succesful, time for deletion Eirek 00:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After merging, there has to be a redirect to preserve the history. I've done that. -- Kjkolb 03:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PlanetSide Tanks[edit]

I've been playing this game since closed beta testing and I still love it. Even I don't think that this article needs to exist. The trivia of speed, armor values, and weapon type are better served by the PlanetSide wiki anyway. Whatever is left can be merged into the PlanetSide article. You can call me Al 13:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with PlanetSide, per nom. -Andrew 16:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge. Bit concerned that someon's included all that information and it's worht keeping it. The Land 18:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, do not merge with PlanetSide, please, think of the users. Kappa 19:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge clearly. Dottore So 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Keep (5/1). Shreshth91 14:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Dhillon[edit]

The person is real, but the article is junk. Interactii 20:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete A6 (attack page). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep after revisions. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've just removed the attack paragraphs, leaving a perfectly fine stub behind. When an article about someone who deserves an article is junk one should fix it rather than deleting it. Bryan 00:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable Bollywood actress of late 70's and early 80's. --Gurubrahma 07:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gurubrahma. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and delete the older edits from history. Tintin 03:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-dating[edit]

Delete Pure original research (if even that and not just some random slang definition) without much reference on the web. [24] [25] PhilipO 22:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete original rambling CDC (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Try this search [26] There was a sourcing question a couple months ago and I satisfied their objections. It's not wikipedia:original research because it compiles external primary sources rather than making wikipedia a primary source. I questioned the schroedinger thing this afternoon. I will take that out and I think the rest of it will stand on the sources provided. MPS 23:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ~700 hits on Google makes this barely notable. I honestly think this is the kind of fluff that gives Wikipedia a bad name - Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Pseudo-dating is simply a word that is self explanatory - like any word pseudo-<insert word here>. Cheers --PhilipO 00:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that wikipedia is not a slang dictionary then I suggest you AfD Cisgender as well. MPS 22:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dictionary material, if that. No depth or greater relevance to make it encyclopedic. Durova 02:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; unencyclopedic neologism, not high-profile enough to merit inclusion here. Try urbandictionary, maybe. —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 15:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Keep --JAranda | watz sup 05:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PublishAmerica[edit]

nn vanity press. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, almost without a doubt the most notorious and controversial of all vanity presses or-traditional-publishers-which-are-nevertheless-accused-of-being-vanity-presses. Gets 597,000 Google hits; if this is a not-notable vanity press, then it should be possible to show the other vanity presses getting many, many more hits than that. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's mentioned in the article on Vanity presses, albeit briefly, and the Atlanta Nights article. More importantly in terms of nobility, it's been mentioned in the mainstream media, for example [27], and gets 39 other recent results on Google news [28]. --W.marsh 04:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. There's no indication of why the nominator thinks this vanity press is non-notable. Furthermore, it pretty clearly isn't non-notable; check out Atlanta Nights, which is clearly linked from this article. Bryan 04:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable publisher with number of articles in the mainstream media including this Washington Post article see [29]. Meets WP:CORP. Capitalistroadster 04:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The press itself is notable. Almost everything it publishes is not. --Tabor 05:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the subject might be noteworthy, this article is the mother of all edit wars. From the Washington Post article cited above: Feeling betrayed, a number of disillusioned PublishAmerica authors have taken to the phones, the mail and the Internet. They've filled hundreds of Web pages on writers' sites with their bitter sagas; they've complained to the Better Business Bureau of Maryland, the Federal Trade Commission and other law enforcement agencies. There appears to be no possibility of NPOV on this subject. It flip-flops between anti-PublishAmerica gripes by disillusioned authors and pro-PublishAmerica press statements. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Durova 05:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we should delete George W. Bush and a few hundred other articles by that logic? I'm sorry... that an article is controversial is not a reason to delete it, in my opinion. --W.marsh 05:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • False analogy: yours is a press war between two opposing camps who each erase the other's entire content as rapidly as possible. There's almost no dialogue on the discussion page except a little gloating from authors who think they've won a skirmish. And you, Mr. Marsh, performed many of those reverts. I wish I could defend the article. If the firm is as terrible as you apparently think then an intelligent reader could deduce the truth from a balanced presentation, as readers do with a few hundred other articles. Durova 06:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • What? I'm not sure what you mean. I've never editted PublishAmerica. I have editted GWB once or twice, but just reverting the obvious vandalism that occurs there. Where did I say the firm (PublishAmerica) was terrible? I said it should have an article here and that's about all I've said. I haven't stated an opinion about what I think of their business practices (I really don't have an opinion on that anyway). I think you're confused... --W.marsh 06:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nine of the last 50 edits are yours and you tagged seven of them yourself as reverts. Durova 07:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • To what article? I don't have a single edit in the last 50 of either article. GWB: [30], PublishAmerica: [31] --W.marsh 07:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, I can't see any mention of W. Marsh in the edit history of these articles, either. Durova, what is your point? AndyJones 18:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "mother of all edit wars"? Either you're deliberately exaggerating or you've got very little sense of proportion. You also seem a bit confused: you yourself address the fact that the article could have a "balanced presentation" on the subject, yet instead of actually, I don't know, doing something towards that balanced presentation, you're arguing to delete the article based, apparently, on an unspoken and unsupported claim that the article could never contain a balanced presentation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Antaeus Feldspar. NPOV concerns are a valid reason to discuss and edit the article, not to delete it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apology: I misread the name of a respondent. Please accept my retraction. My deletion vote stands. The editors of this article make no attempt to achieve any NPOV consensus. External research suggests they may be involved in a legal dispute. The article is a waste of Wikipedia resources. Durova 21:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you actually mean is "I can envision a possible scenario in which the Wikipedia editors who keep reverting the edits by representatives of PublishAmerica which violate NPOV and of course Wikipedia:Autobiography might happen to be in some cases some of the same people who are bringing lawsuits against PublishAmerica. I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is any such connection but the existence of some vested interest which is it possible to imagine some Wikipedia editor having is enough to "suggest" to my biased mind that this is the true motivation of the editors that I oppose -- or at least mud I can smear them with. In any case, the fact that there is some form of dispute makes this automatically "the mother of all edit wars" (much bigger than all those Middle East articles) and of course, this means we should delete it because mumblemumblemumblemumblemumble." So what's your dog in the fight, Durova? Up above you said that an intelligent reader should be able to tell the truth from a balanced presentation, and then you proceeded to present wild hyperbole and malicious baseless accusations in support of your delete vote. What's your vested interest that isn't served by a balanced presentation that gets at the truth? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Most notable and controversial of vanity presses which received masses of press attention and discussion in writing circles. - Mgm|(talk) 12:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Extremely notable and vanity press, and since when is the existence of an edit war a reason to delete an entire article? Penelope D 21:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable (unfortuantly for bad reasons though). --Apyule 09:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This article is dreadful in both its versions. (Compare [32] with [33]). I have reverted to the "anti-" version, on the basis that at least it has a dispute notice on it, and that we cannot allow a corporation to control the content of its own article. There is no real case for deletion, though. AndyJones 13:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - rather notorious in writing circles, should be notable enough. NPOVing is not so hard as long as both arguments are included (there are various other pages where both critics and the company itself has a say) - Skysmith 13:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whilst virtually every book produced by PublishAmerica is "nn vanity" (though we do have an article on Atlanta Nights...), sadly the press itself is not. Shimgray | talk | 18:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raglan rodeo[edit]

Unverifiable: doesn't google [34], and no sources given. See also WP:MUSIC. Kappa 12:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete another non-notable band Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Dear WikiSanta, I want an nn-band tag for Christmas. PJM 13:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Syrthiss 13:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tagged these guys for speedy a long time ago before I realized A7 didn't apply to bands. Would have put it on AFD at the time had I remembered about it. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. *drew 01:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reise, Reise (song)[edit]

  • Delete. There is not enough that can be said about this particular song for it deserve an article.
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 11:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found a whole series of articles for individual songs by Rammstein on another album, and spent about half an hour merging and redirecting them into the album article (since none of them were in themselves asserted to be notable). The result was (IMO) a single, decent-sized article on the album and the removal of a series of articles with inconsistent formatting and substantial duplication of text. I suggest the same approach here, unless any of the songs is asserted to be independently notable. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Nice work, JZG,YK. The 'listing individual songs" thing is getting out of hand. Jasmol 15:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, managed to attach my earlier, (deleted) comment to the wrong AFD. doh! AKAF 15:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Merge complete. It took some considerable time; as fans will, they have gone into incredible detail about singles which reached a giddy 38 in the charts :-( I left comments re WP:NMG, but I doubt it will do much good. There is no real way to stop the creation of fancruft, since fans are by their very nature deeply convinced of the historical significance of their idols and their every work. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just a random song from album.  Grue  22:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not merit its own article. *drew 01:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retard-o-bot[edit]

Band fails WP:MUSIC test (popularity appears to be locally limited Jasmol 15:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 redirect to Alexandra Christina, Princess of Denmark, Countess of Frederiksborg. Robert T | @ | C 01:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Nigel Manley[edit]

Other than his daughter being married into royality nothing else said. Delete for not establishing notability SYSS Mouse 02:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape slang and terminology[edit]

OK, so it's been a long time since I spent time on VfD (ok.. AfD now), but please tell me that we haven't started considering this kind of fansite material encyclopedic. Isomorphic 04:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Better suited to a fan site. Some of these terms aren't specific to the game: botting, melee, and noob are common in online role-playing games. Still there's not enough substance here to merge into a broader MMORPG article. Durova
  • Delete fancruft post haste. --DavidConrad 05:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not GameFAQs nor Everything2. Does not appear in multiple contexts, so no need of explanation to a wider world. Geogre 13:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The things in this article which are useful to the RuneScape fans (villages, towns and so on) lie already in other articles. The rest are just conventions used by people playing it, and not really useful to anyone, fans or non-fans. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-fancruft. - Pureblade | ☼ 21:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE. Although it's not really helpful to anyone but new players, it's still helpful. Kariia 04:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created the slang page to get it off of the main runescape page, i didnt like the article in the first place but i didnt wanted to make anyone mad.--Super Quinn 14:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really needed,the voting is a pretty unamous decision. J.J.Sagnella 19:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems unnecessary ... -- Greaser 08:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft. *drew 00:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RUSCREWED[edit]

See also RUScrewed - RUXAN (AfD discussion).

Utterly unverifiable, as described in excruciating detail in the article. Also probably not notable or encyclopedic, and possibly a hoax to boot? CDC (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable, and everything else that CDC said. Joyous (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No explanation for notability, just a local inside joke. Jasmol 00:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom abakharev 02:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 15:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy - 'nuff said. --Ixfd64 23:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Lake[edit]

Vanity bio of University of Miami grad student. No notable publications listed. Scholarship claims can't be verified therefore delete. JJay 18:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --JJay 18:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete db-bio. Jasmol 19:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, no reasonable claim of notability. There's been a slew of non-notable biographies on AfD recently. -- Kjkolb 00:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Got slammed on my talk page for putting a speedy on it, thus now on AfD. --JJay 01:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: sorry, it wasn't meant to be a knock on you. Anyway, the person who made the comment on your talk page was anonymous, didn't sign his IP address and has very few contributions. Based upon his strong reaction to the speedy tag, I think he's the subject of the article or a friend. I still think the article doesn't make a reasonable claim of notability. Being a philosopher, college student and a teaching assistant aren't enough. -- Kjkolb 02:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More in the endless stream of vanity. -R. fiend 06:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 merge and redirect. —Cleared as filed. 05:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Al[edit]

Character who appears in Calvin and Hobbes exactly once, and is just Calvin in a safari hat. Irrelevant and cannot be expanded. Anville 10:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Sjakkalle. Robert T | @ | C 01:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Greenaway[edit]

nonsense BeteNoir 09:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SAM's Place[edit]

These people seem to be particular non-notable, but please prove me wrong. Note that Wikipedia's Carl Anderson, known from "Jesus Christ Superstar", cannot reside there, as he died in 2004. --Aleph4 22:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks to be an article about someone's house. --JJay 22:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally NN. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 15:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xoloz 17:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 already speedied. — brighterorange (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean O'Carroll[edit]

page is vandalism BeteNoir 10:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • SpeedyDelete BeteNoir 10:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the real Sean O'Carroll was also a Nobel laureate, brain surgeon, professor of nuclear physics and member of the British Royal Family. This guy is an impostor. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 keep. Robert T | @ | C 00:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shotei Hanevuah[edit]

Advertising, non-notability of the group in question ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not in allmusic, but this is a an Israeli group, not American. I did get 436 hits on Google, about two-thirds of which seemed to be for ring-tones. They have played at the Univ. of Maryland [35], Brandeis [36], Harvard [37], and Stanford [38], that I found. That looks like a national tour in a large country. This blog [39] says that they have been voted the best band in Israel (that would need to be confirmed). They also have a couple of albums [40] and [41]. The albums are published by Helicon[42]. Unfortunately, I can't read Hebrew, so I can't say how big Helicon is. The article can use some work. - Dalbury (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They have published at least one album, and I suppose they're as notable as anyone else in wikipedia. The main problem for me is that the page is currently a cut and paste job of [43]. (The website is down right now, google cache is here. --Bachrach44 03:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Dalbury and Bachrach44 convinced me that the article is not deletable as NN, but the copyright problems noted by Bachrach, together with the problems I foresee in NPOVing this, makes me vote delete nevertheless. - Andre Engels 08:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I completely replaced the original text with what I think is a neutral POV stub. I hope that addresses any remaining concerns with the article. - Dalbury (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep After seeing the rewrite by Dalbury, I'm going to go with a definite keep. There are no copy-vio issues anymore, and the article is NPOV.--Bachrach44 15:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - fairly well-known in Israel.--Doron 07:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems somewhat notable, but I am troubled by the statement that "It has been selected as Israel's "Band of the Year"." Who selected them as band of the year? What year? --Rogerd 15:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's been hard to dig out. There is the statement on the poster at the bottom of[44], here[45] and here[46]. I did see somewhere that the award was part of the Israeli Academy Awards, but I know nothing about that. This site[47] has a statement that Shotei Hanevuah's records have gone "platinum" (whatever that standard is in Israel). I'm hoping that someone who knows Hebrew can fill in some holes. In any case, two albums and a tour of the U.S. should be enough to meet WP:MUSIC. - Dalbury (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree they are notable, but I just wanted to fill in the blanks. Oh, well. --Rogerd 21:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Owen[edit]

nn musician, his website is a myspace page. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found a couple of hits for "Spencer Owen" music, but nothing at all on allmusic. Looks like he's not even in the ballpark of WP:MUSIC. Delete, rinse, repeat. --DavidConrad 04:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not on AMG, can't find any evidence he passes WP:Music yet... not notable. --W.marsh 04:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Since he is not signed and widely distributed, there are insufficient references to him in other media/sources to require an explanation and contextualization here. Non-encyclopedic at this point. Geogre 13:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 11:04, 10 November 2005 (EST)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DO not delete! This guy is a genius as well as highly influential, albeit in a somewhat small group currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.6.151 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete. NN. *drew 00:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 go ahead, merge. - Mailer Diablo 00:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Rain[edit]

I was going to boldly merge this with Resident Evil: Dead Aim but I know feelings can run high so I thought I'd come here first. In my view this is redundant, but I am constituionally anti-gamecruft and that could just be my own prejudice. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- If the train from Resident Evil Zero gets its own entry, so too should the ship from Dead Aim. So, if it gets deleted I humbly suggest the Ecliptic Express does, too. - Kooshmeister

Seems fair. If the consensu is to merge, I'll do both (and any others which folks list before the end of the debate). - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with extreme prejudice. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 16:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I speak as a gamer. Information below individual game level is generally non-noteworthy. Durova 19:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme merge. Resident Evil: Dead Aim is not a particularly noteworthy game, and as such there's no need to have separate articles on each person and object in it. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, of course taking care not to lose information in the process. Bryan 01:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Server Integration Services[edit]

Looks just like an advert for MS stuff

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 11:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as either marketing puff or original research. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 11:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reeks of marketing Jasmol 15:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP IT. It is a good summary of the product. Much better than the Microsoft site...
  • Delete advertising. Xoloz 16:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ads. *drew 01:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 keep (14 keep, 7 delete). Robert T | @ | C 01:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Austin Catholic School[edit]

Advert for a NN school. Fallsend 02:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Please come contribute to ongoing discussion at WP:SCH. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Nom. Fallsend 02:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw Delete Vote Per rewrite of article. Still not notable, but quite a bit more fitting. Fallsend 07:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. The article has been completely rewritten. Silensor 06:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Some academic achievements noted (not sure if top 10 on Stanford 10 list is a geat achievement though). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were among the top 10, not on number 10. But I still have no idea what a Stanford list is and how prestigious being awarded a Blue Ribbon is. Can someone enlighten me? - Mgm|(talk) 12:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • More prestigious than being awarded a Schlitz, not as prestigious as being awarded a Michelob. Actually Kappa has now linked it to Blue Ribbon Schools Program, which "has recognized more than 3,000 schools since its inception." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies my criterion of being more notable than Koga (Pokémon). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-10 14:27
  • Keep all schools. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all schools below the high-school level. — Haeleth Talk 18:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of encyclopedic significance has been presented other than being a school, which is sufficient for some but not for me. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a national ranking in Stanford 10 Achievement Test[48] could make them borderline notable. I'll pass on this one as undecided. — RJH 18:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this please it is a prestigious and notable school Yuckfoo 19:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WEAK Keep, if only because there is no better entity to merge this into and per the developing consensus at WP:SCH.Gateman1997 19:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and someone buy Mgm a Pabst.--Isotope23 21:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I place the burden of proof for notability on the school below the high school level. Academic excellence seems to merit it, although its awards need editorial clarification. Durova 21:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on keeping schools. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even primary schools are more notable than plenty of things that are kept with less controversy. CalJW 23:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And far less notable than plenty of things that are deleted with little controversy. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school. Dottore So 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Edwardian 00:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please contribute to ongoing discussion at WP:SCH and help end this fractitious debate. Denni☯ 03:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the school appears to make some claim to notability by being a Blue Ribbon school. Yamaguchi先生 08:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the awards don't appear to be really impressive, but being in the top 10 of the Stanford 10 looks like a notable enough achievement. - Mgm|(talk) 10:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn school --JAranda | watz sup 05:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable school. Klonimus 08:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Setting aside for a moment whether a school needs to be particularly notable to be encyclopedic, do you feel that this is a particularly notable school, or that all schools are encyclopedic subjects? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does it matter? I simply do not understand the crusade by "those who routinely nominate and/or vote to delete school articles" to ferret out whether or not someone feels that a particular school is relatively more important than others or whether the very fact that something is a school endows it with noteworthiness. I am baffled by this because I can't figure out, how in the context of the way Wikipedia works, why it matters. If someone holds the opinion that a school is notable, what bloody difference does it make what his particular subjective criteria are?--Nicodemus75 09:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because I was curious as to his motivation, whether it was merely existence or instead some standard this particular school met. Last I checked, this was supposed to be a discussion, after all. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep --Vsion 09:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the fight [personal attack removed]. The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of an article. Kurt Weber 23:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks verfiability other than own website... --redstucco 09:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (merged), as I count seventeen delete votes and nine keep votes (plus an odd-man-out merge vote), with issues being confused by interpersonal disputes instead of discussion of the subject. While I don't see a firm consensus to delete this article, what I do see is a rather bare stub (that people were apparently unable to expand or reference during the AFD period), and a consensus to not have a separate article about this church.

As such, I have merged this very bare stub into Barrhead, with the edit history at Barrhead, Scotland. Please don't break this article out again unless you can expand it and add a claim of notability (or take this to WP:DRV). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St John's Roman Catholic Church[edit]

UE, D. ComCat 05:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep encyclopedic. --Vsion 06:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no claim to notability. -- Kjkolb 06:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Individual churches are generally non-encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 06:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this large (over 5000 parishoners) and notable church which serves a number of schools.--Nicodemus75 07:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment Oh, if it serves schools then it must be notable...--Isotope23 17:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no evidence this serves schools. And even so that is irrelevant... unless you're in select users minds.Gateman1997 06:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Large old churches are notable. A1kmm 10:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This is a large and/or old church? Where does it say that in the article? I'm indifferent to keep/delete on this one, but if that's true, could you add it to the article somehow? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please note that this nominator has a history of disruptive nominations, please refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ComCat for details. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim of notability in the article. - Andre Engels 14:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, churches are just as encyclopedic as schools. - SimonP 15:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Archdiocese of Glasgow (if that page doesn't exist, it probably should). Perodicticus 15:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Churches are notable, Catholic churches doubly so --Pypex 17:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why are Catholic churches more notable than other churches? I'm not sure I like that POV. - Dalbury (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just giving props to my religion, chalk it up to countering systemic bias. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously, but I'm sure it will now come back to haunt me should I ever take sides in a religious debate.--Pypex 23:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Internet posts don't convey nuances very well. I'm used to using emoticns and such to supply tone, but that doesn't seem to be the habit here. - Dalbury (talk) 23:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete NN Pete.Hurd 19:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. I'm not familiar with what distinguishes churches that do have articles, but this article doesn't show me anything notable. - Dalbury (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could see keeping a church with notable architecture or a notable history. No such claims are made here. Durova 21:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Incomprehensible nomination by a problem user. He/she shouldn't be encouraged. CalJW 23:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. WP:CIV - "Incomprehensible"? The vote is evenly split, so it looks like half of us voting in here find the nomination quite comprehensible. - Dalbury (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to the local diocese until such time as this church is noteworthy.Gateman1997 01:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I feel certain that there is individuality and historical significance to this church, but this article is yet another attempt at getting Wikipedia to house the local Yellow Pages. No information in the article (that's what we're debating, and any vote that mentions "churches" as opposed to the article ought to be discounted as simply not applicable) indicates what is almost sure to be there. If a rewrite or a new article on the church explained its status, function, and place in history, it would be fine. As it is, not at all. Down with mass produced votes. Geogre 01:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: My vote is based on general principles applying to "churches", but nevertheless I have read the article and don't believe this particular church is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, nor that the content of the article needs to be included in Wikipedia. The closing admin should not discount any votes on the grounds that the voter claims to consistently vote either to keep, or to delete, articles about churches. --Metropolitan90 05:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I suspect that the number of members (5,300) is inflated because it is bigger than the population of the entire town (4,212). The surrounding communities have churches of their own, I checked. According to this source, church attendance in Scotland is about 11 percent. If that is the case here, the number has been overestimated by over ten times. Even if church attendance in town is significantly higher than average, it is still far lower than the number given, unless the church has a lot of members that travel from other towns. -- Kjkolb 01:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are people sniffing glue? The article title is "St John's Roman Catholic Church," but the article (anyone read that?) says that it's not the name of the church. Supposing, however, that it were the name, how many other churches have that name? How many in New York City? How many in New York State? How many in New Jersey? How many in England? How many in South Africa? How many in Australia? The name collisions are inestimable. Wikipedia is NOT the Yellow Pages. Please, folks, get sane about this. I know you want every high school in the universe, including all home schools, to be included, but just think for a moment about what happens when you unthinkingly vote "keep OMG why are you nominating this!" on a misnamed, misplaced, empty article like this one. Geogre 01:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: as I am the only one who edited the nomination after you did, is your comment is about me or did you think of something to add later? I voted to delete the article, and the church's full name isn't relevant to my comment, only that it's the correct town. The article would need to be renamed to its full name, if kept, and I found a lot of churches named "Saint John the Evangelist", so if all the other churches are added, there would be a huge amount of disambiguation required. I think the church's non-notability is the reason it should be deleted, however. Sorry if I misunderstood you and as for my glue abuse, no comment. -- Kjkolb 02:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • By no means did I intend you. In fact, we were editing at the same time, so your comment wasn't visible to me when I made mine. I was reacting to the votes above that were repeats of those given whenever the voter thinks that the issue is "notability" and my suspicion that they are afraid that admitting that a particular church is an improper subject is going to transfer into a statement that a particular school is an improper subject. I was simply trying to remind folks that it's not the subject we assess, but the article (per my rant above). Geogre 11:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sniffing glue! That said, I'm pretty sure everyone else isn't, so please do be civil, eh? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to be. I really, really would, but this has been going on for two years now. When "consensus" gets inflated to be a requisite 80%, it only takes a couple of people who don't read the article but who vote on "principle" to get a vandal article kept. Folks mentioned that the nominator has a history of abuse. Is it possible that his nomination was not "let's get a good article deleted" but "let's get a bad article kept?" The fact that he's controversial means that folks need to keep a tight grip on their knees and not let them jerk so violently as to type a vote. Geogre 11:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Amen, brother! - Dalbury (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe you should just keep your own contentious, uncivil rants off the AfD pages. If you don't like the policies upon which WP is built (in this case, the AfD consensus policy) go whine about it somewhere else without insulting people that are voting their own philosophical position. You have absolutely no idea whether editors read the article, vote as blocs, or whatever else. And suggesting that "voting on principle" is somehow wrong is hypocritical, elitist, consdescending and rude. Your vote and rant is every bit as much a "vote on principle" as your largely irrelevant dissertations demonstrate. Referring to an editor's obvious good-faith contribution as a "vandal article" is a clear violation of WP:AGF.--Nicodemus75 16:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's funny. I have been here for long enough to watch "consensus," which actually isn't defined by policy, get informally increased from majority to 70% to 80% to near unanimity. I have been here watching and voting since VfD had a whopping 30 articles a day to now it's routine 170 a day. I have been part of defining policy for that long as well. Do I know if votes are bused? I certainly do. Do I know if voting on principle without regard for the article is incorrect? I certainly do. If you feel that my comments apply to you, then that is your business, but, given the fact that this church's membership is greater than the town's population, your conclusion that it is "obviously" good faith is as suspect as that article itself. Geogre 19:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Do I know if votes are bused? I certainly do. Do I know if voting on principle without regard for the article is incorrect? I certainly do." Please cite your evidence for these outrageous claims. You don't "know" anything. These are wild, uncivil, unsubstantiated charges that do not assuem good faith. I do not "feel that your comments apply to me", I am pointing out the absurd and unsupported nature of your ranting, whining charges. Please refrain from these offensive, uncivil rants particularly when flailing about what you "know" without citing any evidence whatsoever. Having, "been here watching and voting since... [whenver the hell you like]" doesn't make your unsubstantiated claims carry any more weight.--Nicodemus75 20:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not make personal attacks. They are against policy, and, indeed, harm your case considerably. I have seen the evolution of the trends that you are defending as policy, and I can tell you that they are themselves not policy. They are, in fact, counter to policy. Vote the article, per the name of the page: articles for deletion. Do not vote "churches" or "schools" or "notability is not in the guidelines" or "webcomix must stay" or "blogs must go" or anything except the article. That's clear enough, isn't it? Geogre 22:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment. I am distubed by an earlier vote in this discussion, where the editor said, "Incomprehensible nomination by a problem user. He/she shouldn't be encouraged." That did sound to me like the editor was basing his or her vote, at least in part, on who nominated the article. - Dalbury (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del per the inestimable Geogre. encephalon 02:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre... no individual claim to notability. If it housed a relic of the church or had some historical significance, I would vote differently, but as it stands, this is one of probably 100 (if not more) Roman Catholic Churches called "St. John's" and it isn't even as significant as the St. John's church in my old hometown.--Isotope23 03:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Serves schools? Now there's a stretch! Denni☯ 03:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article makes no claim to notability, and there must be hundreds of other churches by the name Saint John the Evangelist. Yamaguchi先生 03:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename more specifically to make room for articles on all Saint John's churches. Fg2 04:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Churches, unlike public schools, are private institutions. I can found a church in my back yard, or my mind only. There must be some notability bar. Article does not establish notability. Xoloz 16:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a freaking church!  Grue  22:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified --redstucco 09:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Churches are notable. This private/public definition is not at all useful in defining notability.--Mais oui! 13:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are far too many churches to be listed on wikipedia. This one is not notable, and also there are probably thousands of other Roman Catholic churches out there called "St John's" (I can think of at least a dozen. --MacRusgail 13:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED JeremyA (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

St. Noels Parish Hall[edit]

Article about a church hall. Not notable—delete JeremyA (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not notable as a church hall or hospitality venue so should be deleted. However, it is also an attack page on the staff and thus warrants a Speedy Delete under category A6. We learn for example that one of the bar staff is supposedly insane and that the waitresses eat all the food and steal rocks. Capitalistroadster 03:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're right—looking at it again, I should have just speedied it, which is what I will now do. JeremyA (talk) 03:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Kernweis[edit]

The contents of the deletion debate have been removed as they relate to a living person. A record of the deletion debate can be found in this page's history.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert T | @ | C 00:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Silly Wars[edit]

Article appears to be about a NN RPG. Zero Google hits, possible hoax. 23skidoo 23:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  08:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Benton[edit]

Unverifiable NN bio. Network Solutions verifies that Steve Benton owns sweepmasters.com but other than that, can't find any information on him. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't really verify that he's the CEO either [50]. But if he owns the domain... I guess it's plausible. Nevertheless, CEO of a company that doesn't even have an article here to redirect to... gotta say he's not notable enough for his own article. --W.marsh 01:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable, no Google hits to make this Steve Benton stand out any more than the others. Turnstep 02:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Pintele Yid 06:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN + vanity, as mentioned above. PJM 14:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity --Rogerd 05:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Isleib[edit]

Cannot be verified, no IMDB, fails google test. Interactii 19:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC) Yes but cmon he really did do that[reply]

  • Speedy Delete db-bio. Jasmol 19:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified. However, the claim meets the noteworthiness test. Similarly significant stuntmen have received their own articles linking to the stunt article. To the author: provide documentation within the article and adjust the tone to accord with the NPOV rule. You may persuade me to reverse my vote. Durova 20:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xoloz 17:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete NN bio, makes you cringe to read it. Pete.Hurd 23:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Student Recreation Center (UCR)[edit]

Student Recreation Center (UCR) tagged because it concerns a non-notable building within a school campus. Swegner 01:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Fixing AfD nomination.) Delete per nomination. If anything is worth writing about this building, put it into the article University of California, Riverside. --Metropolitan90 07:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to University of California, Riverside#Student life or just UC Riverside. Geogre 13:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn building. Not sure what purpose a redirect would serve; who's going to type this into the search box? — Haeleth Talk 18:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but, as the codgers say, "Redirects are cheap." For whatever it's worth, it preserves the contributor's information and allows a look through history to claim/reclaim any content. I wouldn't mind a delete, of course. Geogre 01:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seriously. Dottore So 23:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanity/cruft and redirect.Gateman1997 01:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified --redstucco 09:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable, unencylopedic. *drew 23:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swfmania[edit]

Non-notable website with an Alexa rating over one million.[51] A search on Google finds more unique hits hits for a professional wrestling organization with a similiar name than this site.[52] --Allen3 talk 13:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep as invalid nom. Redirects go to RfD. Xoloz 17:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

T. R.[edit]

I feel that it is inappropriate to redirect from a particular set of initials to a specific person (in this case, a US president) Bluap 18:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A google search of ["T.R." Teddy Roosevelt] returns 478,000 hits. He's reffered to as "T.R." in TIME Magazine and the Library of Congress, as well as here and here. If you can think of another use for this page, I'd support deleting it. But, as he is reffered to colloqiually as "TR" (and he himself preffered that nickname over "Teddy"), i think it's fair.jfg284 18:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep invalid nomination. Bluap, redirect pages should go to redirects for deletion, not here; I've explained further on your talk page. — Haeleth Talk 18:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per sources above. If you can find more people referred to by the initials, make a disambiguation out of it. Shouldn't this be at T.R. anyway? - Mgm|(talk) 11:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Telecom Portal and Voip providers list and Colocations list[edit]

  • Delete. Created by User:Telecom.portal. Clearly autobiographical, reads like spam. Interiot 18:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 20:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, as to me, this might be usefull information for Telecom business involved people.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 redirected to Terrestrial by User:Cobaltbluetony. Robert T | @ | C 01:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terristrial[edit]

Misspelling of Terrestrial article CobaltBlueTony 17:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. Although you could have done it without listing it here first. Bjelleklang - talk 17:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy redirect to terrestrial. — brighterorange (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOT a spell-checker. At least it shouldn't be. --Stephen Deken 18:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above statement. PJM 18:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect to terrestrial. We are told that redirects are cheap, and I think it is usually considered that if a user creates a misspelled entry, it's evidence that the misspelling is plausible. Our naming convention calls for placing articles under their most common name, not their most technically correct name, because our intention is that our readers should find what they seek. We don't insist that people know that Mark Twain's real name was Samuel Clemens, and we should not insist that people know how to spell "terrestrial." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I actually created nearly that many for Alexander P. De Seversky: Alexander de Seversky, Alexander De Seversky, Alexander P. De Seversky, Alexander DeSeversky, Alexander P. DeSeversky, DeSeversky, De Seversky, Alexander Procofieff de Seversky, Alexander Prokofieff de Seversky. Of course these are not misspellings, but valid variant spellings, every single one of which has actually been used in print. Personally, I think difficulty in finding articles is one of Wikipedia's weakest points, and the dozens of accidental duplicates we get (differing from existing articles only in case, for example) prove it. I wish there were a way to type in a list of titles and have them all created as redirects to a single target article. I think we need some kind of fuzzy or Soundex search, and no, I don't really think we will solve the problem by creating lots of redirects.
Now, you're talking about hypothetical misspellings, whereas we know "Terristrial" is a real one. I wouldn't exactly advocate creating redirects for all the misspellings on your list, but if someone felt like creating them I would certainly not advocate deleting them.
Terristrial, however, has already been created. It's a separate case, not a parallel issue. :-) As long as it's here, and doesn't interfere with anything else, I say redirect it rather than delete it.
Which action—redirect to the right spelling, or delete—do you think will be more helpful to our readership? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was not actually advocating any particular position, pro or con. I just find the lack of spelling ability these days appalling (don’t they teach spelling in school anymore?). It troubles me that we have to accommodate it. I doubt that you’d find redirects in Britannica. But no, I don’t vote for deletion—I will abstain. ♠DanMS 03:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"These days?" :-) Yeah, I remember the good old days, when gas cost so much less, and we had lovely music, not this modern stuff, it's noise, I tell you, just noise, and the language in movies these days, my goodness... and everyone was civil to their elders, and knew how to read and spell. And extract square roots with paper and pencil. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, misspellings used to be one of the explicit examples of things worth redirecting (don't know what the current policy says, that was a long time ago). Bryan 00:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Terestrial, Terrestreal and Terestreal may be common misspellings, but just because one person didn't check their typing before submitting doesn't mean this misspelling is common (which as far as I remember was part of the redirect recommendation). - Mgm|(talk) 11:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's certainly no great loss in any case. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — An unlikely search term. — RJH 15:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, joke page. Thue | talk 22:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That "Wiggles" Man[edit]

Sharif don't like it. Delete the crap-punk Kasbah. I'm not sure if this is a spoof, hoax, attack page, nonsense, or just non-notable. It combines aspects of each, while remaining completely unverifiable. AfD synergy. DavidConrad 07:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's almost like someone tried to meet as many common AfD criteria as possible. --W.marsh 07:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as an attack page under Speedy Deletion category A6 dealing with such pages. Also as Category G3 for silly vandalism as a hoax page. He supposedly lived with a paedophile at age 14 and was repeatedly raped. A Google search for "Wiggles Man" "Media Whorenet" received no Google hits see [53]so severe verifiability problems. Capitalistroadster 08:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and BJAODN. It's creative, at least. "Crap-punk" could catch on - just not on wikipedia. Indium 10:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G4 -- recreation of Media Whorenet. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  08:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheeky Monkeys[edit]

And I quote... "The Cheeky Monkeys have currently only played one show. In June of 2005, they opened for Betrayal at the Knights of Columbus Hall in Lindsay. Not very many people showed up, but everyone who was there had loads of fun."

  • Delete --Quasipalm 04:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly non-significant band -- CollieBreath 04:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:NMG - "Jam-cover band" who has played one show which was poorly attended.Capitalistroadster 04:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. - Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow, one show, at a KoC Hall. And where is Lindsay? 10:59, 10 November 2005 (EST)
  • Delete; bands that have played one show aren't notable. Bearcat 19:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy if possible. This is a kind of group that would be made speediable under my proposed Expansion of CSD A7. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no real consensus, though it certainly was not going to be kept. So, I was bold and deleted it, then made it a redirect to Ecstasy (drug) per User:Cdc. Robert T | @ | C 01:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The E[edit]

Appears just to be a school award, quite unnotable as far as I can tell (not on the first 3 pages of google.) Fallsend 14:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its the centerpiece award at a summer program thats 104 years old and one of the best known "summer camps" in the US. For the 50,000 people who've come through the program over the last 50 years it is a big deal. Perhaps it could be folded into the main Culver Academies page if people are desperate to remove it?

An interested group of Summer School alumni are hoping to create a stronger web presence for a program that really should be better represented online considering the caliber of its alumni (George Steinbrenner, owner of the yankees won an "E" and considers it a big deal) and stature in the summer camp world. We're hoping to record the great history of the program slowly through pieces on here, a history that has involved some big names in American politics, military history, and culture.

Also, with a name like "the E" you would imagine it would be difficult to google it.

-bflora, webmaster: www.passinreviewonline.com

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "An interested group of Summer School alumni are hoping to create a stronger web presence for a program that really should be better represented online" is great and all, but that's not the purpose of Wikipedia. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 17:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote changed to merge and redirect. Since the original article has already been merged by the author into another, more appropriate article, all that's left to do now is place a redirect. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 19:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken as I'm sure you're all more familiar with whats appropriate on here than I would be. The intention isn't to promote anything really though, but to document things, which I'd always thought was the point of this site but I could be off. Very interesting to see the review process here up close for the first time too.

  • The claim that you are not trying to promote anything is at considerable variance with the earlier claim that you are trying to create a "strong web presence." Just sayin'. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 18:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-I suppose. What i meant though was that for all the alums out there, when they want to read about the history of the school and go online, there's nothing there. We're not trying to promote anything but to put the historical information about the schools' traditions online like they are on here for many places. Now I concede there are better ways of doing it than others which we will try to find and also that not everyone and his brother is interested in everything having to do with the program which is why its helpful to have you all here, but I think its reasonable for us to try to include some historical information about prominent aspects of a prominent boarding school's prominent summer program on here. The "how" is the question. Thanks.

  • Edit the existing article to remove POV phrasing like "sacred and holy," then merge the result into the Culver Academies article. Then it becomes an issue for further editing, rather than an issue of article deletion. Remember that, despite my comments above, putting an article up for deletion does not always mean that the information in the article should not exist anywhere within Wiki. It just means that the information doesn't warrant a distinct, seperate article. If you can merge this into the Culver Academies article, in an appropriately neutral way, I suspect that most folks currently objecting would withdraw their objections. I would, certainly. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 18:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

-Gladly. I've moved it in there as another graph and trimmed it down a bit.

  • Redirect to Ecstasy (drug) - arguably a much more useful redirect than to this obscure award. CDC (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per CDC. Xoloz 16:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Hungry Hobo[edit]

Fails Wiki:Corp Saint Midge 21:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 01:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert --Rogerd 15:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The_J.Verses[edit]

A private fantasy worldbuilding enterprise

  • Delete. Doesn't appear to related to anything that might merit merging elsewhere, such as a fantasy novel series or a role-playing game. Durova 04:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I didn't even read through all of it..so far out that it doesn't even seem to have links, eh? --Sirimiri 05:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 63 kilobytes of text with hardly any wikilinks, and it doesn't even provide sufficient context as to exactly what kind of fantasy writing -type thingy it is. — JIP | Talk 10:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fancruft that by all appearances has the same level of non-notability as hundreds of other fantasy/sci-fi settings created for RPG campaigns, etc.--Isotope23 17:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't add anything to Wikipedia, I do appreciate how much work was put into it. Gimmeahighfive 05:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft. *drew 23:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Losing Game[edit]

A game for losers, by losers. Totally NN and unencyclopedic. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-encyclopedic. It offers no information not seen on The Game (game), and is certain unencyclopedic. Boxclocke"!" 08:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tells us to spread the word and is entirely unencyclopdic in its writing with nothing new to merge. - Mgm|(talk) 12:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No useful content, no information for those not already fans/players. A zero sum use of bytes. Geogre 13:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to The Game (game) --MilkMiruku 05:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity and NN game. *drew 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete since we've deleted this exact same game time and again:

  1. Wikilinking (AfD discussion) (more AFD discussion)
  2. Wikipedia game (AfD discussion)
  3. Wiki Link Contest (AfD discussion)
  4. Wikisurfing (AfD discussion)
  5. Wikichallenge (AfD discussion)

Note that we already have this game covered over and over in the project namespace:

Uncle G 13:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Max Pratt Game[edit]

Not eligible for speedy deletion, as far as I know. Vanity page about a game that the (presumably) self-described "child prodigy" Max Pratt created. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that "child prodigy" does not meet rigorous definitions, and has thus been removed. Article however does describe a growing phenomenon among high schools, expanding from Leon County. Note that article author (me) is not Max Pratt, and is not related to Max Pratt. Main argument for non-deletion of the article: THIS IS NOT INTENDED AS A JOKE.

  • Delete Although this is an adorable little variation on Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, Google returns next to nothing. If you can document the phenomenon or if it's better known by some other name, I might withdraw this vote. The burden is on you to prove this is (a) encyclopedic and (b) not original research. Good luck. Durova 06:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot document this phenomenon, and due to lack of web-popularity, I sadly agree that this article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

    In this article's defense, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional. The article is a description of an actual form of entertainment and past-time of apparantly a growing number of high school students in North Florida, not a self-elevating promotion. The article rises above the "vanity" denotation clearly by the Wiki rules. There is no clear reason for deletion. Must I remind you all of the very goal of Wikipedia? This incredible website is not being misused by an addition of information. Popularity does not prove the pertinence of data, countless revolutionary figures have shown us that. Reconsider. -BerretSO4 (ts)6:39 UTC 11-10-05

  • There's a site, now located at Six Degrees of Wikipedia, which more-or-less has done the same thing for a while, albeit not as a competitive game. User:Kate started the Six Degrees of Wikipedia no later than December 2004, so Max Pratt should not receive credit as the namesake of this game for inventing it in 2005. Anyway, this article is too Wikipedia-self-referential for the main namespace. Delete. --Metropolitan90 06:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fine point, but there's also an article on Wikipedia called "Encyclopedia" - too self-referential? Additionally, the site given by Metropolitan90 is a utility used to find the web paths from one article to another. The concept of the game itself (in which using said utility would be illegal) is original and can still be denoted "The Max Pratt Game" under no free use infringement. If one man invents numerals and another invents a game aimed at finding a way to count objects, do they not both possess original concepts? Certainly, though, the utility could be referenced clearly in the "Strategies" section of the article. -BerretSO4
  • Delete because the claim of someone inventing this is obviously local to one person. While lots of people probably do this, the name given to it is inappropriate, and it is probably independently invented by most. As a general point, I believe that self-referential articles, e.g. Wikipedia are fine, but they must meet the same standard of notableness in the general(non-wikipedia) community as other topics. A1kmm 09:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Not sure if this is much use here but 0 google hits for "(The) Max Pratt game"; only 370 for "Max Pratt". Marcus22 10:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. The web isn't everything, but you can also try supporting this with news stories and books. If this is not documented anywhere it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia and thus for Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 12:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aaaaaargh! How many more times? I'm closing this now. Uncle G 13:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining few[edit]

Non-notable band, does not meet criteria in WP:MUSIC Hitchhiker89 18:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. PJM 18:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 18:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xoloz 16:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Rock Salt[edit]

Non-notable website. See Alexa traffic ranking (or rather, lack of) Hitchhiker89 18:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article, and felt that even though it is not a high-traffic website, it does provide an integral role to the Utah music scene. Almost every single significant rock group from Utah has ties to The Rock Salt, and I thought rather than adding information to the music of Utah article, I would add a new one. Mapledell 19:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this merits its own article. The sections 'History', 'Famous Alumni' and much of 'Current Status' in particular are of no interest to anyone who is not a member of the forum (i.e. fancruft). If this site is of significance to the "Utah music scene" I suggest that relevant information about it is added to Music of Utah. Hitchhiker89 19:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge Fails WP:MUSIC. Jasmol 19:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Utah is a tiny ultraconservative state (70% voted bush - highest in the nation). The Rock Salt and the smattering of random visits on any given day shouldn't give credence to it's elimination. Many wonderous movements, periodicals, publishings and postings start from a grain of sand. Sure, it's no google and it's IPO won't crush the GDP of a small nation-state, but it's a voice in a tumultuous sea of neo-cons, retro-cons and permi-cons in the great state of SALT !! Leave our sliver shine through.

You wanna live in this oppressive state and raise your voice? I think not! After all, look at what we do to ravers.

peace, love, unity, respect BM

  • Websites don't need to pass WP:MUSIC (which is for musicians and bands. Alexa isn't everything, so it may be worth an external link in Music of Utah, but not a separate article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe. Just reading these comments on whether to delete the article, and then reading the article myself, I've learned some stuff and had my interest piqued—interest that I'll attempt to satisfy by reading other Wikipedia articles. This little piece is certainly not my favourite. But it has its merits. Then again, if the website itself includes a little blurb like this Wikipedia article, and if a different Wikipedia article already mentions this site or something related to it, perhaps it's better just to add (to that other Wikipedia article) a link to the external website and delete this article. President Lethe 21:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The rogers[edit]

Can't work out if these guys have actually recorded anything. DJ Clayworth 22:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unverifiable. Three AMG entries for "Rogers" and I can't tell if any of them are these guys. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. The text is lifted from their website, so if it's not vanity, it's copyvio. Cnwb 01:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 01:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 16:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Strong Consensus Keep, after nomination withdrawn, for rewrite. Xoloz 17:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thelston Payne[edit]

nn person spam Ian13 (speak!) 20:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Ian13 (speak!) 20:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I change to Keep and Expand, it seems I was a little hasty. Ian 13 22:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Bring this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket to fix. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gets more than 500 Google hits with lots of data. Verifiable and more notable than the average Pokémon. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pokemon are part of a television series, several movies and computer games and a trading card franchise which makes me believe Pokemon are far more notable, even though - like you - I don't like the fact they are. - Mgm|(talk) 11:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no case has been made for this person's non-notability. Bryan 00:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It's up to the article's creator to provide sources and prove the person IS notable. Playing 7 internationals and 1 test, though, appears to not make him a one-day fly and thus notable if verified.
  • Keep I don't know much about cricket, but he appears both real and notable. [54] --Bachrach44 03:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup, and delete if not improved in a reasonable time. Too little information at the moment. - Andre Engels 08:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please leave this to us in WP:Cricket. Some of us create the stubs while the others expand them to articles. This will be expanded in due course. This person in an international cricketer. Tintin 14:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Tintin. --HighHopes (T)⋅(+)⋅(C)⋅(E)⋅(P) 21:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep especially as I've expanded it a bit. Is there really a point to this nomination now, now that the nominee has withdrawn his delete suggestion? Sam Vimes 00:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Human Sciences, "Theory of human sciences"[edit]

Seems to be either original research or possibly a copyvio; the bolded part near the end is a direct copy of an abstract here, and the HTML in the table shows that much of the article was copied and pasted from an MS Office document. The article itself looks like lecture notes, and is certainly not written for a general audience as an encyclopedia should be. There may be a good article to be written on this subject, but as I can't work out what "this subject" actually is, I suspect this isn't it. — Haeleth Talk 23:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/"Theory of human sciences" for the author's other near-identical copy of this article. (Could someone who knows how merge these AfDs, please?) — Haeleth Talk
Combined. Delete both. WP:NOR. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Looks like a graduate level term paper pasted into Wikipedia. Durova 01:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. He refers to a "Law of Recurrence" in human sciences, but almost all the Google hits for that "law" are in religious, mainly mystyical contexts, with a very few in some kind of astronomical context. - Dalbury (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Durova echoes my thoughts precisely. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 12:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - term paper, seminary essay or possibly short research plan. - Skysmith 13:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above--Rogerd 15:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lydon[edit]

Non-notable? Vanity? A search for "Thomas Keith Lydon" gives me no hits at all [55]. A seach for '"Thomas Lydon" +Minneapolis +poet' [56] gives me two hits, including one at Wikipedia. Thuresson 13:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. Jasmol 15:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obvious vanity. And that picture too... --W.marsh 16:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's been deleted before. If it's recreated again, it should be protected. -- Kjkolb 21:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator, borderline speedy deletion candidate under WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 00:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic by Times and Dates[edit]

I think all information relating to the subject has already been well enough described in RMS Titanic. In my opinion, there is no need for a second article on this subject. Which is why I nominate this for deletion. -- SoothingR(pour) 14:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete completely redundant (and appallingly formatted) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One article is enough. --Rob 18:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary. Looks like a C&P from somewhere. 23skidoo 22:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as duplicate info. - Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Shreshth91 14:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Points[edit]

Obivious.

  • Speedy delete I probably would've tagged db-nonsense. Jasmol 17:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even though it has achieved its stated aim of wasting time. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Article about a real person that does not assert the significance or importance of the person. ♠DanMS 01:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete no comment necessary. --Bachrach44 04:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Travis long[edit]

completely non-notable Bachrach44 19:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination --Bachrach44 19:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete db-bio Jasmol 20:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per A7. Being a teacher is not an assertion of notability. --JJay 20:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, nn-bio. PJM 20:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN bio. Cnwb 01:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted. Clear WP:CSD A7, possibly also A1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 keep (18 keep, 8 delete, 1 merge/redirect). Robert T | @ | C 01:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Cindy (2005)[edit]

Non-notable storm. No additional information than from 2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Storm Cindy. Redirect to 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 00:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • In fact, no one would search for such a name. Delete. NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 00:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --CFIF 00:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Any particular reasoning? NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 00:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—It doesn't look like there is much independent content there, so maybe redirection would be proper, but that wouldn't require AfD, just a sound editorial decision by the contributors familiar with the topic. I don't understand the prefaced comment that the storm was "non-notable." If it is non-notable, why would it be documented at all on Wikipedia? Do we have a precedent on this regarding named tropical storms? It isn't like it's the November 9, 2005 New York City Metropolitan Area Rain Shower. Postdlf 00:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It's non-notable that it only caused three deaths, and it's covered at the main hurricane article. The current consensus on creating TC articles is if the storm was notable (Tropical Storm Allison), or did major damage (Hurricane Stan), or there is enough information to warrant its own article (Hurricane Ophelia). NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 00:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to the discussion(s) that established that consensus, or by what criteria "notability" and "major damage" are judged for storms? I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just that for most of us who have never edited a meteorological article, it would be nice to have some context. A named tropical storm, to me, seems like it could stand alone as an article, and this one seems to be able to. And the name of the article seems a rather obvious one, so I don't understand that comment either. Postdlf 01:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season#Golbez.27s_point_of_view, Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Archive_11#Rules_for_new_tropical_cyclone_articles. Also, no one would search for Tropical Storm Cindy (2005), would they? ;) NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 01:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    No less than they would Metropolis (1927 film), Superman (1940s cartoons), or any other article title that requires a parenthetical to disambiguate it. That's not a sound reason for deletion. Postdlf 01:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but if it gets redir'd to the main article it makes zilch sense. Anyway, you get the bit on non-notable storm now? NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 01:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Talk:Tropical_Storm_Arlene_(2005), similar case to this. NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 01:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it's not notable, why do we have 6 paragraphs, 2 pictures, and 4 external links for it? Sure we can merge it back into the main article, with a redirect...that wouldn't be the same as deleting it...but if that means cutting some of the info out of the article, then this is a step backwards. Jdorje 01:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also, and as a side note, there is no consensus on what justifies having a separate article for a tropical cyclone. Everyone has their own opinions. Current practice is that storms that are not historically notable are simply covered by the main season article. However this runs into trouble when non-historically-notable storms accumulate too much information about them (many of these storms kill people and do millions of dollars in damages, so they're definitely worth writing about) and begin to clog up the season article. Jdorje 01:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (note; I am the creator of this article). It has information not in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article (unless the info from here has been added there since yesterday). More can be added. Given Wikipedia's major coverage of Hurricane Katrina with multiple articles, having this article is a useful adjunct given the effects of this "mere tropical storm"'s key role in prompting over 80% of New Orleans to evacuate ahead of Katrina. -- Infrogmation 01:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I honestly believe this is the time where "not notable" can be used in a correct context. I am not a fan of giving every storm an article, and very few, if any, Tropical Storms deserve them. Mike H (Talking is hot) 02:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Non-notable storm. --Holderca1 02:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - five external links, well-written article, named storm, has infobox, contains information not found elsewhere, helps reduce size of "season" page. Fails to meet any deletion criteria. Turnstep 02:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If we have an article for something as meaningless as Hilary Duff, I think we can swing a giant destructive vortex of wind and water. But that's just me. Deltabeignet 03:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of you are missing the point here, this is a duplicate article. --Holderca1 03:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The duplicate-article claim is not a good argument, for two reasons. One, it is not a full duplicate of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, because it has information (including the infobox and added picture) that aren't on the main article. Two, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is 58 kb long and needs to be made shorter; moving information on that article into sub-pages is a good way to do that, particularly information which (like this storm) you consider not to be notable. If we were to make a new sub-article 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms populated with all the information about all the non-notable storms, then we would have a way to move this excess information off of the season article without having to worry about clutter; however, I don't see why this would be any better than one article per storm. Remember Wikipedia is not paper...non-notable information should be moved off of the main season page, not onto it, so that if people don't want to read it they don't have to. Jdorje 04:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've seen no good reason to delete it, and I don't think a merge decision is so obvious as to render a binding decision on that here. Postdlf 05:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Pintele Yid 06:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I got to exerience typhoon zelda in 1991 and it isn't mentioned anywhere on wikipedia. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 06:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, "typhoon zelda" gets 103 google hits.[57] "Tropical storm cindy" gets 51,900.[58] Postdlf 23:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • FWIW, Typhoon Zelda was in 1991. Tropical Storm Cindy has happened recently in 1993, 1999 and 2005. Obviously Cindy gets more hits. NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 08:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the point is that there might not be enough easily-available information to create an article on Typhoon Zelda - but there is enough for Tropical Storm Cindy. AySz88^-^ 18:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do we make decisions on everything based on the Almighty Google Hit? Mike H (Talking is hot) 07:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Umm... obviously a typhoon that happened in 1991 would get fewer google hits than a tropical storm that happened this year. Events that happened before the spread of the web are usually not covered as well by sources on the web. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Tropical cyclones whose names have been retired deserve their own articles, but not every tropical storm. I pay very close attention to tropical cyclones in the Atlantic basin (after all, I spent more than 2 hours in the eye of Hurricane Wilma, and lost my power for 7 days), and I don't remember Cindy. - Dalbury (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect-this storm isn't notable. There are already too many subpages on the 2005 season article. I was going to merge it myself, there seeming to be a consensus for this action on the talk page. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC) (forgot to sign originally)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies the criterion of being more notable than Koga (Pokémon). — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-10 14:23
  • Keep. In my opinion notable enough for an article, and too large to make merging a better option. - Andre Engels 15:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Brian. 10:53, 10 November 2005 (EST)
  • Keep per Jdorje and Turnstep. AndyJones 18:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability follows from claimed causal connection to Katrina at bottom of page. Melchoir 23:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    And again, see my point below - does this mean we need a Tropical Depression Ten (2005)? NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 07:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not going to start an article on Tropical Depression Ten, but if there existed such an article and it helped manage the size of the huge Hurricane Katrina article, I would vote to keep it! Melchoir 19:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per above, particularly Dalbury who would seem to know! Dottore So 23:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article's got plenty of information establishing its notability (see the "Impact" section), and it's too big to merge into a list. Bryan 00:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    EVERY storm has an impact, does it mean you want to create an article for Tropical Depression Ten (2005) which reorganised into Hurricane Katrina? NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 04:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't Hurricane Katrina not already, logically, the main article for Tropical Depression Ten (2005), although only by implication of the text within 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season? AySz88^-^ 18:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge Doesn't need a separate entry, merge this content with the subsection on the 2005 Atlantic Hurrican Season. Jasmol 02:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until further notice. This nomination confuses me, what criteria is being used to determine what is a notable storm and what is not? Yamaguchi先生 08:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The criteria is simple: Will people be talking about this storm a year or two from now? People still talk about the flooding from Hurricane Agnes here in the Washington DC area even though it happenned back in 1972, and Hurricane Isabel of 2003 did more wind damage than this area had seen in a long while. In Houston Tropical Storm Allison of 2001 will be long remebered. I have my doubts that people are going to be bringing up this storm often, and when they do they will soon enough be asking "What was it's name?". --EMS | Talk 05:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would disagree with that criteria - hardly anyone "talks about" most of the articles on Wikipedia. For example, I doubt people often "talk about" what happened in the year 1139, but it's something that is worth having an article on, and most topics for research (this is an encyclopedia, after all) probably don't correlate with what is being "talked about". AySz88^-^ 06:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The issue isn't if this storm should be documented. Instead it is where. There is a difference. I don't see that 1139 is going to be part of an article on the "1130s", or even expected to be there. However, 2005 AHS is an obvious container for this storm. --EMS | Talk 06:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that (and the other response to my comment below). To me, merging Tropical Storm Cindy into 2005AHS is exactly the same as trying to merge 1139 into 1130s. It's not that 1130s might not be a useful article as an overview of the events of the decade - but it'd have to be in addition to 1139, where 1139 contains more details. The articles are more organized and easier to drill down. I think the analogous would be appropriate for 2005AHS and Tropical Storm Cindy - get rid of detalis in 2005AHS and keep them in Cindy's article. (See Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Season Summary Section for discussion on distinguishing between the amount of detail appropriate between 2005AHS and specific storms' articles, and Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Radical reorganization for taking this to the conclusion. The first discussion seems unresolved; the second seems to be too premature of a suggestion.) AySz88^-^ 07:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            If there is a consensus on placing all storms (or maybe just all severe and/or landfalling storms) into seperate pages, I will not object. Such an agreement should include a clear deliniation of responsibilities betweenthe main article and the storm pages however. I see no such agreement at this time, nor will I anticipate one. As-is, this is best considered to be a piece of the 2005 AHS. That is my two-cents worth. --EMS | Talk 16:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I see that some are voting to keep this article separate because it is too big to merge back into the season article. Maybe that means that the article needs to be tightened up and shortened. It seems to me that the length of articles should be roughly proportional to the importance of the subject. We don't need to shovel every last little known tidbit on a subject into its article. I also see a tendency to inflate articles about recent events compared to articles about past events. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should not be biased towards very recent events. - Dalbury (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    About the last point: It seems that would warrent expansion of the past storms as opposed to shrinkage of current storms, which means that doesn't further the argument (that this article should be shrunk) much. AySz88^-^ 18:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is inevitably biased toward recent events, if only because there is more secondary material from which to draw. It is impossible to maintain the same level of detail on articles from different eras. Maybe this means we must try harder on old topics, but it can't mean that we stifle ourselves on new topics! Melchoir 19:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Almost the same contents as section on Cindy in 2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season. Non-notable. (Even in a normal year its number of deaths and damage would not have been notable.) --EMS | Talk 05:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    There's more than one way to solve the first problem - extra details have been removed from 2005AHS until there's some decision here. They can be replaced if the decision happens to be to merge. AySz88^-^ 06:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Er—it got reverted by NSLE; I left a message on his talk page, as there certainly isn't much point to the article if the details aren't moved away from 2005AHS. Here's the diff if you want to see what I'd had in mind. AySz88^-^ 06:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I thnk that your exercise only shows the ease with which this article can be shortenned up as part of a merge back into 2005AHS. Unless this article is seriously expanded, it is not needed. However, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collector of information". I do not see that such an expansion is either needed, useful, or in the least encyclopedic. --EMS | Talk 06:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    (See my response above. Also, those changes were made within the context of the existance of the Cindy article - I would greatly object to my own changes if it meant that all the information from the article would have been deleted.) AySz88^-^ 07:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even Tropical Storm Tammy is more notable than Tropical Storm Cindy. Why do we have this? Is it becase it made landfall in New Orleans? The article creator seems to be a New Orleanian, according to his User page -70.48.44.119 03:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Side note, for those not in the know, Tammy is one of two systems that caused the Northeast U.S. flooding of October 2005. NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 05:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As mentioned before, more notable than some of the other (already consensus-notable) articles on Wikipedia, and helps keep 2005 Atlantic hurricane season shorter. AySz88^-^ 06:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if EVERY other storm, including fish-spinners, were to get its own article (an off-season project). Otherwise, merge back. CrazyC83 16:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The more information on Wikipedia, the better. It's as simple as that. And because having a separate article means it gets more information, I say Keep. --Mark J 16:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contains enough info to deserve its own article. It looks quite notable too. *drew 22:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth, then again by User:Lucky 6.9 four days later. Robert T | @ | C 01:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TurboGears[edit]

advertisement, contained only copyrighted marketing text from web site BeteNoir 09:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete advertising Indium 10:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all advertising on principle. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 12:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and I guess this is speediable too, being a recently posted, fairly blatant copyvio. (or is it really so?) --Wwwwolf 22:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UDIG[edit]

I was going to merge this with GeoTools but I checked out a few places and actually it seems evry minor (I could of course be wrong). Freshmeat Rating: 8.37/10.00, Vitality: 0.00% (Rank 4942), Popularity: 0.96% (Rank 5190) - does not look as if it's in widespread use, so it's quite likely this is plain old-fashioned spam. Anon user's contributions are pretty much confined to this and linking it to other pages. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 17:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Xoloz 16:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United_Bimmer[edit]

vanity/non-notable/advert gloss? --Sirimiri 02:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the nomination. Durova 04:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vanity Pintele Yid 06:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. -- Ze miguel 13:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 22:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victor R. Lu[edit]

It is sad that he died but is he notable to have a biography entry? All I got from the article is a soldier that died in combat. Reason for my nomination: Wikipedia is not a memorial. J. Nguyen 03:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very sad indeed, but delete per nominator, unless someone can show that some of the awards he received are particularly noteworthy—they sound like mostly just bulk, campaign-type medals. —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I hope this deletion gets handled with special consideration. I looked for something exceptional that could justify keeping the entry. Unfortunately, as a war veteran, I have to affirm that his awards are routine. My deepest sympathies to his family and friends. Durova 04:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad Delete. Much better written memorial page than the recently deleted Earl Logeais, but similarly not notable enough. Looked from external links that there are several related memorial pages, so not like deleting this article removes the only info on this soldier. --Syrthiss 13:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I wish this were unique; however, WP is not a memorial site. Geogre 13:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with all what has been written above. Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Edcolins 21:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with above sentiments. This is an important (and sad) article that belongs somewhere, but not at Wikipedia. Jasmol 02:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as newly edited, this bio is NPOV and notable enough for me FRS 22:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the foregoing. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. *drew 00:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote-o-rama[edit]

This appears to be a neologism which is not particularly widespread in the stated usage. It also appears to be equally (un)common in a number of other usages. So I doubt me that it is actually notable, and even if it were it's probably a dicdef of a neologism. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 17:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, no vote. The term “vote-o-rama” appears to be a BBS/blog term that has begun to spill over into news reporting. I found 386 Google hits for “vote-o-rama”, of which perhaps half a dozen or so referred to the US Senate. All the rest were references to blogs and discussion boards. Apparently the term has been around for at least a couple of years. If this article is kept, it should, I think, refer to its usage on the web and not primarily to the US Senate. For references to the Senate see [59] [60] [61] [62]. ♠DanMS 22:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting. - Mailer Diablo 08:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (for the avoidance of doubt) Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 09:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough, more suited to a dictionary. Durova 20:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed algorithm[edit]

There needs to be an article about the waleed algorithm, but this ain't it. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 00:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as quick as possible. Site linked to has nothing to do with algorithms, google reveals no hits for 'waleed' or 'walid' algorithm. Turnstep 01:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but don't forget to check what links here — looks like someone vandalized the Bluetooth article a while ago with the bogus Waleed algorithm. --DavidConrad 06:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. Looks like "waleed" was added between "SAFER+" and "algorithm" back on 19 August, probably just a newbie edit that got overlooked, then "waleed algorithm" was wikified into a link on 28 September, probably by a well-meaning editor, and finally someone created the Waleed algorithm article, most likely via the red link, on 9 November to promote their web site. (I'm so glad I stayed up late to unearth the provenance of a bad article; I'm just not sure I'll still be as glad in the morning.) --DavidConrad 06:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I was wrong -- there is no need for an article on the waleed algorithm (but the SAFER+ algorithm could probably use one). Nice detective work. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Shreshth91 12:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wensi Xi[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page. GraemeDonaldson 11:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 redirect. (The information in this article is already covered by the Wetland article.) —Cleared as filed. 05:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wetlands conservation[edit]

Very little information -- it needs to be either be merged into a more general conservation article, Wetlands, or deleted entirely. Rob 18:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Any conservation-related info should be part of the Wetlands article. Jasmol 20:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into Wetlands rather than deleting. If someone links to "wetlands conservation" they should be sent to the article containing that information. AfD is not needed for this. Bryan 00:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'd know about this article two years ago, I could really have expanded it, but I forgot almost everything I learned in Geography on the matter. Merge and redirect to Wetlands until such time as a bright geography student can come and properly write this article in all its glory. Saberwyn 02:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wetlands per above. Merge and redirect if information can be verified. - Mgm|(talk) 11:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nothing here worth keeping, redirect as above. Pete.Hurd 23:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!?) 06:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Witness the real 124.pdf[edit]

(It is text so I will put it here rather than IfD.) Personal testament by a new prophet. Original research. POV religious propaganda. -- RHaworth 12:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Merge and redirect. Rx StrangeLove 23:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

World's Edge Mountains[edit]

I would boldly merge this, but the Warhammerologists might say it's more significant than lots of other appears-to-me-minor bits of Warhammer trivia, so I came here. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 15:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough information to be worth merging. Durova 16:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge...somewhere. This is a minor bit of Warhammer trivia, but any article about the Warhammer world would need to mention this landmark/region. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into Warhammer Fantasy#Geography or someplace more relevant if one can be found. Bryan 01:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Warhammer Fantasy#Geography appears to deal with the national boundaries of nations in the Old World, and the continents that do not. I don't think World's Edge Mountains would fit in here, and on the scale of Warhammerness, it's relatively small fry. Saberwyn 02:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it, I think it needs to be here.

  • Merge/Redirect to Warhammer Fantasy Geography section. There are several other Warhammer articles that could eventually be merged into a single article on Warhammer Geography. — RJH 15:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support a merge to an article on Warhammer Geography, but not into the current list, where it just doesn't seem to fit. Saberwyn 11:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consider that merge suggestion seconded. Parmesan 16:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 merge into Kingdom Hearts II. - Mailer Diablo 00:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xaldin[edit]

Speculation and trivia. Fictional characters in games that haven't even been released yet are NOT encyclopedic. If you ask me, they won't be encyclopedic after the game is released, either. Isomorphic 04:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect to Kingdom Hearts II (much of the info already seems to be there, he has a section). Especially since the game isn't even out yet, I don't see the need for a seperate article for a character. --W.marsh 05:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge content with the Kingdom Hearts II article, per W.marsh. --DavidConrad 05:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Kingdom Hearts II. Durova 05:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to XIII Order which lists all the members of the organization. - Mgm|(talk) 12:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 01:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xpressions[edit]

Advert for an Indian "B-school fest". Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be a copyvio or I would have speedied. Hitchhiker89 19:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable, reads like a promotional flyer. Jasmol 19:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable advert. -- Marcika 20:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. advertising. Xoloz 17:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Robert T | @ | C 00:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yaheen[edit]

Delete. At best, it's a misplaced slang dicdef. At worst, a not-so-veiled joke on the author's friend/acquaintance. 136.165.114.232 21:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete self-admitted neologism with only one user. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom. --Bachrach44 03:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 15:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep no! this is a real slang word that is known widely throughout south london. Pirate Tony is its only legitimate user BUT the term is being taken on by other members of the community. It is in fact derived from well known middlesborough slang and is ubiquitous in the Brixton and Stockwell area. YAHEEN!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Keep (17/4). Shreshth91 14:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yiff[edit]

Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skrewler (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Of course! This is a very popular word which deserves to be in an open encyclopedia. --Ozone Griffox 01:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of Google hits for "yiff furry". They have a petition for putting the word into the OED too. A weird practice, but deserves coverage. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As much as Furries give me a rash, I can't deny the currency this particular phrase has, particularly on the Internet. As a word, it's been around for at least 10 years. They even used it on an episode of C.S.I.. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 23:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable outside of "Furry culture". At the least, this should be merged with the Furry article. -Skrewler 00:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "furry culture" is certainly notable enough for there to be articles about major concepts from it. The article is very detailed and not particularly mergable without throwing most of it away, IMO. Bryan 00:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yes, it's weird, but it's well-known weirdness. --Zetawoof 01:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's notable, comprehensive, and NPOV. Durova 01:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's as notable as bestiality... -- Grev -- Talk 05:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Skirting the boundaries of dicdef. - Andre Engels 08:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the "Debates" section pushes it past dic def status for me, but only a little. - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. --Syrthiss 15:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be most notable aspect within furry fandom... Unfortunately. Ekevu (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just a word, but well-written dicdef with some subcultural value. Ashibaka (tock) 18:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would agree many other furry fandom slang words aren't worthy of articles, but this thing is a really common thing. Ahem hem hem. --Wwwwolf 21:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Femmina 01:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As you can see, the majority of the people voting Keep are furry. This is not-notable outside of furry culture, and has no place in a legitimate encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.120.124 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 12 November 2005 (user's first edit)
    Funny, at least from user pages and contributions it looks like perhaps 2 or 3 of the above votes are people associated in some way with Furries. 3/14 isn't a majority. :) --Syrthiss 03:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The preponderance of stupid wannabe Japanese names seems to indicate to the contrary. --66.92.130.57 17:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Merge with and redirect to furry or the like 65.34.232.136 01:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If it is really being petitioned for the OED, that suggests that it is just a dicdef, or not much more than a dicdef. Should be merged with furry fandom article, at least. --TonySinclair 02:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable to warrant its own article. Thunderbrand 13:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of furry culture, but most people dont know what it is so a article is usefull. the size of the article is enough to keep it.--85.146.24.65 16:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fairly informative, about a common enough concept. Dave 18:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furry sex is a common enough concept? LOL Skrewler 03:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe I run in strange circles, but hardly a day goes by when I don't hear somebody talking about what horrible people furries are and — this actually happens — how disgusting yiffing is. Dave 03:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You run in strange circles. (Somebody had to say it!) --Zetawoof 06:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're telling this guy he runs in strange circles, and yet you publicly admit on the internet to being a "male zoo of dogs"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.91.19 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. I've known people on (regular) art boards to post asking what the word meant, as they had heard of the term, but had no clue what it meant. It would be nice if people could look this up so it doesn't keep getting asked. (Although, The question was usually followed with a "never mind. Someone emailed me the answer in private" posting.) And I can see people unfamiliar with such things becoming confused when someone posts "yiff art in the past," or similar, and having no idea what they're talking about. At the very least, it should redirect to the furry page, so these people can get their questions answered. (And isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? To provide unbiased factual information? This information is factual, and is looked up by many people. It's not our place to judge. We have articles on Nazism and Nuclear weapons. Why not yiff?) Sim 01:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zion Hill Missionary Baptist Church[edit]

Article about church that doesn't seem exceptional or encyclopedic. tregoweth 09:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This notable Baptist Church in Rochester is large and significant enough that the street was re-named for the founding minister upon his death.--Nicodemus75 09:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nicodemus. Kappa 12:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per N75. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no greater notability than any other church on any other street in America.--Isotope23 17:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Durova 20:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only built in 1982, no more notable than a typical church. -- Kjkolb 20:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason why wikipedia can't cover churches thoroughly. CalJW 23:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn church, eponymous avenues notwithstanding. Dottore So 00:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one of many, many, many, many churches in the US alone, with no individual claim to anything more than minor notability on an extremely local scale. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no more reason to keep this then any other church.Gateman1997 01:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just another church. I also find it interesting that certain individuals show up to vote 'keep' only on schools and churches, and do not bother to make their voices heard, pro or con, on any other issue here. I wonder why there is such a fixation on these two institutions. Perhaps Cal or Nicodemus will enlighten me. Perhaps not. Denni☯ 03:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankly, this is a stupid and pointless attack on our votes. You wonder why there is intransigence and difficulty in reaching compromise when you make comments of this nature? I can see that your supposed good-faith at WP:SCH is feigned. Your charge that "individuals show up to vote 'keep' only on schools and churches, and do not bother to make their voices heard, pro or con, on any other issue here." and then name myself and Cal is both demonstrably false (I vote on a variety of AfDs) and certainly uncivil. Maybe you should devote some time to reading the damned instructions at WP:AFD instead of making these offensive and snide remarks:
      "You don't have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if:
      • a nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar.
      • consensus you agree with has already been formed."--Nicodemus75 05:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who are you accusing of being "some individuals"? This comes off as a sort of half-hearted attack, and no small wonder Nicodemus is annoyed. (I would be, too.) Ask someone specific to stop doing something, or stop making veiled accusations, please. That's part of assuming good faith. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • So be it. I appreciate that this was uncalled for - a simple "Delete - non-notable" would have sufficed, and I apologise to everyone. Denni☯ 22:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Individual churches are generally non-encyclopedic. --Metropolitan90 05:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Churches, unlike public schools, are private institutions. I can found a church in my backyard or my mind. There must be a notability bar, and this doesn't meet it. Xoloz 16:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This church has its own building, unlike a church in your mind or your backyard. Kappa 16:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn.  Grue  22:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having own website is insufficiently verifiable --redstucco 10:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. *drew 01:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn church --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

This page was speedily deleted by CambridgeBayWeather, whose stated reason for deletion is "Previous deleted attack page". This AFD is hereby closed. encephalon 01:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZTD[edit]

uncited; probable hoax. Tom Harrison (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_10&oldid=1081093009"